Palm Beach County DERM MonthPalm Beach County DERM Monthly Reportly Reportly Report

Calendar of EventsCalendar of Events About ShorelineAbout Shoreline Florida Shore & Beach Preservation AssociationFlorida Shore & Beach Preservation Association

The 23rd Annual National ConferenceThe 23rd Annual National Conference On Beach Preservation Technology is History!On Beach Preservation Technology is History!

Thank you! As sponsor and organizer of the 2010 Tech Conference, February 3‐5, Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association was extremely pleased with the outcome. Attendance was good, the Melbourne Crowne Plaza was most accommodating, and the presentations were exceptional and well‐received.

Many expressions of appreciation are in order. The Executive Committee, the Conference Planning Committee, and FSBPA’s Lisa Armbruster did a great job selecting abstracts for, and putting together, an outstanding program. Dr. Gary Zarillo’s post‐conference field trip focusing on the

barrier island system in Brevard and north Indian River Counties was a special addition to the conference offering. Our conference sponsors were most generous, and as a result we had a wonderful welcoming reception, great professional breaks, and an enjoyable oceanfront luncheon on an amazingly beautiful day. We were also fortunate to have a great group of exhibitors and a full exhibit hall.

Continued on the next page

Inside this EditionInside this EditionInside this Edition

The 2010 Legislative The 2010 Legislative

SessionSession

Record Breaking Cold Record Breaking Cold Weather Leads to Weather Leads to

Unprecedented Rescue Unprecedented Rescue EffortEffort

USACE JAX DistrictUSACE JAX District Federal Project Federal Project Status UpdatesStatus Updates

Bursting the Bubble of Bursting the Bubble of Doom and Adapting to Doom and Adapting to

Sea Level RiseSea Level Rise

news from the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association

March 2010

March 2010

To our planning committees, speakers, attendees, sponsors and exhibitors, thank you for making the 2010 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology a success. Especially at this time and in this economy, we greatly appreciate you continued support. Mark your dates now for our next Tech Conference. It will be February 9‐11, 2011, at the Hyatt Regency in

Jacksonville, Florida. This Jacksonville Riverwalk site offers a unique setting with a number of casual eating

establishments and gathering spots. The Jacksonville Airport has great flights, and the beaches are home of one of

the state’s oldest federal nourishment projects. This choice of venues is in response to the feedback we have gotten

from surveys and comments from a number of you that have attended our recent tech conferences. FSBPA is

listening and trying to respond.

Back to Main Page

Photos courtesy of longtime FSBPA member Pat Pacitti

March 2010

The 2010 Legislative SessionThe 2010 Legislative SessionThe 2010 Legislative Session By Debbie Flack (3/1/2010)

After weeks of committee meetings, the Session is finally here. With a bit of luck, it will end on schedule, April 30th.

On behalf of FSBPA’s BeachWatch member governments and statewide beach

funding needs, the Association’s advocacy strategy and resources will be heavily

directed toward the appropriations process. Apart from funding, our time will be

focused on the nearshore oil and gas drilling issue, a few secondary beach‐related

bills like beach safety, and perhaps one or two as yet unidentified Chapter 161

amendments aimed at regulatory/permitting provisions.

Lisa Armbruster, Governmental Affairs Director, and I certainly can’t do it alone. We will be coordinating our efforts

to monitor and track substantive legislation with the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) and League of Cities.

Given the critical revenue shortages and budget challenges that will dictate the tone and direction of the 2010

Legislative Session, FSBPA has already begun to enlist the assistance of the lobbyists, both in‐house and contract, of

our member governments to the maximum extent possible.

State Funding for Beaches

No doubt we are starting in a hole ‐ ‐ and a far cry from the statutory funding cap of $30 million

annually, which we until recently pretty much took for granted. November’s revenue estimating

allocation for beaches was $4.32 million. Hit hardest by the economic downturn, documentary

stamp tax revenues are extremely slow to recover. The Governor’s budget recommendation for

statewide beach projects of $0 doesn’t help! To further frustrate and confuse the situation is the

transmittal of DEP’s project priority lists (one for beach nourishment and another for inlet

management) to the Legislature with a combined $82 million price tag. In turn, beach funding is in the unenviable

position of starting with nothing, asking for an unimaginable level of funding, and arriving at the bottom line which

requires securing virtually non‐existent General Revenue (GR) for one or more beach projects.

This makes a narrow, targeted legislative advocacy strategy for securing beach funding the only viable option for

increasing our chances of success. Success must be measured by mere survival, allowing Florida’s beach program to

sustain a foundation that will serve our coastal communities well in the future.

This translates into three specific objectives:

Securing some level of funding for beach projects

Preserving the statutory documentary stamp tax allocation

Avoiding trust fund elimination (Ecosystem Restoration and Management Trust Fund)

Next Page

March 2010

Achieving any of these objectives is not a certainty, and will require the concentrated and coordinated efforts of

FSBPA and our member governments.

The initial focus will be on securing beach dollars for FY 2010‐11 for those projects with likely federal funding,

beginning with those projects in the President’s budget (3 Florida projects totaling $26.5 million, and $100,000 for

PED for a single project), and then another handful of projects that have already received partial but significant

federal and state funding in the current fiscal year. To reinforce the reasoning of this approach, the beach project

(Miami Beach) and the inlet management project (St Lucie/Martin) topping DEP’s lists are 2 of the 3 projects in the

President’s budget.

This limited funding strategy may not please all of you, but I believe most everyone would agree leveraging federal

and local dollars to match state dollars is sound fiscal policy and good politics! In the case of the three construction

projects in the President’s budget, it means an over 3 to 1 match, and an almost $50 million statewide beach

program next year for a state investment of less than $11 million. Unfortunately, this does not insure success. All

Lisa and I can do is our best, and that will require unified and strong support from our local government sponsors.

Oil & Gas Drilling in Florida Waters

The Association continues to address the need to identify, map, inventory and

protect dwindling offshore sand sources for the future nourishment of Florida’s

eroded beaches. The critical nature of this issue is, of course, magnified in a

possible oil and gas drilling environment. FSBPA’s education efforts thus far appear

to have been productive.

Protecting offshore sand sources was the first “competing use” presentation before the House Select Policy Council

on Strategic & Economic Planning in mid‐February. I provided the basic identification and discussion of the issue,

setting the table for Tom Campbell, Coastal Planning & Engineering, to provide an expert presentation. Members of

the Council seemed to appreciate the issue of sand source protection, Tom did a great job, and it also was an

opportunity to expose a number of members to the State’s beach program. House legislation on the subject is

expected this session. Lisa and I expect to advance the issue of protecting offshore sand sources during bill drafting.

However, be assured our involvement will be narrowly defined and limited to the sand source issue. We have made

it clear at every opportunity that the larger issue of oil and gas production in Florida waters is far too important to

our individual member cities and counties to in any way contravene the formal positions taken by their elected

bodies. The fate of oil and gas legislation is far less certain in the Senate.

A Session update will be provided in the April Shoreline, followed by a Session wrap‐up in May.

Back to Main Page

March 2010

RecordRecordRecord‐‐‐Breaking Cold Weather Leads to Unprecedented Rescue EffortBreaking Cold Weather Leads to Unprecedented Rescue EffortBreaking Cold Weather Leads to Unprecedented Rescue Effort by Gary Appelson

The record‐setting cold weather that blanketed Florida during January impacted a number of wildlife species

in Florida. By now many Floridians have heard about the 200 manatees that died throughout the state and the

exotic pythons and iguanas that succumbed to the cold weather in south Florida. Sea turtles along Florida’s Gulf and

Atlantic coasts were particularly hard hit.

By mid‐January, thousands of sea turtles were washing up on Florida’s beaches or drifting

helplessly in inland bays and waterways. The turtles had succumbed to unusually cold

water resulting from sub‐freezing temperatures that dipped into the 20s for over a week

across much of the state. Because they are cold‐blooded animals, sea turtles cannot

regulate their body temperatures. If they are caught off guard by prolonged cold water

and unable to migrate south to warmer water, sea turtles can become “cold‐stunned,”

whereby the turtles become lethargic and almost catatonic. Left to fend on their own in

this state, most would die—either from drowning, as they are too weak to lift their heads

to breathe, or from predators that attack the turtles as easy prey in the water or when

they wash up in shallow areas.

Photo courtesy of Joy Hill FWC – FWC officer delivering cold stunned green turtle to holding facility

Cold‐stunning events happen with some regularity in Florida. About every three or four years, water

temperatures will drop low enough to stun up to a hundred turtles in a few places like the Panhandle or along

Florida’s northeast coast. But due to the prolonged cold, the number of turtles affected this year was many times

greater than anything ever recorded.

These events however, are a natural occurrence and almost certainly there have been others just as, if not

more, severe. In a perfect world, sea turtle populations would weather these events just fine. However, today’s

populations of sea turtles are only a fraction of what they were historically and events like this can have a greater

impact on the population.

Usually when temperatures start to drop sharply, many sea turtles migrate south in search of warmer

waters. However, the geography of Florida’s coastline includes a number of bays and inland waterways that are

landlocked at the southern end and trap turtles heading south. It was in these locations, such as St. Joseph Bay in the

Panhandle and the Mosquito Lagoon on Florida’s east coast, where the majority of cold‐stunned turtles were found.

About 300 green turtles were also rescued from the Indian River Lagoon. All these areas contain prolific grass beds

and an abundance of drift algae, favorite food sources for juvenile greens. However, the cold was pervasive across

the state, and turtles were rescued in nearly every coastal county, even some as far south as the Keys where water

temperatures in Biscayne Bay reportedly dropped to the upper 40s.

Next Page

March 2010

Fortunately, Florida has a diverse group of dedicated people who monitor and protect sea turtles. As water

temperatures dropped, turtle monitors went on the lookout for cold‐stunned turtles. Through the remarkable

efforts of state and federal agency staff, nonprofit groups, volunteers, aquariums, and businesses, thousands of sea

turtles were saved from certain death through what was likely the largest and most complicated sea turtle rescue

effort in history.

During a 9‐day span in January, over 4,592 sea turtles, mostly neritic phase juvenile

green turtles, succumbed to the cold. Far fewer loggerheads, Kemps ridleys, and

hawksbills were also recovered. They were gathered up by teams of people working

around the state and transported to a variety of facilities set up to handle sick or

injured sea turtles. The facilities that normally take in cold‐stunned or injured turtles

were quickly overrun, and makeshift holding centers were set up to house and warm

the growing flood of turtles as best as possible. One of the main facilities taking in

turtles was set up at the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge near Daytona Beach,

Florida, which received over 2200 turtles. It was there that our staff members helped

with the rescue effort.

The scene at the Merritt Island facility was somewhat surreal even for seasoned

sea turtle scientists. Close to 600 turtles covered the floor of a large machine shop

that was serving as a central location for the rescue operation. The turtles ranged

from Frisbee‐sized green turtles to a small number of lumbering 300‐pound

loggerheads. A giant diesel‐powered heater on loan from NASA was warming up

the turtles as it pumped hot air into the facility. At Merritt Island and at other

locations, hundreds of dedicated people worked very long hours for days on end in

very difficult working conditions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provided coordination and staff.

The cold‐stunning event provided a unique opportunity to collect extensive

data on this over wintering population of turtles. It is unprecedented for researchers

to have access to such large numbers of confined sea turtles. The turtles were

sorted, warmed, measured, weighed, checked for health problems, and then

redistributed around the state for release in warmer waters, or sent to rehabilitation centers waiting release at a

later date. Many were tagged, which will allow researchers to learn about their biology and habitat needs for years

to come. Genetic samples were also taken from some of the turtles to determine gender and where they originated

from. We know that many of the juvenile turtles inhabiting Florida’s rich mosaic of marine habitats did not originate

from a Florida nesting beach, but migrated here from locations in Mexico, the Caribbean, and other areas.

Next Page

Photo courtesy of Gary Appelson ‐scene inside the machine shop

showing turtles with shell markings depicting where they will sent for

release or rehabilitation

Photo courtesy of Gary Appelson ‐ David Godfrey working at the Merritt Island sorting cold stunned

March 2010

The table shows the Florida counties where turtles were found and how many greens and loggerheads were

recovered. About 50 hawksbill turtles were also picked up in the Keys and 40 Kemps ridley turtles were found along

the panhandle. Of the 4,592 turtles affected statewide by the cold, about 950 died. Almost all the remaining turtles

have now been released, but about 200 remain in critical care at a handful of facilities around the state.

Without the Herculean effort by hundreds of dedicated people it is very likely that most of the cold stunned

turtles would have died. The FWC Chairman Rodney Barreto summed it up in an agency press release, stating; “With

the enormous outpouring of help on this, together we managed to take a potentially tragic situation and turn it into

a win‐win for science and most importantly, for the turtles.”

Photo courtesy of Joy Hill, FWC ‐‐‐ large, dead loggerhead being carried Photo courtesy of Joy Hill, FWC turtles under blankets in an effort to warm away, Merritt Island facility. them up.

Next Page

2010 Statewide Totals County

Total #

Greens

Loggerhead

Dead

Escambia 29 26 0 22

Bay 69 67 0 57

Gulf 1,730 1,670 20 530

Pasco/Pinellas 105 96 1 21

Manatee‐Lee 29 27 1 1

Monroe 171 88 35 0

St. Lucie/Martin 150 150 0 1

Indian River 321 321 0 0

Brevard/Volusia 1,981 1,941 39 316

Flagler/St. Johns 7 7 0 0

Total 4,592 4,393 96 948

March 2010

Gary Appelson is the policy director of the Gainesville‐based Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC). Following the cold stunning event, $20,000 in emergency funds was provided by the Marine Turtle Grants Program to marine facilities around the state caring for affected turtles. The Grants Program is funded through the sale of the Sea Turtle Specialty License Plate. Additional funds were also contributed by the CCC and the Disney’s Worldwide Conservation Fund.

Back to Main Page

Photo courtesy of Gary Appelson ‐The scene in just one section of the Merritt Island facility‐ no space to walk

Photo courtesy of Joy Hill, FWC turtles under blankets in an effort to warm them up.

March 2010

FEDERAL PROJECT STATUS UPDATES FEDERAL PROJECT STATUS UPDATES FEDERAL PROJECT STATUS UPDATES ‐‐‐ March 2010March 2010March 2010

FEASIBILITY STUDIES:

• St. Johns County –Jacksonville District recently received Federal Stimulus funding for this project. Scopes of work

are prepared to contract out NEPA, environmental resource surveys, and additional geotechnical investigations using

the stimulus funds. Agency Technical Review (ATR) of chapters 1‐5 of the feasibility report will begin in March 2010.

Economic modeling work with Beach‐fx has been completed for the without project conditions. These conditions,

along with preliminary alternatives for hurricane and storm damage reduction, are anticipated to be presented to

the South Atlantic Division (SAD) and Headquarters during a Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) in summer 2010.

• Flagler County – Engineering and Economic modeling work with Beach‐fx continues along with report preparation

to document existing and future without project conditions in the study area. These conditions, along with

preliminary alternatives for hurricane and storm damage reduction, are anticipated to be presented to the South

Atlantic Division (SAD) and Headquarters during a Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) in summer 2010. Geotechnical

investigations are currently in progress.

• St. Lucie County – A study team site visit occurred on Nov 3, 2009. Jacksonville District is continuing data

collection in preparation for the Beach‐fx model work during the early feasibility stage. The non‐Federal Sponsor is

conducting environmental surveys and initiating an environmental impact assessment.

OTHER MAJOR PLANNING REPORTS:

• The Brevard County Mid‐Reach General Reevaluation Report (GRR) team has completed the draft report and

received approval from Headquarters for release to the public and concurrent independent external peer review. A

public workshop for the Mid‐Reach was held on February 10, 2010. The public review period will end on March 10,

2010. The independent external peer review has been completed. Following revisions the final report will be

Next Page

March 2010

submitted to SAD and Headquarters prior to submission to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for final approval.

• Jupiter/Carlin Shore Protection Project ‐ Palm Beach County has started a 934 report/NEPA document for Jupiter/

Carlin Segment to extend Federal participation for the next renourishment. The Sponsor will be running the Beach‐fx

model. Federal participation has expired and congressional funds have not been appropriated on this project, to

date. Therefore, Corps involvement has ceased until congressional funding can be attained.

• The Draft Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project GRR seeks an additional 50 years of Federal participation in the

project as well as the inclusion of groins to the project area. The sponsor is currently running Beach‐fx, and the GRR

is undergoing further evaluation to establish the tentative plan.

• Broward County Shore Protection Project ‐ Segment I (north county line to Hillsboro Inlet) – Integrated GRR and

NEPA document – Preparation of the GRR and NEPA document for initial construction of this segment has been

initiated by the Jacksonville District. SAJ has initiated Beach‐fx data collection and shoreline biological surveys.

Segment II – GRR Addendum and NEPA document – Sponsor has initiated their GRR Addendum for the upcoming

renourishment. Segment III – A Draft Detailed Design Report (DDR) has been completed and is undergoing internal

review to address the subsidence/erosion of the beach fill at the northern end of Segment III under the authority for

the Shore Protection Project.

• In Dade County, work was funded for a Section 227 Project at 63rd Street in Miami and was reinitiated in August

2008. A design and build contract is being evaluated in cooperation with the Department of Environmental

Resources Management (DERM) and Reef Innovation, Inc. Genesis modeling is underway to determine the minimum

structural footprint and the exact project location. NEPA documentation and WQC are underway, with the Joint

Coastal Permit to be submitted upon completion.

Next Page

March 2010

• The Martin County Draft Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS) have been completed and are currently undergoing Agency Technical Review (ATR). This report evaluates

impacts to the Benefit/Cost ratio of the approved Shore Protection Project due to the use of a new borrow area.

Turtle‐friendly beach construction templates are also being evaluated for use on this project.

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT:

The revised Dade County Letter Report is being sent to Headquarters for review. The report was revised with

findings of the Southeast Atlantic Regional Sediment Management Plan for Florida.

CONSTRUCTION:

• In Brevard County the South Reach Shore Protection Project nourishment is currently under construction and is

scheduled to be completed in April. The Canaveral Harbor sand by‐passing is scheduled to begin March 2010.

Back to Main Page

March 2010

Bursting the Bubble of Doom and Adapting to Sea Level Rise

Randall W. Parkinson, Ph.D., P.G. RWParkinson Consulting, Inc.

Melbourne, Florida

and

Joseph F. Donoghue, Ph.D. Department of Geological Sciences

Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida

Introduction

Late Holocene sea level rise is now well documented to have accelerated subsequent to the Industrial

Revolution (c.f. Church and White 2006) and current models suggest a rise of one meter or more by the

year 2100 (c.f. Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2010). In addition, recent modeling projects a near doubling of

Category 4 and 5 storm frequency by the end of the 21st century, with the largest increases to occur in the

Western Atlantic (Bender and others 2010). This combination of factors substantially elevates the levels of

risk or hazard potential assigned to Florida’s built and natural coastal environments.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media has not properly noted the trend towards scientific consensus on

these issues (c.f. Doran and Kendall 2009), but rather continues to emphasize uncertainty. Scientists are

also to blame as they have not successfully countered media shortcomings. As a consequence, most

Floridians have yet to seriously consider how best to adapt to sea level rise or for that matter any of the

other elements of climate change.

In light of these threats or perhaps to make light of them, Walton and Dean (2010) posed the rhetorical

question “Should Floridians be moving to the mountains?” Of course the answer is no, but statements like

these are counterproductive and encourage the business-as-usual approach of continued development in

Florida’s high hazard coastal zone.

Next Page

Last month a manuscript by Dean and Walton (FSBPA’s Chair Emeritus and the current academic appointment to the Board, respectively) was published in SHORELINE. We are now presenting another quite distinct perspective on sea‐level rise. Intent is solely to provide an alternative reassessment of sea‐level rise at the respectful request of the authors. The opinions and conclusions set forth in both of these articles are solely those of the authors and do not represent the position of the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association. (D. Flack, President)

March 2010

What we have learned from past transgressions of the sea

Over the past 20,000 years sea level has been rising at a decelerating rate towards its present elevation

due primarily to the melting of ice sheets as our climate transitioned into a warmer, inter-glacial interval.

This long-term trend was punctuated by intervals (years to decades) of extremely rapid rise (i.e., >30 mm/

yr) triggered by abrupt shifts in climate.

Florida’s geologic record (i.e., sedimentology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, paleontology) indicates this

post-glacial marine transgression can be subdivided into three intervals, each characterized by a distinct

rate of rise and unique shoreline response (Table 1). These data clearly indicate Florida shorelines were

subject to landward retreat by erosion and submergence when sea level rose at a rate of 2 mm/yr or more.

The only interval of coastal stability occurred during the late Holocene (3,000 ybp to present), when sea

level was rising a few tenths of a millimeter per year.

Next Page

Marine transgres-

sion interval Period

Time Interval

Rate (mm/yr)

Coastal response

1 Late Pleisto-cene to early

Holocene

20,000 - 8,000 ybp

10 to 20 Submergence, overstep, widespread shoreline retreat

2 mid-

Holocene 8,000 to

3,000 ybp 2

Formation of coastal environments, barrier islands, shoreline retreat

3 late-

Holocene 3,000 to pre-

sent 0.1 to

0.2 Aggredation, shoreline stabilization, and progradation

NA

Historical 1870 to 2000 2 Shoreline retreat

Recent 1993 to 2006 3.3 Shoreline retreat

Predicted 2010 to 2100 7 to 16 Shoreline retreat, submergence, and overstep (with increasing

rate)

Table 1 - Observed and predicted coastal response to sea-level rise. Late Pleistocene to late Holocene data from Parkinson (unpublished). Historical, Recent, and Predicted rates of sea-level rise described in text.

March 2010

During the 20th century, long-term tide-gauge data indicate the rate of sea level rise averaged 1.7 mm/yr,

with an increase in the rate of rise over this period (Figure 1). This rate is faster than the preceding 3,000

year interval and is attributed principally to rising atmospheric temperatures and concomitant thermal

expansion of the ocean’s surface layer. All 30 coastal states have experienced moderate to severe erosion

during this interval of accelerated sea level rise (Williams and others 2009).

Figure 1 ‐ Changes in global sea level 1870 to 2009. From CSIRO at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html.

More recently (1993 to 2006), high precision satellite altimeters indicate sea level has been rising at 3.3 ±

0.4 mm per year (Rahmstorf and others 2007). This most recent interval of acceleration is a direct

consequence of the ever increasing influx of glacial meltwater from Antarctica and Greenland. Given the

strong relationship between the rate of sea level rise and Florida coastal response (Table 1), this recent

acceleration has likely exacerbated historical trends in coastal erosion, flooding, and related deleterious

effects (i.e., salt water intrusion into local aquifers).

Next Page

March 2010

Future sea level rise

During the past two decades the most widely reported sea level forecasts were published by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The most recent or Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

was published in 2007 and included a forecast by Bindoff and others (2007) of between 18 cm (7 in) and 59

cm (23 in) by 2100. This estimate of sea level rise was immediately regarded as too low by many scientists

because the models used by IPCC scientists ignored the rapid disintegration of Antarctic and Greenland

ice-sheets documented by studies released at the time of publication. The IPCC’s estimate also failed to

account for two other phenomena likely to affect sea level rise: climate cycle “feedback loops” (such as

release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from thawing permafrost) and greenhouse gas emissions

from China and India that have grown far faster than anticipated in the models used by the IPCC. The need

for a revised forecast was also supported by satellite altimeter data that tracked rising sea level along the

upper boundary of IPCC model predictions (Figure 2). Subsequent studies predict much higher sea level

elevations by the end of this century (c.f. Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2010, Mitrovica and others 2009; Figure

3).

Figure 2 ‐ Sea level change during 1970‐2010. The tide gauge data are from Church and White 2006 and satellite data from Cazenave and others 2008. The grey band shows IPCC projections. From Allison and others 2009.

Next Page

March 2010

Figure 3 – New projection of sea‐level rise 1990 to 2100. The IPCC 2007 forecast is shown as the three vertical bars on the bottom right and labeled AR4. From Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2010.

It is equally relevant to note that although nearly every sea level rise forecast only makes predictions out to

year 2100, sea level will certainly continue to rise thereafter as a consequence of system momentum, the

continued addition of greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere, and the relatively long residence time

of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Continued warming can be expected and

with the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone, sea level would rise by about 5 to 6 meters (Tol and

others 2006; Dasgupta and others 2007).

Regardless of these uncertainties, the forecasts of sea level rise generated using complex computer-based

Global Climate Models (GCMs) are much more reliable than estimates based upon simple extrapolations

from long-term tide gauge data. Simply stated, the magnitude and rate of environmental change observed

during the 21st century are already very different from the conditions under which the long-term tide

gauge data were acquired. The desire to plan for the future based upon historic observations is

unfortunately so prolific it has been cited by regional planners as one of the greatest obstacles towards

implementing plans to appropriately address sea level rise (c.f. Hallegatte 2008). And although there are

some differences between local sea level as recorded along the Florida coastline and the global eustatic

signal (c.f. Maul 2008), these are minor in comparison to the other elements of uncertainty accepted when

modeling future sea level rise. For the purpose of this paper it is therefore assumed there is no significant

difference between global eustatic and local sea level rise.

Next Page

March 2010

The rate of rise predicted during the 21st century and beyond is significantly higher than that of the past

8,000 years and closer to those which occurred during the interval of rapid glacial retreat between 20,000

and 8,000 years ago (Table 1). During that time, Florida shorelines were subject to widespread

submergence and broad landward shifts across the coastal plain (i.e. overstep).

Is doom or adaptation in Florida’s future?

Five response strategies are available to address sea level rise: (1) attack, (2) defend, (3) accommodate,

(4) withdraw, and (5) do nothing. What should Floridians do?

Selecting a response to rising seas is most effectively undertaken using a two-step process. The first step

is to assess vulnerability; how will sea level rise and related elements of climate change (i.e. storminess)

affect a community’s built and natural environments? Next, an adaptive management plan is implemented.

Adaptive management is an on-going and iterative process that specifies one or more essential actions

necessary to reduce the vulnerability of built and natural environments to rising seas. The overall plan and

each specific action are monitored and adjusted as outcomes from management action(s) and other events

(i.e. ice sheet melting) become better understood. Initial actions may be limited to: (1) the development of a

timeline describing future actions and (2) no-regret policies. Reactive measures may be formulated and

subsequently triggered by specific tipping points built into the plan. As uncertainty diminishes and

consensus emerges, more robust plans, programs, and actions are implemented. The City of Satellite

Beach, Florida, has just completed a vulnerability assessment and is currently working on an adaptive

management plan. The project was funded by the EPA Climate Ready Estuaries Program, although other

agencies (i.e. Florida Coastal Management Program) offer financial support to coastal municipalities

seeking to address climate change, sea level rise, and disaster preparedness.

Coastal municipalities should immediately begin planning for sea level rise; a “do nothing” approach is

unacceptable as over time this response will lead only to additional unwise decisions, increased risk, and

rising costs. Inspection of a municipality’s hypsographic curve, which illustrates the relationship between

sea level elevation and cumulative percent land area submerged, can be used to develop an appropriate

timeline for implementing specific actions as described in the plan.

Next Page

March 2010

Final thoughts

Sea level rise has accelerated subsequent to the Industrial Revolution to its current rate of 3.3 mm/yr and is

predicted to rise even faster over the balance of this century. By 2100, sea level will very likely have risen a

meter or more.

Unfortunately, a majority of Florida coastal municipalities have not yet begun to think about how sea level

rise, increasing storminess, and related elements of climate change will affect their built and natural

environments. Perhaps distracted by State and Federal cost sharing, they continue to focus on “critically”

eroding shoreline segments and the defense of upland structures using engineered solutions. This focus on

engineered solutions is in part responsible for high density development in the coastal zone and the

elevated loss of property and life following landfall of catastrophic events (i.e. Hurricane Katrina). Coastal

engineering projects were initially advocated as a solution to erosional shorelines at a time when the

relationship between sea level rise and shoreline retreat was not widely understood. Yet Walton and Dean

(2010) argue these strategies are also a logical means by which to address sea level rise. Coastal

municipalities should instead be encouraged to consider all five response strategies when formulating an

adaptive management plan.

Shore protection projects as have been frequently employed to address historic shoreline erosion and

coastal submergence will likely have a role during the early stages of adaptive management. These attack

and defend strategies could provide short term solutions and otherwise address existing needs. That said,

these efforts should eventually be undertaken in association with a robust long term adaptive management

plan. In fact, shore protection projects as historically configured are not sustainable over the long term

given escalating costs, dwindling offshore sand reserves, cumulative impact on natural resources, and the

porous nature of Florida’s coastal geology. Alternate response strategies must be devised if we are to

successfully adapt to sea level rise. The question is then “What proactive contributions can the coastal

engineering community make towards ensuring both the built and natural environments remain resilient

during what will surely become a challenge of historic proportion?”

Next Page

March 2010

Acknowledgments

This paper would not have been written had we not attended a scientific symposium on sea level rise and

Florida sponsored by the Florida Institute for Conservation Science and held at Archbold Biological Station,

January 18-20, 2010. A post-event summary of symposium content and including attendee presentations

is available at: http://www.flconservationscience.org/programs/symposium.shtml. The following colleagues

provided input to significantly enhance the quality of this paper, although the authors are solely responsible

for its content: Timothy H. Dixon, Reed Noss, Anthony Oliver-Smith, Francis Putz, Thomas Ruppert,

Kenneth Edward Sassaman, and Michael Volk.

References Cited Allison, I., N. L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E.

Francis, N. Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J. Somerville, K.Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. 2009. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009. Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science: The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.

Bender, M.A., Thomas R. Knutson, Robert E. Tuleya, Joseph J. Sirutis, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Stephen T.

Garner, and Isaac M. Hel, 2010. Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes: Science v. 327, no. 5964, pp 454-458.

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S.

Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D., Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Cazenave, A., Dominh, K., Guinehut, S., Berthier, E., Llovel, W., Ramillien, G., Ablain, M., and G. Larnicol,

G., 2009. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and ARGO. Global and Planetary Change v. 65, pg. 83-88.

Church, J. A. & N. J. White, 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise. Geophysical

Research Letters 33, L01602. Dasgupta, S., B. Laplante, C. Meisner, D. Wheeler and J. Yan, 2007. The Impact of Sea Level Rise on

Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4136, Washington DC: The World Bank.

Doran, P. T. and M. Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,

Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3), doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002, available at http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Next Page

March 2010

Hallegatte, S., 2008. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, v.

19, pg. 240-247. Maul, G., 2008. Florida’s changing sea level. Shoreline, May 2008. Mitrovica, J.X., M. Gomez, P.U. Clark, 2009. The sea level fingerprint of west Antarctica collapse. Science

323: 753. Rahmstorf, S., Cazenave, A., Church, J., Hansen, J., Keeling, R., Parker, D., and Somerville, R., 2007.

Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, v 316 (4 May), pg. 709. Tol, R.S.J., M.Bohn, T.E. Downing, M.L. Guillerminet, E. Hizsnyik, R. Kasperson, K. Lonsdale, C. Mays,

and Co-authors 2006 Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise, Journal of Risk Research 9: 467-482.

Vermeer, M. and Rahmstorf, S., 2010. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, available at www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0907765106 Walton, T., and Dean, R., 2010. Thoughts outside the bubble on sea level rise. Shoreline, February 2010. Williams, S.J., B.T. Gutierrez, J.G. Titus, S.K. Gill, D.R. Cahoon, E.R. Thieler, K.E. Anderson, D.

FitzGerald, V. Burkett, and J. Samenow, 2009. Sea level rise and its effects on the coast. In: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [J.G. Titus (coordinating lead author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (lead authors)], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

Back to Main Page

March 2010

CALENDAR OF EVENTSCALENDAR OF EVENTSCALENDAR OF EVENTS

FSBPA ConferencesFSBPA ConferencesFSBPA Conferences

September 22‐24, 2010 FSBPA Annual Meeting Hyatt Regency Clearwater Beach Resort Clearwater Beach, FL February 9‐11, 2011 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront Jacksonville, FL

OTHER DATES OF INTERESTOTHER DATES OF INTERESTOTHER DATES OF INTEREST

March 2, 2010 Florida Legislative Session convenes, scheduled to adjourn April 30, 2010 March 9 – 11, 2010 2010 Coastal Summit Ron Reagan Building in Washington, DC October 13‐15, 2010 ASBPA National Coastal Conference Charleston Marriott Charleston, SC February 7‐9, 2011 12th annual CIRP Workshop Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront Jacksonville, FL May 2 ‐ 6, 2011 Coastal Sediments ‘11 Miami, Florida | Miami Regency Hyatt

Back to Main Page

March 2010

A monthly electronic publication of the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association

Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Inc. PO Box 13146, Tallahassee, FL 32317‐3146 Phone: (850) 906‐9227 • Fax: (850) 201‐6782 www.fsbpa.com • mail@fsbpa.com

Send e‐mail address changes to: mail@fsbpa.com

Officers:

Brian Flynn (Chair) Virginia Barker (Vice Chair) Steve Higgins (Secretary‐Treasurer)

Directors:

Richard Bouchard

Steve Boutelle Alexandrea Davis‐Shaw Don Donaldson Paul Dorling Charlie Hunsicker Sonny Mares Matt Mooneyham Bill Smith Todd Walton

Ex‐Officio:

Mike Barnett, DEP Candida Bronson, USACE John Crane, USACE Tom Campbell Dr. Robert Dean Erik Olsen

President: Deborah Flack Director of Governmental Affairs: Lisa Armbruster Office & Conference Manager: Teri Besse

Back to Main Page

Photo on front page header courtesy of Laura Aldrich, Town Clerk, Indian River Shores, FL