Flagler County outlines multi‑reach beach management plan, estimates roughly $16 million annual program cost

Flagler County commissioners and staff reviewed a multi‑reach beach management plan and development timeline at a June 16 workshop, with county coastal staff and outside consultants outlining where the county has been and what will be required to restore and maintain the shoreline over coming decades.

The presentation — led by Ansley Renke, the county’s coastal engineering administrator, and consultants from Foth Olson and Moffatt & Nichol — traced local work since Hurricane Matthew and described completed and planned projects. Renke opened the technical segment by saying, "We've got a lot to cover today. In summary, this is a beach management presentation and discussion." Consultant Chris Creed told commissioners that, based on the county’s studies, "beach and dune restoration and maintenance is a term to be the most feasible approach for beach management in Flagler County." Casey Connor of Moffatt & Nichol summarized planned data collection and survey work for northern Flagler (Reach 3) saying the team will "capture some data to inform some practical, beach and dune alternatives."

Why it matters: the county’s beaches are a core economic and storm‑protection asset. County staff and consultants said large, engineered nourishment projects differ from temporary dune fills and require long‑term monitoring, recurring maintenance events, and regulatory approvals from multiple state and federal agencies.

Key findings and program design - Timeline and recent work: staff described a series of post‑storm responses and restorations since Hurricane Matthew (2016), including an approximately 11.6‑mile dune restoration completed in 2023 (reported planning‑level cost about $20,000,000) and a large Army Corps of Engineers nourishment completed in 2024 (the Corps funded roughly 65% and FDOT the local 35% share). Consultants said the Corps project showed what a large‑scale nourishment accomplishes compared with smaller temporary fills. - Reaches and approaches: the county is divided into multiple reaches with different feasible approaches. Reach 1 (federal project area) and Reach 2 (near‑term county project) were described as appropriate for offshore dredge sources (Area 3A identified offshore). Reaches 3 and 4 (northern and rocky shore segments) were modeled assuming upland truck haul placement because of nearshore rock/hard‑bottom uncertainties and permit constraints. - Sand sources and unit costs: consultants described both offshore borrow (Area 3A) and upland sand mines (Grand/Keystone area). Planning‑level unit costs used in the study: $25 per cubic yard for direct offshore placement and roughly $75 per cubic yard for upland truck placement (planning‑level assumptions; actual bids have varied — recent comparable projects cited in the presentation ranged from about $21/yd to $39/yd). - Volumes, intervals and monitoring: the study identified an initial restoration volume (to return the shoreline to a pre‑Matthew baseline) and a recurring maintenance program. Reach 1 used an 11‑year Corps planning interval in modeling; the study used a six‑year renourishment interval for other reaches as a conservative planning assumption while noting that established programs often find intervals in the five‑to‑ten year range. Consultants emphasized annual or near‑annual monitoring and adaptive adjustment of intervals and volumes. - Cost methodology and program scale: the study used an equivalent‑annual‑cost (EAC) analysis over a 50‑year planning horizon to normalize initial capital plus recurring maintenance. Presentations summarized an overall equivalent annual cost for the program of about $16,000,000 and estimated a local share that would remain after expected federal and state cost shares. Staff and consultants emphasized that assumptions (intervals, unit costs, and eligible cost‑sharing) materially affect those numbers.

Regulatory and permitting issues - Agencies and constraints: the project team highlighted key regulatory steps — state sand‑compatibility rules (Florida DEP), federal NEPA and BOEM (for offshore leases), Corps permitting for dredging/placement, and federal resource agencies (NOAA/NMFS and US Fish & Wildlife) for biological resource mitigation. Consultants cautioned that nearshore "hard bottom" or emergent rock will affect permitting, constructability and costs in Reaches 3/4; consultants recommended focused hard‑bottom dive surveys and early agency coordination.

Next steps and decisions requested - Reach‑specific work: Moffatt & Nichol is continuing survey work, diving for hard‑bottom mapping in the northern reach, model runs and an alternatives analysis intended to identify a preferred alternative for Reach 3. County staff will continue to pursue permits and lease negotiations for Reach 2 and the federally supported work. - Monitoring and adaptation: consultants recommended annual surveys and program monitoring to refine renourishment intervals and volumes over time, and to inform future cost estimates.

Ending: Commissioners and staff left the workshop with next steps defined but no final funding commitment. The county’s immediate engineering work will focus on completing surveys in Reach 3, refining costs and permit strategy, and returning to the board with updated, reach‑specific designs and permitting timelines. Those refined technical products will be used to support future funding requests to state and federal partners.