Coastal Squeeze Happens

(Image Source: © Jessica Tay, adapted from Coastal Wiki, Coastal squeeze)

I wrote this a while back but I think it is relevant to the increasingly challenging pressures our Caribbean islands face to both make a dollar and maintain our beaches. Call it what you want - blue economy, green economy, sustainable tourism or resilience. We are under pressure to change in a changing world but how will we do it?

Loosening the Buckle on Florida’s Coastal Squeeze

(Copyright and first published by American Planning Association (12/2/10)

If you were asked to describe what a beach means to you, perhaps you would say it is a place that stirs childhood memories, or a place that gives you a feeling of tranquility or an appreciation of natural beauty. Beaches are a valuable resource, shaped in our memory by personal experiences.

Perhaps your experiences were formed in northwest Florida, where pristine beaches and enticing spring break activities draw 85 percent of Florida’s tourists. Or perhaps you have contributed to the $6.8 billion spent annually by visitors to the City of Miami Beach.

Opportunities for future generations to experience Florida’s beaches are diminishing as the state’s coastlines are shrinking. This shrinking – referred to as “coastal squeeze” – is due to a combination of erosion, rising sea levels, and real estate development. The result has been the loss of critical beach habitat. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil incident compounded this loss and heightened public awareness of the fragility of the region’s beaches.

With approximately half of the state’s beaches designated as “critically eroding,” coastal squeeze is a reality for Florida’s planning community. Now, the creation of climate change adaptation plans for sea level rise at all levels of government is offering new opportunities to address the coastal issues. In Florida, existing state programs such as the critical erosion designation program and Coastal Construction Control Line Permitting (CCCL) program offer the potential for expanding the policy response to coastal squeeze.

A Key Threat: “Critical Erosion”

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) designates “critical erosion” areas based on threats to recreational interests, development, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. The magnitude of the threat is characterized by the effects of a storm expected to occur every 25 years. The potential for erosion is evaluated based on beach and offshore profiles, upland topography, bathymetry, historical shoreline position changes, storm tide frequency, and recent storm damage.

Within Florida’s network of barrier islands, approximately 50 percent of sandy shorelines are designated by FDEP as critically eroding. Compounding this trend is the impending threat of sea level rise. To date, rates of sea level rise have substantially exceeded 2007 estimates by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, and the literature shows that previous calculations of the multiplicative effect of sea level rise and erosion have also been underestimated.

Critical erosion threatens the economic value of Florida’s beaches, which is estimated at $41.6 billion annually. Critical erosion also threatens the ecological functions of beaches, which include providing storm protection for inland areas, critical habitat for endangered species, and filtering of pollutants and organic matter.

Responses to Critical Erosion

The Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Act (FSBPA) establishes the purpose of the critical erosion designation as a means of managing beach resources. The FSBPA specifically authorizes the creation of regional comprehensive long-term management plans for beach restoration. The FSBPA provides that only critically eroding beaches are eligible for state funding assistance for beach management activities.

In Florida, “beach nourishment” – restoring the eroded area with sand from other locations – has been the primary management response to the critical erosion designation. As sea level rise can increase the magnitude of coastal erosion, beach nourishment can also serve as a response to sea level rise.

In Florida, however, the beach nourishment process is both expensive and contested. Opposition to the state’s implementation of beach nourishment has recently found its way to U.S. Supreme Court (Stop the Beach Renourishment vs. Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP]). The Supreme Court ruled that the action of nourishment was not a taking of property. This decision does not rule out nourishment as sea level rise adaptation but has brought increased national attention to how Florida will proceed with addressing sea level rise and coastal erosion. (For more information on this case, see http://www.planning.org/amicus/2009/beachrenourishment.htm)

In addition to beach nourishment, the FSBPA calls for consideration of alternative management responses such as armoring, abandonment, dune and vegetation restoration, land acquisition, and prevention of inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating beaches.

Inappropriate development is addressed through the Coastal Construction Control Line Permitting (CCCLP) program administered by FDEP. This program demarcates a line, the seaward side of which is subject to the threat of erosion in a 100-year storm surge. The line effectively creates an area where all permits for development must be submitted to the local and state government for review. Permits are reviewed for compliance with specific structural requirements.

A specific goal of the program is to protect the beach dune system from imprudent construction that could accelerate erosion or interfere with public beach access. If a proposed development would cause a significant adverse impact on the beach dune system, construction permits are denied.

The Next Step: Quantified Limits on Coastal Construction

New trends in sustainable development, coastal smart growth, and marine spatial planning – and the impending threat of climate change – call for the reconsideration of Florida’s policy response to erosion. Recent studies (see “References” below) suggest that the critical erosion designation program and Coastal Construction Control Line Permitting (CCCLP) program are key places to start.

A quantified limitation on coastal construction would be a next step in addressing coastal squeeze, as well as reducing the detrimental ecosystem impacts of development such as pollution and fragmentation. While the CCCLP program prohibits coastal development where there would be a significant adverse impact, there is currently no state-legislated, quantified limitation on development in designated critical erosion areas. Local governments do identify zoning densities for coastal areas, but these restrictions are not explicitly a part of the CCCLP program. Although local zoning does apply in areas regulated by the CCCLP program, the zoning often does not distinguish between inland and coastal densities – that is, there are no CCCLP program or critical erosion-specific density restrictions.

A quantified limitation on coastal development could help to address the cumulative impacts of erosion and other environmental problems on the state’s beaches. The limitation could be accompanied by other land use regulation tools, such as rolling easements and transfer of development rights, incorporated into the CCCLP program in response to erosion and sea level rise projections.

The development limitation is neither a pro-development nor a conservation proposition, but rather a practical, long-term policy response to sea level rise. The limitation would not have to be permanent; further analysis could determine suitable ratios of miles of critical erosion to permitting clusters for specific time spans.

Adapting to Sea Level Rise

Although sea level rise is projected to occur globally, regional impacts will vary depending on local shoreline change processes. Sea level rise adaptation tools such as beach nourishment and coastal development regulatory programs therefore must themselves be adaptive. State and local climate change adaptation plans and programs can be designed to be adaptive through continual evaluation of their effectiveness in responding to the dynamics of shoreline erosion.

Political climates and economic pressures are also factors to be considered in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of climate change adaptation tools. In Florida, beach nourishment in particular has legislative, ecological, and financial implications. With this in mind, more study is needed to determine how other tools, such as transfer of development rights and rolling easements, might be used in areas experiencing critical erosion.

Quantified limitations on construction in critically eroding areas may prove to complement existing policies. Although these limitations may result in short-term decreases in local government revenue, the revenue loss may ultimately be less than the long-term costs of other types of responses to sea level rise, such beach nourishment and other engineering mechanisms, repair of storm damage in coastal areas, and relocation of coastal residents to inland areas.

A Sense of Urgency

A singular climate change adaptation response will not fit all coastal areas in Florida, but the CCCLP and critical erosion designation programs provide the framework for the adaptive planning that will be necessary to address climate change-related coastal erosion.

There is a sense of urgency, with the realization that our children’s future memories and understanding of the coast are being squeezed out of existence. If the buckle on coastal squeeze is not loosened, opportunities to create these memories may disappear completely.

Author description published in 2010. - Ariana Marshall is a doctoral candidate in the Environmental Sciences Institute (ESI) at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. She is advised by ESI assistant professor Marcia Allen Owens, J.D., Ph.D.

Thanks for reading :)

References

Barnett, C. 2008. “Fixing Florida’s Beach Erosion is Expensive: Sand Trap: Another storm, another round of beach erosion, another round of questions about renourishment.” Florida Trend. October 1.

Burkett, V.R., R.C. Hyman, R. Hagelman, S.B. Hartley, M. Sheppard, T.W. Doyle, D.M. Beagan, A. Meyers, D.T. Hunt, M.K. Maynard, R.H. Henk, E.J. Seymour, L.E. Olson, J.R. Potter, and N.N. Srinivasan. 2008. “Why Study the Gulf Coast?” In: Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I (Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter [eds.]). Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, pp. 2-1 to 2F-26.

Brody S.D., W.E. Highfield, and S. Thornton. 2006. "Planning at the Urban Fringe: An Examination of the Factors Influencing Nonconforming Development Patterns in Southern Florida." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33(1) 75-96.

Cooper, J.A.G. and O.H. Pilkey. 2004. “Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Retreat: Time to Abandon the Bruun Rule.” Global and Planetary Change 43, 157-171.

Catanese Center, Florida Atlantic University. 2005. “Economics of Beach Tourism in Florida,” prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved July 2009 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/BEACHES/publications/pdf/phase2.pdf

Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D. Schoeman, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, et al. 2008. “Threats to Sandy Beach Ecosystems: A Review.” Journal of Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 1-12.

Doody, J.P. 2004. “'Coastal Squeeze' – an Historical Perspective.” Journal of Coastal Conservation, 10/1-2, 129-138.

Finkl, C.W., R.H. Charlier, and S.L. Krupa. 2005. “Vulnerability of Coastal Environments to Land Use and Abuse: the Example of Southeast Florida.” International Journal of Environmental Studies, 62(5), 535-554.

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2006. Coastal High Hazard Study Committee Final Report. pp. 15-21.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. FDEP BBCS: Critical

Erosion Reports. Retrieved from FDEP BBCS Technical Reports: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/CritEroRpt6-08.pdf

Florida Sea Grant. No date. “The Economics of Florida’s Beaches: The Impact of Beach Restoration.”

http://www.flseagrant.org/program_areas/coastal_hazards/publications/economics_beaches_restoration.pdf

Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts and Solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists.

Houston, J.R. 2002. “The Economic Value of Beaches – A 2002 Update.” U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Marshall, A., L. Robinson, and M. Allen Owens. 2010. “Coastal Construction Trends in

Response to Coastal Erosion: An Opportunity for Adaptation." Journal of Coastal Conservation

Online first (DOI: 10.1007/s11852-010-0120-5).

Marshall, A., L. Robinson, M. Owens, and F. Holland. 2009. “Policy Response to Coastal Erosion Through Construction Permitting Trends Near Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve.” Master’s thesis. Environmental Sciences Institute, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida.

Puszkin-Chevlin, A., and A-M Esnard. 2009. “Incremental Evolution and Devolution of Florida’s Coastal High Hazard Area Policy.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(3):1-17.

Ruppert, T., T. Ankersen, C. Covington, R. Feinberg, T. Huang, and A. Miller. 2008. “Eroding Long-Term Prospects for Florida’s Beaches: Florida’s Coastal Management Policy.” University of Florida College of Law and UF Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences.

Trembanis, A. C., O.H. Pilkey, and H.R. Valverde. 1999. “Comparison of Beach Nourishment along the U.S. Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and New England Shorelines.” Coastal Management, Volume 27, Number 4, 1 October 1999, pp. 329-340(12)

U.S. Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. 2010. The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. October. Retrieved November 18, 2010 from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/Interagency-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Progress-Report.pdf

Zhang, K., B. Douglas, and S. Leatherman. 2004. “Global Warming and Coastal Erosion.” Climate Change, 41-58.

#Beaches #ecotourism #greeneconomy