An Assessment Policy Tools for Local Adaptation to Sea Level Rise

BLausche/MPI SLR Assessment Working draft

09/15/09

i

[cover page]

An Assessment:

Policy Tools for Local Adaptation to Sea Level Rise

Barbara J. Lausche, JD

Deputy Director

Marine Policy Institute at Mote Marine Laboratory

________________________________________________________________________

TECHNICAL REPORT ------

September 15, 2009

[NOTE: This working draft is being made available online, even as editing continues, in order that those

interested in the subject may have the full draft available in a timely fashion for their use, review, and

feedback, as desired.]

[Mote Logo]

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway ۰ Sarasota, FL 34236 ۰(941)388-4441 ۰www.mote.org


09/15/09

ii

Acknowledgements

This assessment on science and policy of sea level rise was undertaken by the Marine Policy Institute

(MPI) of Mote Marine Laboratory during 2008-9. The research, writing, and associated dissemination

and outreach activities, as well as a separate synopsis published for wide distribution, were made possible

by a grant from the Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice (GCCF). The author and MPI express

their gratitude for that gracious support.

The assessment is authored by Barbara J. Lausche, Deputy Director of MPI. Elisabeth Salinas and

Genevieve Joy, MPI policy interns and seniors at New College and Columbia University, respectively,

provided research assistance during the summer of 2008 on the Florida‟s regulatory framework and sea

level rise adaptation policy initiatives in other states and localities across the nation. The author

especially would like to thank Elisabeth and Genevieve for their contributions which provided important

background documentation and analyses. Dr. Ernest Estevez, Director of Mote‟s Center for Coastal

Ecology, provided constructive reviews, references for additional information sources, and editorial

suggestions particularly on the science portion of the assessment.

The author also would like to thank staff of Sarasota County who graciously took time to speak about the

research, provide information on their programs, and fact-check descriptive information on various

county initiatives.

Separate synopsis report This MPI assessment looks specifically at the question: what policy tools and opportunities currently exist

for local governments of Florida to begin to act now to build adaptation strategies for climate-associated

sea level rise. It is accompanied by a much-shorter, separate synopsis report which condenses main issues

and observations from the full report and is published in hard copy. That synopsis follows the general

organization of this full assessment report. It abstracts the assessment in four sections: 1) some basics

about climate change science and sea level rise, 2) highlights from assessment of the five policy tools

noted above, 3) key principles of adaptation from emerging experience, and 4) leadership opportunities

going forward.

The synopsis is available in electronic form at ____, or in hard copy by contacting _______.

Author contact information:

Barbara J. Lausche

Marine Policy Institute

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway

Sarasota, FL 34236

(941) 388-4441

www.mote.org\mpi; [email protected]


09/15/09

iii

ABOUT THE MARINE POLICY INSTITUTE

The mission of the Marine Policy Institute at Mote Marine Laboratory is to strengthen the scientific basis

of public policy and societal decision making for economic development and sustainability of our oceans

and coastal ecosystems. Working closely with Mote scientists and other programs, the Institute conducts,

integrates and communicates multi-disciplinary research on marine/coastal issues in a manner that

produces salient, credible assessments and advice in policy (legal, economic, social) to decision-makers,

stakeholder groups, and concerned citizens.

Dr. Frank Alcock is Director of the Marine Policy Institute. Dr. Alcock, Assistant Professor of Political

Science at New College of Florida, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University, an M.A. in

International Affairs from George Washington University and a B.A. in Economics from the State

University of New York, Binghamton. His experience traverses both governmental and academic research

on sustainable development and trade and global environmental politics with a focus on oceans and

marine policy. He was a Belfer Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and an

active member of the human dimensions of global environmental change research community.

Barbara J. Lausche, J.D., is the Institute‟s Deputy Director. She received her J.D. from the Columbus

School of Law and has some 30 years of experience with government and non-governmental

organizations in the U.S. and internationally. Lausche has worked with multi-disciplinary teams of

scientists building institutional capacity and legal frameworks. Past positions have included legislative

counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, project director for the Congressional Office of

Technology Assessment, and senior environmental staff with the World Bank. Lausche co-founded the

Science and Environmental Council of Sarasota County in 2001 and served as its Executive Director for

five years. She is on the Board of the Island Resources Foundation, a member of the D.C. Bar, and a

member of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commission on Environmental Law, where she serves

as Caribbean co-chair of the Specialists Group on Oceans, Coasts and Coral Reefs.

Dr. Michael Orbach is the Institute‟s Special Advisor. Dr. Orbach, Professor of Marine Affairs and Policy

at the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, holds both a Ph.D. and

M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of California, San Diego and a B.A. in Economics

from the University of California, Irvine. He has worked as a Cultural Anthropologist with the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has held several Governor‟s appointments to environmental

Boards and Commissions, as well as several appointments with the National Academy of Sciences. Dr.

Orbach was an advisor to both the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

and is a former President of the Coastal Society and the Southern Association of Marine Laboratories,

Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Surfrider Foundation and a member of the Board of Directors

of the Ocean Conservancy.

Dana O‟Mara, M.S., serves as the Marine Policy Institute Program Manager. She holds an M.S. in

Oceanography and Coastal Sciences from Louisiana State University. O‟Mara has research experience in

coastal management, marine policy and economic issues pertaining to the Gulf of Mexico region and

beyond. She received a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Management Fellow-

ship to help develop a Shoreline Access Plan and a Shoreline Economic Analysis for the state of Texas.


09/15/09

iv

AN ASSESSMENT:

POLICY TOOLS FOR LOCAL ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3

A. THE SETTING .................................................................................................................................................. 3

B. PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE ............................................................................................................................... 4

C. SCOPE OF WORK AND METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 5

D. ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6

PART I – SCIENCE ................................................................................................................................... 7

1. SOME BASICS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE ...................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Climate and weather ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Key providers of climate science for policy makers .......................................................................... 8 1.4 Dealing with uncertainties ................................................................................................................. 11

2. WHAT SCIENCE TELLS US ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE ............................................ 12

2.1 The Global Warming Connection .................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Global Sea Level Rise ........................................................................................................................ 15 2.3 Abrupt Change ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Regional Variability ........................................................................................................................... 18

3. SEA LEVEL RISE IN FLORIDA ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 What we know .................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 21

PART II -- POLICY ................................................................................................................................. 25

4. A SAMPLING OF LOCAL POLICY TOOLS ...................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Coastline Development – Beaches, Shorelines, Estuaries ............................................................... 36 4.3 Ecosystem Conservation .................................................................................................................... 43 4.4 Public Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 47 4.5 Post-Disaster Redevelopment ........................................................................................................... 51

5. KEY PRINCIPLES FOR ADAPTATION ............................................................................................................ 54

6. LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD ....................................................................................... 59

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................. 62

Notes ........................................................................................................................................................... 63

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….73

Acronyms (to be added)

Glossary (to be added)


09/15/09

1

Executive Summary

There is broad scientific consensus that global climate is warming largely as a result of increased

concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Sea level rise in

the coming decades is anticipated to be a major effect of climate change with mostly negative impacts for

many coastal regions, including Florida. Climate-related sea level rise already is being experienced in

North America and other parts of the world.

Importantly, scientists advise that many anticipated impacts from sea level rise can be addressed through

early planning and well-designed adaptive responses.

In recent years, awareness of global climate change has grown markedly around the world. A 2009

public opinion survey by Yale University found that the majority of Floridians are becoming more aware

of climate change; however few are worried about local impacts. In Florida, as in many states, policies

and processes are being put in place to help mitigate future climate change by reducing greenhouse gas

emissions. In sharp contrast, measures to build adaptation plans and policies for anticipated impacts from

past emissions have been notably absent. Florida state law does not require sea level rise consideration in

its policies for planning or development. If climate change is to be effectively addressed in the state, both

mitigation and adaptation actions will need to be mainstreamed into all levels of decision-making.

There is a growing sense of urgency among the scientific community that adaptation actions need to begin

now. Significant delay into the next decade or beyond as climate continues to change reduces choices and

options, and increases the probability of more difficult and costly adjustments, accommodations, and

coping strategies both for human and natural systems. Managing the impacts of sea level rise will require

adapting human activities in the coming decades through decisive policies, programs and actions so that

critical human systems (e.g., communities, economies, emergency systems) and natural resources (e.g.,

wetlands, coastal ecosystems, fisheries) can continue to function effectively as „resilient‟ systems in the

face of climate change.

While average sea level rise can be projected with considerable scientific confidence on a global scale,

localized change is more difficult to project because climate data and models are less advanced. Local

sea level rise impacts may vary widely from region to region also because of different biophysical and

socio-economic features. Sea level rise adaptation hinges on local action because it is at the local level

where specific climate impacts, including sea level rise, will occur. Strong and persistent local leadership

will be required to tailor adaptive responses to the specific challenges and circumstances of each region.

This assessment takes a sampling of five key policy areas to illustrate the kinds of powers and

responsibilities local governments in Florida already have at hand to advance sea level rise adaptation.

Though not designed originally for this purpose, these tools provide significant opportunities to build both

community and natural system „resilience‟ for sea level rise. They are local comprehensive land use

plans, coastal management and beach preservation authority, ecosystem conservation policies, major

public facility and infrastructure investments, and post-disaster redevelopment planning.

Among these tools, one overarching instrument of local government clearly stands out as a framework for

future adaptation actions across all sectors. That is the local comprehensive land use plan. Among

immediate substantive actions that can be taken by local governments and communities is to begin to

integrate sea level rise considerations into all elements of local plans – a process that will inevitably be

long-range and incremental and also will need to be flexible to adjust as new scientific information

becomes available. Essential for this action is the recognition that historical data is no longer adequate by

itself for long-term planning since sea level rise rates may accelerate in the coming decades due to


09/15/09

2

increased land ice sheet melt. A longer-term planning horizon (at least 50-years forward) will be needed

if adaptive planning is to capture the longer timescales of sea level rise.

In addition, a number of immediate actions can be taken by local governments to build capacity for

adaptive planning. A primary action could be to designate a focal point within local governments to

coordinate sea level rise actions and facilitate information sharing across the sectors and disciplines with

each government unit, with each unit also designating a lead for that unit. Secondly, an action that

several counties of Florida have taken recently is to establish a county-wide climate change advisory body

(building on existing entities or created anew) with a principal purpose as laid out in terms of reference to

advise on near-term and long-term strategies, programs, and policies for adaptation to sea level rise and

climate change; this body should be heavily represented by scientists and technical experts from all

relevant disciplines, and include community leaders.

Finally, a number of overarching principles for adaptation flow from the assessment. Three are worth

particular emphasis. First, early planning for the impacts of sea level rise is critical for minimizing or

avoiding local risks and negative impacts from sea level rise. Many decisions made today will have

consequences for decades. Some of the needed adaptations for anticipated sea level rise may take

decades of gradual change.

Second, the several policies reviewed in the assessment already provide a powerful set of tools for local

governments to start early planning for sea level rise. While new state and federal policies also will likely

develop as learning progresses, these existing tools already provide a broad policy framework for building

adaptation strategies, policies, and programs and for collaborating across all sectors and levels of society

in this important long-range effort – including with regional, state, and federal agencies, the private

sector, universities, and non-governmental organizations. The work can begin now.

Third, it is essential that state and federal policies also be strengthened to support local actions.

Supportive state measures are important to define an overall policy direction and provide guidance, create

a level playing field and compatibility across jurisdictions, and provide fiscal incentives for local action

wherever possible. Local governments will need to take a lead role in articulating and promoting state

and federal policies that best meet local needs and priorities. The initiatives local governments take now

using existing policies will provide important insights and experience for this ensuing role.

****


09/15/09

3

INTRODUCTION

A. The Setting

There is broad scientific consensus that global climate is changing. International and U.S. climate change

studies agree the planet is warming, largely as a result of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide

(CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities (called „anthropogenic‟

warming). According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the effects of climate change will be

largely negative for most regions of the United States.1 The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council agrees,

concluding in a 2009 climate change report that “none of the predicted effects is expected to benefit

Florida‟s natural resources or human populations (although this perspective may change as new

knowledge becomes available)”.2

Scientists advise that many early impacts of climate change can be effectively addressed through early

planning and well-designed adaptive responses. The range of options and their effectiveness likely will

diminish as climate impacts intensify over time and the social and economic costs of adaptation become

more severe. Sea level rise in the coming decades is anticipated to be a major effect of global warming

and already is being experienced in many coastal regions of the world. It is arguably one of the most

visible and understandable consequences of climate change for elected officials, community and private

sector leaders, residents, and the public at large. For this reason, it provides an entry point for beginning a

discussion at the local level about adaptive responses to climate change that can will foster and promote

sustainable and resilient communities.

It is broadly recognized at state policy levels that adaptation to climate change effects, and particularly

sea level rise, will be a major challenge for Florida in the years ahead. Florida Governor Crist, in his

2007 State of the State speech, reminded us all that “Florida is more vulnerable to rising ocean levels and

violent weather patterns than any other state” in light of its extensive coastline and the majority of its

citizens living near that coastline, and declared global climate change „one of the most important issues

that we will face this century”.3

The Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, mandated by the Florida Legislature to create a vision

for the future using 25-year and 50-year time horizons, identified climate change as „an essential state

interest‟ and „Florida‟s greatest sustainability challenge‟.4 In its 2007 report to the Legislature, the

Commission concluded that climate change considerations will likely affect all aspects of long-range land

use planning and make such planning even more challenging, as well as important.5

The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council concurs. This Council, created by the Florida Legislature in

2005 and comprised of 15 eminent scientists and other experts from key state departments and scientific

and academic bodies in Florida, decided in 2008 to examine the state of knowledge about climate change

effects in Florida. In a special report issued in 2009, the Council enumerated some of the reasons for

Florida‟s special vulnerability, especially to sea level rise:

“[Florida] has over 1,200 miles of coastline, almost 4,500 square miles of estuaries and bays, and

more than 6,700 square miles of other coastal waters. The entire state lies within the Atlantic Coastal

Plain, with a maximum elevation less than 400 feet above sea level, and most of Florida‟s 18 million

residents live less than 60 miles from the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.”6

Another recent state initiative, the Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team created by Governor

Crist in 20077, issued a Florida Climate Change Action Plan. in October 2008 pursuant to its mandate.


09/15/09

4

While that Plan focused principally on energy policy and strategies for greenhouse gas emission reduction

(commonly called „climate change mitigation‟), it included a lengthy appendix with an Adaptation

Planning Framework outlining actions needed to help Florida adapt to climate changes likely to occur this

century due to past greenhouse gas emissions, including sea level rise.8 The Action Team‟s successor

body, the Florida Energy & Climate Commission, is charged with completing annual assessments of that

Plan and providing recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on needed actions, including with

adaptation.9

Florida is among many states that have taken aggressive action in recent years with climate change

mitigation, particularly in such sectors as energy and transportation, to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse

gas emissions. Much less attention has been paid to building adaptation strategies for those effects of

climate change, including sea level rise, that already have been set in motion as a result of past emissions.

B. Purpose and Audience

The main purpose of this assessment is to stimulate dialogue among local and state policy makers,

community leaders, and concerned citizens and residents about potential local impacts and risks of

climate-associated sea level rise in Florida and more particularly in Southwest Florida. Over the coming

decades, much of coastal Florida will face increased coastal erosion, flooding of low-lying areas and more

severe storm surge resulting from rising seas. Growing human pressures on coastal areas from continued

development and pollution will exacerbate these impacts. By exploring some of the key policy areas

relevant for sea level rise adaptation at the local level, the assessment aims to help inform and advance

this dialogue with options and opportunities for actions that build communities, beginning now, to be

more resilient to climate change impacts in the decades to come.

It also is envisioned that this assessment, by focusing some of the concrete actions feasible for adapting to

local sea level rise, may serve as a catalyst for broader discussions about other climate change effects that

also may need attention for local communities, economies, and social and natural systems to be

sustainable. Those impacts relate to changing species ranges and habitats, invasive species, human health

stresses, changing food production and water resource patterns, and more extreme weather events.

The principle audiences for this assessment are local and state policy-makers, community leaders,

organizations, and citizens and residents at large concerned about sea level rise impacts and interested in

learning about and participating in efforts to build adaptation strategies, beginning now and for the

decades to come.

Sea level rise adaptation hinges on local action because it is at the local level where specific climate

impacts, including sea level rise, will occur. Local impacts may vary from region to region, even within

the state of Florida. Local leaders will be at the forefront of decision-making about the kinds of

strategies, plans, and actions that most effectively address local social, economic, and environmental

priorities. While many local actions will inevitably need supportive state and federal policies, it is at the

local level where effective adaptive measures hinge on locally-driven responses.

How Floridians respond to sea level rise in the coming decades and over a timescale of at least this

century will have potentially large economic and environmental costs. In a 2009 public opinion survey

by Yale University, Floridians offered mixed perceptions about sea level rise and needed responses [See

Box 1]. According to that survey, a majority of Floridians are becoming more aware of climate change,

its causes and likely impacts, and are convinced it is happening and that human activities are involved.

However, few appear to be worried about local impacts. At the same time, a majority of Floridians

believe it likely that over the next 50 years some parts of the coast will need to be abandoned due to sea

level rise and that elected officials should do more in climate change.


09/15/09

5

Box 1: Florida and Climate Change – A Public Opinion Survey by Yale University

A state-wide public opinion survey on climate change conducted in May 2008 by Yale University and the

University of Miami with support from the U.S. National Science Foundation found overall that a large majority

(71%) of the public in Florida is convinced that global warming is happening. As to causes, 55% believe it is caused

mainly by human activities, while 32% believe it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment, and 13%

that is caused equally by human and natural changes. 10

However, a large majority (79%) said they worried only a

little or not at all about the impacts, but rather believed that global warming is a greater threat to non-human species,

and people and places relatively far away, rather than to themselves and other people in the state.

In contrast, a large majority of Floridians believe the state still will be impacted during the next 50 years, some

expecting impacts as soon as the next 10 years (19%) or 25 years (16%). Most believed that during the next 50

years, global warming will cause worse storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes (80%), droughts and water shortages

(80%), fewer fish (69%), infiltration of groundwater supplies by salt water (68%), flooding of major cities (68%),

food shortages (68%), less tourism (64%), and increased rates of disease (57%). Similarly, a majority (69%)

believed that over the next 50 years it is somewhat or very likely that parts of the Florida coast will need to be

abandoned due to rising sea levels. Importantly, the majority believe that global warming is already causing or

making the following things worse: wildfires (66%), damage to coral reefs (61%), and more frequent hurricanes

(60%).

Finally, Floridians support more action by their elected officials. Large majorities of respondents said that their

state legislators (66%), governor (62%), and mayors (56%) should be doing more to address global warming.

Source: Leiserowitz, A. (Yale University), and K. Broad (University of Miami) (Yale survey). May 2008. “Florida:

A Public Opinion Survey on Climate Change.” Online through: http://research.yale.edu/environment/climate/.

C. Scope of Work and Method

The assessment was initiated with four main tasks in mind:

1. highlight and translate present-day scientific understandings about climate-associated sea level

rise in a form useful for policy-makers and the community at large;

2. analyze key policy tools already available for local governments to begin to address sea level rise

adaptation;

3. identify some basic principles for climate change and sea level rise adaptation emerging from

growing experience at local and state levels; and

4. provide observations about specific leadership opportunities and actions possible to begin now to

build adaptation strategies for the challenges of the coming decades.

This assessment takes a sampling of five key policy areas to illustrate the kinds of powers and

responsibilities local governments in Florida already have at hand to advance sea level rise adaptation.

While not designed originally for this purpose, they provide significant opportunities for that purpose.

These relate to land use planning, coastal development, ecosystem conservation, public facilities and

infrastructure, and post-disaster redevelopment. The areas are all grounded in state mandates or programs

where local governments have a leadership role in guiding and implementing actions for their localities

based on their „home rule‟ powers. This list is only a sampling of existing policy tools which may be

relevant for sea level rise adaptation; moreover, with time it is highly likely that new or strengthened

policies may be developed in response to changing needs and improvements in scientific information.

Nevertheless, for purposes of beginning dialogue and adaptation action, these policy areas provide


09/15/09

6

powerful instruments within which adaptive responses to projected sea level rise may be integrated into

future growth and development plans and programs.

For illustrative purposes, some of the specific policies and opportunities available to Sarasota County are

used as examples. This approach was undertaken to give some concreteness to the analyses and elucidate

some of the general principles and policies as they are being applied or have potential for application.

The assessment draws primarily on existing published literature, studies, and official materials,

particularly those of Florida where available. As a baseline study to illustrate existing tools, it was not

appropriate or feasible to undertake new research or surveys. The assessment‟s main sources of

information included current Florida statutes, official reports from entities of the state of Florida, global

and national scientific assessments, and a growing body of relevant peer-reviewed research reports from

academic institutions and specialized organizations. Because of the technical nature of much of the

subject matter, this assessment includes footnotes where it was considered important to indicate the

source for the information for reader follow-up, as desired. In addition, a list of main reference materials

is provided at the end of the assessment with web sites where documents may be downloaded

electronically in many cases.

D. Organization

The assessment is organized in two major parts: Part I on climate science and what it tells us for policy-

making, and Part II on policies for local sea level rise adaptation. Part I was prepared because it was

considered important to provide a scientific context for the policy discussion, particularly in view of the

growing body of scientific information being generated, almost on a daily basis, related to climate change

and sea level rise and the challenges facing non-scientists in distilling those key elements critical for

present-day decision-making. Section 1 contains some background on climate science and important

sources of credible, synthesized information for policy makers (sources heavily relied on for this

assessment). Sections 2 and 3 then move to a discussion of what science tells us about climate-associated

sea level rise globally and then in Florida, including Sarasota County where data are available or can be

extrapolated.

With this context, Part II elaborates on the five policy areas noted above and explores opportunities that

exist for local governments to begin to use these tools for the long-term and deliberative process of sea

level rise adaptation and building resilient communities in the face of climate change. Section 4 reviews

the state policy frameworks in the five areas, highlighting some of the main provisions where local

powers and responsibilities are most directly relevant for building adaptive response measures. Section 5

then turns to basic guiding principals for effective adaptation that have been identified through

international and national assessments and the emerging experiences elsewhere in Florida and other state

and local actions. Finally, the report closes with some leadership opportunities for near-term actions and

observations drawn from the assessment that provide a positive and hopeful context for moving forward.


09/15/09

7

PART I – SCIENCE

1. SOME BASICS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE

1.1 Climate and weather

The planet‟s climate is a complex, interactive system consisting of the atmosphere, the land, snow and

ice, oceans and other bodies of water, and living things. To understand climate change, it is important to

differentiate between climate and weather. While they are closely related, there are important differences

which sometimes can be confusing. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place and

time measured in terms of such things as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, precipitation (rain,

snow), fronts, clouds, and wind. Weather occurs because our atmosphere is in constant motion. Weather

can change from hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. In most places weather is unpredictable

beyond a few days.

In contrast, climate traditionally was considered as the average weather in a place over more than 30

years; with modern techniques, scientists now look at patterns over 50 years and longer. Climate change

is a long-term shift in the statistics of the weather (including its averages) that can be identified. It refers

to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

Small scale climate fluctuations may happen over decades and large scale changes may happen over

hundreds or even thousands of years. Climate scientists agree that in this past century the global climate

has been warming. Confusion sometimes occurs when, for example, a winter may appear to be colder

than usual suggesting we are not in a period of global warming. That seasonal weather, however, is not

sufficient in itself to interfere with a changing climate trend unless it is a predominant statistic for a

prolonged period.

It also is important to distinguish between global climate and regional climate. When monitoring climate

change, most of the world‟s scientists have been looking, in the first instance, at the climate of the entire

planet. „Global‟ climate is a description of the climate of the planet as a whole, with regional variations

averaged. Global‟ change data and estimates reflect an average change in a particular feature of the

climate, again with all the regional differences averaged. In contrast, the climate where one lives is

commonly referred to by scientific reports as „regional‟ climate.

Most of the current scientific knowledge about global climate change comes from General Circulation

Models (GCMs) which are quite reliable for generating data on global average temperature increases and

precipitation on land and sea. While regional projections are improving, much research still is needed to

refine these models and improve regional data collection for localized use.11

A parallel situation applies

to observations and projections of sea level rise, where global average projections are much more reliable

than local projections, as will be discussed more below.

1.2 Key tools in climate science

Significant improvements in scientific tools and techniques in recent decades have helped scientists make

major advances in understanding the climate system, and provide findings about climate change with

increasing levels of scientific confidence.

Satellite technology, more sophisticated climate computer models, methods for reconstructing past

climate changes, and an increased body of observational data have facilitated these advances. The

growing array of climate observing systems being operated by government agencies, universities and

other international and domestic groups continues to improve the quality of the observations and


09/15/09

8

projections. Multiple independent data sources help reduce biases and errors. Ice cores, tree rings, corals,

ocean and lake sediments, and cave deposits all help scientists understand past variations in climate,

particularly temperature. Space-based observations, available since the early 1970s, have been especially

important for understanding present and future global and hemispheric climate change because they can

take measurements over the entire surface of the Earth.

Tools specifically for monitoring sea level rise also have improved significantly. Tidal gauge data since

the beginning of the 20th century and satellite observations since the early 1990s have provided

progressively more accurate sea level data, with satellite observations having nearly global coverage.

There continue to be many uncertainties, however, because climate models for sea level rise are not as

well advanced as those for global temperature projections and scientific understandings of climate

feedback processes with respect to polar ice sheet melt, rates and limits of ocean thermal expansion,

ocean circulation patterns, and land-water relationships are still in early stages of development.

In addition to these tools, the scientific community has another important technique for ensuring that the

best available data and expert analysis are the basis of findings and conclusions made public. This is a

highly formalized peer-review process to validate climate research and its significance. This process

requires that researchers must describe their experiments, results and interpretations in scientific

manuscripts which are then submitted to a scientific journal specializing in that field. Scientists who are

experts in that field serve as referees for the journal, reading the manuscript carefully to check that the

research and findings are valid. The journal editors accept or reject manuscripts based on these reviews.

Through this peer-review process only well-documented research with findings scrutinized by other

experts becomes published papers and accepted as current science understanding. The Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, the leading international network of climate scientists (discussed more below),

uses only research findings and data analyses that have been accepted and published through such a peer-

review process. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the National Academy of Science, and other

governmental science entities helping translate science for policy also apply this rule.

1.3 Key providers of climate science for policy makers

Climate change is not a new area for science or policy in the United States. From the 1980s, climate

scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NASA, for example, already were writing

about human-induced climate change and urging adaptive actions, among other things, for anticipated sea

level rise.12

Today, the field is unfolding almost faster than climate scientists can keep up. The volume

of published scientific research being generated on climate change has grown substantially in recent

years. It is virtually impossible for policy-makers and other decision-makers to filter out what is most

important for their long-range decision-making.

For policy makers, two principal sources of synthesized climate science information have emerged in

recent years, one at the global level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the other at the

national level, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. These entities are linked and interactive,

sharing new research findings among countries and scientists, and monitoring new and emerging issues.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). From the1980s, the international community

recognized the growing gap between what climate scientists were learning about climate change and what

policy makers needed to know to make informed decisions. In response, the United Nations established

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change specifically to provide policy makers with an objective

source of information about climate change. Today, the assessment reports generated by the IPCC are a

principal source of synthesized scientific information about climate change for policy makers, other

scientists, and the public at large. The first IPCC assessment report was issued in 1990, followed by


09/15/09

9

updated reports in 1995, 2001, and most recently in 2007. U.S. scientists have actively participated from

the beginning of the IPCC, serving both as authors and reviewers, sponsoring key science research, and

facilitating production of reports.13

The IPCC reports, through each updated assessment, are considered to reflect the latest collective

scientific understandings about climate change because of the extensive and thorough preparation and

review processes involved. The 2007 IPCC assessment, comprised of a synthesis report, 3 technical

working group reports and supplemental technical materials, is considered the most definitive statement

yet on the causes and impacts of present-day climate change and global warming. Incorporating

published data and analyses available through 2005, it was produced by some 600 authors from 40

countries. In addition, over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also

participated. Representatives from 113 governments, including the United States, adopted the

synthesized Summary for Policy Makers and accepted the underlying scientific analyses generated by the

technical working groups. The 2007 IPCC reports have been an important source of information for this

paper, with key reports listed in the reference section. [See Box 2 on IPCC]

Box 2: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –

Bridging the Global Science-Policy Gap

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (commonly known as the „IPCC‟) is a global scientific body

created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP). It is open to all member states of WMO and UNEP, and is governed by a Bureau comprised of

30 climate experts from all regions of the world and including chairs of working groups. Because of its

intergovernmental nature, the IPCC aims to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-

relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their

Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.

IPC does not conduct new research. Its mandate is to make policy-relevant, as compared to policy-prescriptive,

assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical, and socio-economic aspects of climate

change. Its main products are summaries and synthesis reports specifically for policy makers, backed up by

extensive technical chapters and data analyses to support its scientific findings. In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the

Nobel Peace Prize (jointly with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore) for its efforts to “build up and disseminate

greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to

counteract such change.”14

Consultations already are underway among experts and government representatives to

develop the outline and main themes for the 5th

IPCC Assessment Report which will be issued in 2014.

Source: Excerpts from IPCC website at http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm.

U.S. Climate Change Science Initiatives. The second major source of reliable, consolidated scientific

information for policy makers, particularly in the U.S., is the climate science research being undertaken

by U.S. federal departments and agencies, frequently in collaboration with universities and other research

institutions. The United States has supported federal climate change research and analysis for several

decades. NASA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey have been particularly active in translating climate

science for policy makers. Various other federal entities also have been involved with reviews and

assessments at the request of Congress, for example, the National Academy of Sciences, and with overall

climate science policy coordination, for example, the National Science and Technology Council created

by Presidential Order in 1993.

To better integrate and coordinate these many federal research efforts, the U.S. Climate Change Science

Program (CCSP) was formally established in 2002. This interagency Program is a consortium of 13


09/15/09

10

federal departments and agencies with major climate change research responsibilities. Their mandate is

to work together to investigate natural and human-induces changes in the Earth‟s global environmental

system; monitor, understand and predict global change; and provide a sound scientific basis for national

and international decision-making.

A major achievement of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program has been production of a series of 21

„Synthesis and Assessment Products‟ (SAPs) generated by the member agencies between 2006 and 2009.

These reports integrate research results in a wide range of important science issues regarding climate

variability and change specifically to support informed discussion and decision-making by policy makers,

resource managers, stakeholders, the media, and the general public. While the Synthesis and Assessment

Products generally include important supportive technical data and analyses, they all include executive

summaries and recommendations and findings that translate scientific findings for policy. The products

cover such subjects as human health and welfare impacts, ecological and agricultural impacts, abrupt

climate change, extreme weather events, and sea level rise. Attesting to the reliability of their findings,

the reports undergo an extensive peer-review and public comment process, and the resulting findings

reflect the consensus judgments of all program agencies. Several of these Synthesis and Assessment

Products, especially the 2008-9 reports which reflect the most updated climate change understandings in

this fast moving field of science, have been important sources of information for this assessment and are

listed in the references.

Beginning in 2009, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program was renamed the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP). [See Box 3 on the U.S. Global Change Research Program]

Box 3: U.S. Global Change Research Program – Bridging the U.S. Science-Policy Gap

U.S. climate change research is funded through the U.S. Global Change Research Program which began as

a Presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-606). The Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates federal research

on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. It is overseen by the Executive

Office of the President.

The thirteen federal departments and agencies participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program

are: 1) Agency for International Development, 2) Dept. of Agriculture, 3) Dept. of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (also, National Institute of Standards and Technology), 4) Environmental

Protection Agency, 5) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 6) Dept of Health and

Human Services/National Institutes of Health, 7) Dept. of State, 8) Dept. of Transportation, 9) Dept. of

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 10) Dept. of Defense, 11) Dept of Energy, 12) National Science

Foundation, and 13) Smithsonian Institution.

Some of the Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAPs) particularly informative for this assessment

include: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources, 2008

(SAP 4-4), Thresholds of Change in Ecosystems, 2009 (SAP 4-2), The effects of climate change on

agriculture, biodiversity, land, and water resources, 2008 (SAP 4-3), Analyses of the effects of global

change on human health and welfare and human systems, 2008 (SAP 4-6), and Coastal sensitivity to sea-

level rise: A focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region, 2009 (SAP 4-1).

Source: Global Change Research Program web site at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports. The CCSP reports are available through that website.


09/15/09

11

1.4 Dealing with uncertainties

Scientific knowledge and understanding about climate systems and the causes and effects of climate

change are making major strides, as discussed above, especially with improving observational data and

more sophisticated climate modeling. Still there remain many uncertainties about how the climate system

will react in the future to different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and other factors, and the speed and

magnitude of any changes and resulting impacts. In addition, it is difficult to predict how human

populations will grow, use energy, and manage resources, all activities which have a strong influence on

whether future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, remain the same, or increase.

To help translate levels of scientific certainty and uncertainty in a manner helpful for policy-makers, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) introduced a common framework of terms to use in

its reports to reflect the level of collective scientific agreement or confidence among the hundreds of

scientists, reviewers, and government representatives on particular findings or outcomes. [See Box 4]

This framework has been adopted by the U.S. Climate Change Science program in many of its recent

climate impact assessments.15

It serves as a useful tool for policy makers because it gives an indication of

the probability of certain projected effects and impacts to better weigh risks, and potential costs and

benefits of taking different actions, including taking no action.

Box 4: International terms to convey scientific certainty and uncertainty

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working with scientists worldwide uses a framework of

agreed language to describe collective certainty and uncertainty with respect to specific findings about

climate change causes and effects. This language is used to describe two types of judgments: l) the

confidence level of available data, models and expert analysis, and 2) the likelihood of certain outcomes

and events. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and related federal initiatives have adopted the

framework in their synthesis and assessment reports.

Expressing confidence in data: Levels of confidence that a particular finding or data result was correct:

very high confidence (at least 9 out of 10), high confidence (about 8 out of 10), medium confidence (about

5 out of 10), low confidence (about 2 out of 10), and very low confidence (less than 1 out of 10).

Expressing likelihood of certain outcomes: Where uncertainty of specific outcomes is assessed using expert

judgments and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g., observations or model results), then the

following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurance: virtually certain

>99% probability, extremely likely > 95%, very likely >90%, likely >66%, more likely than not >50%,

about as likely as not 33% to 66%, unlikely >33%, very unlikely <10%, extremely unlikely <5%,

exceptionally unlikely <1%.

(Adapted from IPCC 2007a, p. 27, “Treatment of uncertainty”)

********

Graphic Illustration of Likelihood Terms and Related Probabilities

Source: U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009b. Figure P-1, p. 12.


09/15/09

12

2. WHAT SCIENCE TELLS US ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE

2.1 The Global Warming Connection

The terms „global warming‟ and „climate change‟ are frequently used interchangeably in the popular press

and scientific writings. In its 2008 update on climate change science, the National Academy of Science

noted that the phrase „climate change‟ is preferred over „global warming‟ because „climate change‟ helps

convey that there are changes going on in addition to rising temperatures.16

These include changes in

precipitation patterns and changes in ocean circulation. However, for our discussion here, we want to

focus specifically on global warming for this is the main driver of increasing sea levels.

To understand what has been happening with global sea level rise associated with climate change, the

starting point is to look at what has been happening to the planet‟s land and ocean temperatures. That is

because sea level rise is most closely linked to temperature change. The two main contributing factors to

global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (when the ocean warms, water expands) and

increased temperatures over the land triggering more melt of glaciers and snow cover flowing into nearby

seas. Since 1993 when satellite data have been most reliable, U.S. scientists estimate that each of these

factors accounted for about half of the observed sea level rise.17

Today, there is scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. As concluded in the 2007 IPCC Report:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of

increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and

ice, and rising global average sea level.”18

According to the IPCC, this is cause for concern because the current global temperatures are warmer than

they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium.19

Observations of recent change. Observations from sites on all continents and in most oceans show that, at

the global scale, both land and ocean temperatures are rising. As determined by the IPCC, the globally

averaged temperature rise over the 100 year period 1906-2005 about 1.3 °F when estimated by a linear

trend. Records also showed that warming accelerated over the latter 50 years of that period to about 0.23

°F/decade, almost double the overall rate of change for the century.20

Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans. Nevertheless, there is now clear evidence that the

oceans also are gradually warming. During 1961-2003, global average ocean temperature rose by 0.18 °F

(0.10 °C) to a depth of 2,297 feet (700 meters), with increased global ocean heat down as far as 1.9 miles

(3000 meters).21

Analyses also showed that the oceans took up over 80% of the heat being added to the

climate system during that period, with two-thirds of the heat between concentrated between the surface

and the 700 meter depth.22

Observations about the temperature increases of the global oceans shows

considerable variability on an annual basis and from decade to decade within the longer-term warming

trend.23

While temperature increase is global, records indicate that warming has been greatest at higher northern

latitudes. Average Artic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100

years.24

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were

higher than at any other 50-year period in the last 500 years (increasing by about 0.9 °F over the period)

and, according to the IPCC, were likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.25


09/15/09

13

These statistics are unusual in the history of Earth‟s climate and have raised serious concern among most

climate scientists and many governments. Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth‟s

history, but the origin of the historical changes normally has been natural variability and natural causes

(mainly, changes in the Earth‟s orbit or the sun‟s intensity, and volcanic eruptions, often triggering

additional changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and ocean currents). However, according to these

latest IPCC findings, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high

relative to more than the past half-million years and these concentrations have been growing at an

exceptionally fast rate.26

[See Box 5]

Box 5: Growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since industrialization.

It is possible to track the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere by measuring the number of

greenhouse gas molecules in one million molecules of dry air. Measurements typically are given in parts per

million (ppm) of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.

Evidence from ice cores spanning many thousands of years shows that global atmosphere concentrations of GHGs

have increased markedly since the 1750s (considered roughly the beginning of the industrial era) and now far exceed

pre-industrial values. In the pre-industrial era, carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm (280 molecules of CO2 per

million molecules of dry air).27

In 2005, the concentrations increased to about 379 ppm, far exceeding the natural

range over the last 650,000 years.28

Moreover, the numbers show a rapid rate of increase. Looking only at the

period 1970 through 2004, data show GHG concentrations from human activities jumped 70%, with the largest

growth due to fossil fuel use and, secondly, land use changes, including deforestation.29

Current levels are near 385

ppm.30

Under IPCC‟s most optimistic model, CO2 would reach 549 ppm by 2100, or roughly 30 percent more than today.31

Based on historical data, IPCC scientists consider that 450 ppm is a critical upper level for stabilizing the climate as

we know it. Some scientists believe, based on current levels, that this critical point will be passed in the opposite

direction within decades unless there are prompt policy changes.32

New analyses published by NASA and other international scientists in 2008 on how climate has responded over

geologic time suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current concentration to at most 350ppm, but likely

less than that if humanity is to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on

Earth is adapted.33

These findings may be further complicated by other new research published in February 2009

that concluded climate change due to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations may have irreversible effects for

1,000 years after emissions stop if concentrations reach a peak of 450 – 600 ppm, those effects including irreversible

dry-season rainfall reduction in some regions and „inexorable sea level rise‟.34

Moreover, with greater than 90% scientific certainty, the IPCC concluded that most of the observed rise

in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century has resulted from increasing greenhouse gas

(GHG) concentrations, mainly carbon dioxide, from human activities rather than natural causes.35

It also confirmed that at continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in

climate already have been observed, with mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems.. These

include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean

salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat

weaves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.36

While not comprehensive, the IPCC and U.S. EPA have provided illustrative examples of some of the

higher likelihood effects from climate change in the Southeast and Gulf Coast of the United States. These

include increased coastal erosion including loss of barrier islands and wetlands; intense coastal zone

development placing coastal floodplains at risk to flooding from sea level rise, storm surge, and extreme

precipitation events; changing forest character as disturbances (e.g., fire and insect outbreaks) increase;

and higher summer heat with reduced winter cold stress.37


09/15/09

14

Many natural systems already are being affected -- systems related to snow, ice and frozen ground

(including permafrost), hydrological systems (including runoff and earlier spring peak discharge),

terrestrial biological systems (e.g., earlier „greening‟ of vegetation in the spring linked to longer growing

seasons), and marine and freshwater biological systems (e.g., changing salinity, oxygen levels,

circulation).38

Future climate change is likely to generate many impacts in addition to those associated with sea level

rise in coastal regions, further challenging local governments as they to pursue adaptive strategies for sea

level rise. Stresses already are being felt in such areas as water management, coastal ecosystem

management, changes in both distribution and abundance of native species, expanded ranges for invasive

species, food production, and human health. Climate change impacts are likely to become more severe as

global temperatures increase.

Consistent with global trends, U.S. average temperatures also have increased during the 20th and into the

21st century. In recent years, the average temperature rise for the contiguous United States has been

greater than the global average, at nearly 0.6 °F/decade.39

According to NASA‟s Goddard Institute, the

ten warmest years on record (1880 - present) were within the 12-year period 1997-2008.40

Moreover,

while calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, NASA analysis concluded with confidence that

2008 still was within the range from the 7th to the10th warmest year on record.

Projected Future Temperature Rise. The IPCC has concluded, again with 90% scientific certainty, that

continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming and induce

many changes in the global climate system that very likely will be greater than those of the 20th century.

41

To estimate future temperature increases, the 2007 IPCC assessment used several scenarios covering a

range of likely future emissions and climate responses, ranging from „business as usual” (emissions

increasing for the next 5 or more decades) to an idealized alternative scenario (CO2 emissions level off

this decade, slowly decline and by mid-century are at or below 2000 levels). The range of projected

global temperature increases by 2100 generated by these scenarios was from about 2 °F to 7 °F (1.8 – 4.0

°C).42

Even if greenhouse gas emissions had been held constant at 2000 levels (levels now surpassed),

the IPCC calculates there still will be a further 1.8°F [.6° C] rise during this century because of the slow

climate response.43

The 2007 IPCC report projected that all of North America will very likely warm during this century and

warm more than the global average in most areas.44

Nearly all the models assessed by the IPCC for its

2007 report projected that the average warming in the United States would exceed 3.6 °F, with 5 out of 21

models projected an average warming in excess of 7.2 °F by the end of the century. In regions near the

coasts the projected warming is expected to be less than the national average, consistent with less

warming over the ocean.45

These projections are now considered too conservative by some scientists because of new data. At the

February 2009 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in

Chicago, scientists connected with the IPCC discussed fresh data showing that GHG emissions

worldwide have increased far more rapidly then expected – an average of 3.5 %/year from 2000-2007,

more than three times the 0.9% growth rate of the 1990s.46

At that meeting, scientists also warned that

new evidence indicates the arctic permafrost is beginning to melt and with the better climate models now

in use it is expected that the permafrost melting process will release more carbon dioxide than previously

estimated, as well as methane which is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.


09/15/09

15

Given the higher rates of observed emissions in recent years, scientists are now discussing the likelihood

that the worst-case IPCC scenarios (or even worse) are being realized. This was one of six preliminary

key messages from the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change convened in March 2009 in

Copenhagen to assimilate latest observations and research since the 2007 IPCC report in preparation for

the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in December and for the next IPCC assessment due in

2014.47

The Congress received almost 1,600 new scientific contributions from researchers from more

than 70 countries. Among the items discussed was new data that that emissions from burning fossil fuels

since 2000 have largely outpaced the estimates used in the 2007 IPCC Report and that assumptions used

in scenarios of future emissions also are too conservative. It is anticipated that these new findings will a

significant input in the next IPCC assessment reports to be issued in 2014.

2.2 Global Sea Level Rise

Consistent with global temperature trends, global sea level increased from the 19th to the 20

th century and

by the end of the century was accelerating. The total 20th century rise is estimated to be about 6.6 inches

(0.17 m), with the period 1961-2003 showing an average rate of rise of .07 inches per year (1.8mm/yr.).48

The most recent satellite and ground-based observations also show that average global sea level has been

continuing to rise since 1993 at a rate well above average for the 20th century (about .12 inches/year

(3.1mm)). Indicators from historical climate change suggest that global sea levels have been stable for

the last 2,000 to 3,000 years and did not change significantly until the late 19th century.

49

Sea level has been observed to be rising along many coastal regions worldwide.50

As concluded by the

IPCC, sea level rise and human development are together contributing to losses of coastal wetlands and

mangroves and increasing damage from coastal flooding in many areas.51

There is high regional variability, however. In some regions sea level rise is up several times the global

mean rise while in others, sea level is falling.52

Globally, the largest sea level rise since 1992 (when

satellite data became available) was in the western Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean, with sea level falling

in the eastern Pacific and western Indian Oceans.53

Nearly all the Atlantic Ocean experienced sea level

rise during the last decade.

In North America, sea level is rising in many coastal areas, though with wide variability as well and a

wide range of trends. From the early 1980s, U.S. climate scientists were issuing reports on the potential

effects of global warming on sea level with recommendations for policy action.54

The IPCC recognizes

that this region already has experienced locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem,

social and cultural disruption from recent weather-related extremes, including hurricanes, other several

storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires.55

For the remainder of this century, the IPCC concluded with more than 90% confidence that global

average sea level rise will exceed the average rate of rise during the 1961-2003 period.56

Using the same

scenarios as those developed to estimate future global average temperature increases, noted above, it

projected global average sea levels would rise within the range of 7-23 inches by the end of this

century.57

These projections assumed no increase in the rate of polar ice sheet melt from Greenland and

West Antarctic because of insufficient published data and lack of agreement on that issue, assumptions

that are now considered too conservative by a growing number of scientists. However, the IPCC

suggested that a partial melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could contribute an

additional 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) or more to global sea level rise on a time span that extended into

the next century and beyond.58

Since the 2007 IPCC report, new satellite data confirms that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets

are losing mass at an accelerating rate.59

As a result, IPCC projections are in question. This was a finding


09/15/09

16

of a 2008 report issued by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program on abrupt climate change. Led by

the U.S. Geological Service, that report found: “Although no ice-sheet model is currently capable of

capturing the glacier speedups in Antarctica or Greenland that have been observed over the last decade,

including these processes in models will very likely show that IPCC projected sea level rises for the end

of the 21st century are too low.”

Evidence of these changes also was a focus of the March 2009 International Scientific Congress on

Climate Change, noted earlier. Scientists at that Congress, citing the new satellite data, reported that it

now seems very clear that sea level rise by 2100 will be greater than the IPCC‟s prediction, possibly as

much as twice the prediction, and that the rate of increase after 2100 will be faster than it will be before

2100.60

Several scientists at that Congress spoke about a global average rise of a meter or more by 2100,

even if the world‟s greenhouse gas emissions were kept at a low level.61

Similar observations emerged from the AAAS 2009 annual meeting, noted above, where an expert panel

focused on factors driving the ocean levels to rise. According to the panel, a consensus seems to be

forming that sea level rises are going to occur faster than the scientific community had recently thought

and are likely to continue well after any control on greenhouse gas emissions stabilizes their

concentrations in the atmosphere.62

Based on improved analyses of past climate system behavior, scientists expect global sea levels to

continue to rise as the ocean takes up more heat and polar ice sheets melt until a new equilibrium

temperature is reached, and then sea levels stabilize. The main uncertainties with respect to future sea

level rise relate to the timing and magnitude of the rise. These two factors, so important for developing

local adaptation strategies, are complicated by limitations in scientific understanding about the dynamic

feedback processes and different time scales involved with future polar ice sheet melt, rates of ocean

thermal expansion, and changes in water storage on the land.

Assuming a linear trend from 20th century sea level rise data, recent studies have made new

approximations suggesting that global average sea level rise will be on the order of 40 inches (one meter)

by 2100, more than a foot above the IPCC high-end estimate.63

In a 2009 report on sea level rise, the

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) used that estimate as the upper end of a range policy

makers should consider for their long-range planning.64

Other new research suggests, however, that this estimate may also be too conservative because future rise

probably will not be linear due to the polar ice sheet problem. Instead, sea levels may rise at an

accelerated rate as increasing global temperatures trigger complex interactions between the ice sheets and

the oceans that could further increase the rate of polar ice sheet melt and sea rise.65

NASA has warned

that estimates of future sea level rise continue to have uncertainties because of the non-linear response

expected for the ice sheet melt, making it impossible to accurately predict the sea level change on a

specific date.66

There is broad scientific agreement that the present generation of climate models does

not capture these processes.

These uncertainties have led some scientists to advise that a faster sea-level rise rate be used when

planning adaptation measures.67

As to what estimate might be reasonable for a faster rate during this

century, new calculations based on climate modeling and analogies with past conditions suggest that sea

level rise increases in excess of 2 meters over this century probably are physically untenable and that an

improved estimate of the range of sea level rise to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between

roughly 2.5 to 6.5 feet (0.8 - 2.0 meters).68

In light of these new data, the Miami-Dade Climate Change

Action Task Force in 2008 revised up its 2100 sea level rise estimates for purposes of local adaptation

strategies from 2 to 3-5 feet, as will be discussed more below.69


09/15/09

17

Further complications to estimating sea level rise, especially at regional level, have been raised by another

research finding published in February 2009. This research suggests that rapid melting of the West

Antarctic ice sheets may not lead to a uniform redistribution of the melt waters. Instead, it may cause a

disproportionately high amount of the volume to be drawn to the northern Hemisphere, including

especially the coastal areas of North America. This is explained by analysis showing that if the ice sheet

melts, the gravitational attraction it exerts on the nearby ocean (which draws water toward the Antarctic

region), may be reduced and water may actually migrate away. The net effect, even though the total

volume of the oceans increases, would be that sea level may actually fall within about 2000 km of the

collapsing sheet and progressively increase as one moves further from that region.70

It is certain that scientists will continue to improve their analyses with new data and advanced climate

modeling. For the present, there appears to be growing consensus in two respects: l) global sea level

likely will rise faster in this century than it did in the 20th, 2) the IPCC projection of up to 2 feet of sea

level rise by 2100 is probably too conservative, and 3) polar ice sheet melt likely will be a significant and

perhaps even dominant factor this century and into the coming century, responding more strongly to

temperature increases in the 21st century than the 20

th century data suggest.

71

2.3 Abrupt Change

There is clear scientific evidence that sea level rise in some periods of the past has changed rapidly –

within a decade – and some scientists believe it is possible that this could happen again. Such an abrupt

change could take place so rapidly that humans and ecosystems have difficulty adapting to them.

New data about rates of melt of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have prompted some leading

climate scientists to suggest that such processes could be a „tipping point‟ triggering abrupt change.”72

The „tipping point‟ concern is that climate change may be amplified or diminished by other changes,

known as feedbacks. Fast feedbacks (e.g., melting snow and sea ice which exposes dark surfaces that

absorb more sunlight) occur quickly in response to temperature change, amplifying the initial temperature

change and adding to the warming. Slower feedbacks (e.g., the melting tundra which causes methane to

bubble out) amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer. Putting these processes together,

the potential for an abrupt change is triggered by the combined warming that has already occurred, the

positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline.

The issue of abrupt change has drawn serious attention from the world‟s leading climate scientists.

„Abrupt climate change‟ is defined by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program as a large-scale change

in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for

at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.73

In 2008, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program issued a synthesis and assessment report directed

specifically to the potential for abrupt climate changes from global warming during this century. The

assessment, led by the U.S. Geological Survey, with contributions from the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation, analyzed published scientific

literature in four types of change that stand out from geologic records as being so rapid and large in their

impacts that if they were to recur they would pose clear risks to the United States in terms of our ability to

adapt. The four types were l) rapid change in glaciers, ice sheets, and associated sea level, 2) widespread

and sustained changes to the hydrologic cycle, 3) abrupt change in the northward flow of warm, salty

water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean, and 4) rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped

in permafrost and on continental margins.

With respect to sea level rise, the report‟s scientists found that processes such as interaction of warm

ocean waters with the edge of ice sheets and ice shelves have a greater impact than previously known on


09/15/09

18

the destabilization of ice sheets that might accelerate sea-level rise. While understanding is improving

about these processes, great uncertainties remain as to their timing, as explained by the report:

“Recent rapid changes at the edges of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets show acceleration

of flow and thinning, with the velocity of some glaciers increasing more than twofold. Glacier

accelerations causing this imbalance have been related to enhanced surface meltwater production

penetrating to the bed to lubricate glacier motion, and to ice-shelf removal, ice-front retreat, and

glacier ungrounding that reduce resistance to flow. The present generation of models does not

capture these processes. It is unclear whether this imbalance is a short-term natural adjustment or a

response to recent climate change, but processes causing acceleration are enabled by warming, so

these adjustments will very likely [> 90% probability] become more frequent in a warmer climate.”74

The assessment also concurred with other recent research findings that inclusion of these processes in

models will likely lead to sea level projections for the end of the 21st century that substantially exceed the

projections presented in the 2007 IPCC report.

A second report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released in January 2009 and also led by

the U.S. Geological Survey with several contributing federal agencies, focused on the potential for abrupt

changes to North American ecosystems as a result of climate change and what this means for human

society.75

The report‟s scientists main goal, in this assessment, was to better understand an ecosystem‟s

potential for crossing its „ecological threshold‟, defined as the point at which there is an abrupt change in

an ecosystem that produces large, persistent and potentially irreversible changes.76

This assessment, again based on a synthesis of published scientific literature, found that slight changes in

climate may trigger major abrupt ecosystem responses that are not easily reversible. It identified several

North American ecosystems for which conditions already suggest an approaching climate-related

threshold. Of particular relevance for Florida and adaptation strategies, these included coral reefs affected

by sea level rise, ocean acidification and increased water temperatures; and coastal resources and habitats

including salt marshes and wetlands that may not be able to keep pace with sea level rise.

In addition, the report explained that human actions add further stress (e.g., marine and coastal pollution,

coastal development) which may push these climate-stressed ecosystems more toward their ecological

thresholds. While acknowledging there is still much to learn, especially about climate impacts on local

and regional scales of ecosystems, the scientists concluded that climate-associated threshold changes are

increasingly likely to occur and that it is important to prepare for them by increasing societal and

ecological resilience. Among the recommendations, the report stressed the need for management actions

to slow or prevent ecosystems from crossing their thresholds wherever possible, to identify early warning

signals of impending threshold changes, and to employ adaptive management strategies to deal with new

conditions and new combinations of species.77

2.4 Regional Variability

Scientists agree that climate change and its effects may vary widely from region to region, just as climate

varies from region to region. It follows that future climate change impacts, including sea level rise, also

will not be geographically uniform just as they have not been uniform in the recorded past.

In contrast to a decade ago, a clearer picture of regional climate change is emerging due to improvements

in climate model resolution, the simulation of processes important for regional change and the expanding

set of available simulations.78

At the same time, there has been less development of methods to

downscale regional information to sub-regions and specific locations.


09/15/09

19

Part of the challenge is to understand the non-climate factors that may be contributing to local sea levels.

As noted earlier, many coastal regions are already experiencing the effects of local (or relative) sea-level

rise. The rise, however, may be the result of a combination of climate induced sea level rise, geological

and human-induced land subsidence, temperature, salinity, ocean circulation patterns, and how the

atmosphere, oceans, and land interact there. Because of weaker data and climate models, a major

challenge is to separate the different oceanographic, geophysical and human factors affecting specific

shorelines in order to make projections of local sea level riser.

In addition, it is difficult to determine how global warming projections, the basis for sea level projections,

will play out locally. Human activities may influence local warming or cooling, causing uncertainty

about projecting future impacts based only on global averages. For instance, specific areas may

experience significant urban heat island effects, particularly in concentrated metropolitan areas, undergo

significant localized land use changes (e.g., changes in vegetative cover), or generate more localized

pollution or smog (keeping out the sun‟s rays), all of which will affect localized temperatures but not bias

the large scale global or hemispheric air temperature averages.79

How communities manage coastal

zones, draw down groundwater (leading potentially to coastal subsidence), or manage inland waters

flowing to the sea also may have localized effects on resident sea levels, complicating estimates of

climate-associated sea level rise, and projections with time.

Finally, even with reliable historical data, most climate modeling efforts now include the assumption that

global sea level is not only rising but also accelerating due to increasing global warming, as discussed

above. This suggests that historical data no longer are sufficient for developing future projections of

regional or localized rise. Adding reasonable assumptions about which non-linear rates of sea level

change to use for adaptive planning at the local level presents a whole new set of challenges related to

understanding the balance of global and regional factors affecting resident sea level rise.

3. SEA LEVEL RISE IN FLORIDA

3.1 What we know

Sea rise measurements along U.S. coasts come mostly through several tide gauge stations operated by

NOAA. These records go at least as far back as the early 20th century at many sites. In recent years, tide

station data have been supplemented by satellite data in some areas. Based on these data, a 2008 report

from the National Science and Technology Council estimates that sea level along most of the U.S.

Atlantic and Gulf Coasts has been rising .08 to .12 inches per year (2.0-3.0 mm/yr.), slightly higher than

the global average.80

Along much of the Florida coast, during the 20th century sea level rose some 7-9

inches according to a 2002 report from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).81

Numbers from the

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council are roughly in the same range, their 2009 climate change report

concluding that around Florida, sea level has been rising at a slow but constant rate of about an inch or

less per decade, but that a persistent upturn in the rate may have begun recently.82

For regional and localized sea level rise trends, NOAA and climate scientists rely mainly on those tide

stations which have 30 years or more data and give the linear trends from that data a 95% confidence

level.83

For Sarasota County, the closest NOAA tide station with 30 or more years of data is St.

Petersburg, a station operating since 1947. St. Petersburg data show a monthly mean sea level rise of

about .09 inches/yr. (2.36mm/yr.), translating roughly to 9 inches over a 100 year period.84

This number

reflects total rise which may include contributions from non-climatic factors, e.g., subsidence or

sedimentation, as well as climate-associated rise.


09/15/09

20

To understand the contribution that climate change has made to this rise, Mote scientists undertook an

analysis of the likely subsidence in Sarasota County. Subsidence in Sarasota County was not known

precisely, but could be estimated from nearby sites. The National Research Council in 1987 had adopted

a long-term average subsidence rate of 3 inches per century (0.8mm/yr.) for St. Petersburg, Florida, the

nearest site, and this was used to generate an estimate for Sarasota.85

The calculation put Sarasota

County‟s estimated climate-related sea level rise for the 20th century at about 6 inches.

From the various NOAA tide stations across Florida, the sea level rise data for the 20th century showed

little variability from one site to the next compared to that seen across all coastal states.86

Projecting future sea level rise in specific locations such as Southwest Florida is difficult even with this

historical data. As discussed earlier, climate models are not well developed for local application, data are

not as complete as for global estimates, and site-specific natural and human factors may affect localized

change. As concluded by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council in a 2009 report on climate change in

Florida, global climate models currently available, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, are too broad to resolve issues about smaller, individual regions such as Florida.87

To

be useful to managers, projections need to be downscaled using climate modeling methods that account

for local climate patterns.

In the mid-2000s, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council began a climate change vulnerability

assessment of Southwest Florida and, in particular, Charlotte Harbor. That project generated a draft

technical report in 2009 which included estimates of future regional sea level rise based on an historic rate

of .09 inches (2.3mm/yr) and adapting formulas developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

in the late 1990s based on probabilities and scientific understandings about climate factors affecting

future sea level rise change. Those calculations indicated a 90% probability (best case scenario) of a 5

inch rise by 2050 for Southwest Florida and a 10.4 inch rise by 2100, a 50% probability (moderate case

scenario) of a 9.4 inch rise by 2050 with a 19.8 inch rise by 2100, and a 5% probability (worst case

scenario) of a 16.1 inch rise by 2050 with 35.9 inches by 2100.88

Two other recent Florida studies undertook additional climate modeling allowing for some acceleration

from historical data in one case, and using scenarios of future global greenhouse emissions in the other.

The first by Florida State University (FSU) published in 2007 used historical data from five of Florida‟s

oldest tide gauge stations (Fernandina, Key West, St. Petersburg, Cedar Key, and Pensacola).89

It selected

these sites because they had at least 50 years of historical data which was considered a better timeframe

within which to understand fluctuations at a given coastal location.90

Using this historical data and trend line, the FSU analysis allowed for some acceleration in sea level rise

similar to values used by global climate modelers for the 2001 IPCC assessment (the latest available at

that time). The study found that relative sea level rise in Florida from 2006 to 2080 could be higher than

past straight trend lines and still respect the historical trend. Moreover, the five sites showed little

variation in projections from station to station. The largest projected rise for 2080 was for St. Petersburg

at 13.7 inches (0.35 m).91

One of the conclusions from this study was the recommendation that future

economic planning keep in tune with climate modeling scenarios that suggest the strong possibility of an

accelerating sea level rise in Florida.92

The FSU study discussed above did not include assumptions about abrupt change in sea level from

accelerating polar ice melt. The second study, undertaken by Tufts University, did include recent

estimates of ice sheet melt rates as a basis for projecting sea level rise and future economic impacts from

greenhouse gas emissions. Published also in 2007, this study created two different scenarios and

compared the difference in costs to Florida‟s economy depending on whether future greenhouse

emissions were substantially reduced or maintained at current rates.93

The „business-as-usual‟ scenario


09/15/09

21

assumed that greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise through the end of this century, and ice sheet

melt accelerates. This was compared with an optimistic „rapid stabilization‟ scenario where immediate,

large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occur with greatly reduced emissions by mid-century.

The study also assumed the IPCC finding that future sea level rise in Florida will be at approximately the

global average over this century.94

Based on these assumptions, in the business-as-usual case, Florida‟s average air temperature increased 4.9

°F by 2050, generating a „most likely‟ estimate for sea level rise by 2050 of 17.7 inches, with the „worst

possible‟ being 27.6 inches. By 2100 the temperature increase was 9.7 °F, which corresponded in the

climate model to 35.4 inches by 2100 in the „most likely‟ case (close to the emerging global sea level rise

estimate of 1 meter or 39 inches), and 55.1 inches in the „worst‟ case.95

Those estimates are relatively in line with some recent scientific studies urging that local adaptation be

designed with the possibility of a faster sea level rise than previously estimated by IPCC -- on the order of

one meter or more by 2100.96

In 2007, the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Action Task Force

advised community leaders that the IPCC projection of roughly 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100 be used

for purposes of local adaptation planning. In 2008, the Task Force revised this projection upward to 3-5

feet by 2100 to be more in line with the new data on polar ice melt.97

Scientists on that Task Force

estimated such a rise would put spring high tides at +6 to +8 feet.98

3.2 Potential Impacts

Florida and its residents face many challenges with climate change and regional sea level rise in the

decades to come. Florida is recognized in global and national reports as one of the most vulnerable

regions for sea level rise due to its intensive and extensive urban development in low-lying areas and

along the coastlines, the economic importance of tourism and agriculture, its unique ecosystems, and

reliance on groundwater for human consumption. Florida after Louisiana is the most low-lying state in

the country. [See Box 6 on some statistics for Florida]

Box 6: Some statistics about Florida’s coastal character

Coastal Character:

By federal definition, the entire state is coastal.

67 counties -- 35 with coastal shorelines, 25 in coastal watersheds, 7 inland.

One of the longest coastlines (8,436 miles).

825 miles of sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida; as of

2008, about 391.5 miles of these beaches and 8.8 miles of inlet shoreline were designated as critically

eroded (a condition where previous or continuing erosion threatens private or public development and

infrastructure, or significant cultural or environmental resources).99

Coastal Population:

From 2004-2006, Florida ranked third in coastal population and thirteenth in coastal density among all

coastal states.100

As of 2006, roughly three-quarters of the state‟s population was coastal, some 13.7 million of the

approximately 18 million residents.101

Extra stress from rising seas will only exacerbate erosion in these critical areas.

Coastal Economy:

Florida‟s economy is highly dependent on its coastal and ocean resources.

Coastal economy contributed almost $562 billion in 2006 or 78.7% of Florida‟s total GDP.102


09/15/09

22

In January 2009, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program issued its most definitive assessment

to date of the effects of sea level rise on coastal areas of the United States. Among its findings were

several directly applicable to Florida:103

While the mid-Atlantic region is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise, regions like the Gulf Coast

are just as vulnerable or more so.

Sea level rise is virtually certain (99% probability) to cause some areas of dry land to become

inundated.

It is very likely that erosion will increase in response to sea level rise, especially in sandy shore

environments, and barrier islands will also erode in response to future sea level rise.

It is virtually certain that the Nation‟s tidal wetlands already experiencing submergence by sea

level rise and associated high rates of loss will continue to lose area under the influence of future

accelerated rates of sea level rise and changes in other climate and environmental drivers.

Depending on local conditions, habitat may be lost or migrate inland in response to sea level rise.

Loss of tidal marshes would seriously threaten coastal ecosystems, causing fish and birds to move

or produce less offspring. Many estuarine beaches may also be lost, threatening species

dependent on those areas.

The 2009 climate change report from the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council concurred. It identified

four main effects of sea level rise for Florida, summarized as follows:

Increased stresses on, or losses of, tidal wetlands;

Changes to the landforms of estuaries, tidal wetlands, and tidal rivers;

Greater instability of beaches, barrier islands and inlets; and

Increased threats to coastal water supplies.

That report concluded that none of these effects currently is expected to benefit the state‟s natural

resources or people, although this perspective may change as new knowledge becomes available.104

An important secondary impact from sea level rise locally will be greater high tides and storm surges.

IPCC climate models indicate that coastal areas in the Gulf of Mexico potentially will be more exposed to

storm-surge flooding than some other coastal areas because of likely increased intensity of hurricanes and

other storms.105

IPCC models do not predict an increase in the number of hurricanes, only an increase in

intensity. With increasing sea levels, storm surges build on top of a higher base of water such that

existing coastal developments and low-lying areas may experience an increase in damages.

For both natural and human systems, concluded the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, the rate at which

resident sea level rises will be equally as important to how much it rises.106

Coastal wetlands, salt

marshes and mangroves are all expected to be negatively affected by sea-level rise especially where they

are constrained on their landward side, or starved of sediment or freshwater.

Even where these natural systems are not constrained, their ability to adapt will depend on the rate and

magnitude of inundation. Natural systems may be able to adapt if the inundation is not too great and over

a gradual timeframe. Since the 1980s tidal wetlands have been extensively studied for their possible

reaction to sea level rise. It is understood that present day tidal wetlands have developed and expanded as

productive systems for estuarine and marine life as a consequence of a relatively constant sea level for the

last 2000 years, rising at a very low rate relative to earlier times. Findings from early research undertaken

by scientists at Mote Marine Laboratory showed that if wetlands have the space to move upland into

adjacent low-lying areas there will be greater likelihood they may survive but that rapid sea level rise


09/15/09

23

could still have harmful effects especially along the ocean and along creeks, because the wetlands may

not be able to move inland fast enough, in which case they would drown.107

This could apply to tidal

marshes and mangroves which could be submerged permanently or so often (with higher high tides) that

water logging would occur, or soil chemistry would be adversely affected.

Recent research suggests that mangroves and salt marshes already are in danger under both low and mid-

range estimates of IPCC projections if applied to resident sea level rise. [See Box 7]

Box 7: Some Limiting Rates of SLR for Wetlands

Mangroves

9-10 in/Century (.1 in/yr.)

South Florida

~20 in/C (.2 in/yr)

Caribbean

Salt Marsh

~ 20 in/C (.2 in/yr)

Chesapeake Bay

~47 in/C (~1/2 in/yr)

SE Atlantic

Source: Dr. Estevez, Mote Marine Laboratory, drawn from various scientific studies.

These biophysical changes may trigger local and regional socio-economic impacts. As with natural

systems, the capacity of local government and communities to adapt with effective policies and programs

will be more likely and bring less social and economic disruption if the rise is slow enough so that the rate

of change can be accommodated. A number of recent studies have looked at these issues.

For instance, sea level rise and climate change effects on human health will be a major challenge. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies sea level rise as increasing the risk from extreme

weather events in coastal areas, threatening critical infrastructure and worsening immediate and chronic

health effects. Salt-water entering freshwater drinking supplies and increased salt content in soil

hindering agricultural activity in coastal areas also are health concerns in coastal regions.108

A 2009 study by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) analyzed the human dimensions of

climate change and especially the effects on human health, human settlements, and human welfare. It

concluded that climate change, interacting with other changes in land use and demographics already

underway in many regions of the United States, including coastal areas, could significantly impact human

welfare, quality of life and well-being. 109

As applied to Southwest Florida, the challenges posed by

population growth, an aging population, and urban and coastal development in the most vulnerable areas

will be compounded by climate change effects, such as higher temperatures, increased hurricane intensity,

and flooding. Those populations and communities unable to prepare for these impacts in advance will

face the potential of increased health risks.

As concluded by this CCSP health study, sea level rise and other climate change impacts will add stress to

social and political structures by increasing budget requirements for such public services as public health

care, disaster risk reduction and public safety. As these stresses grow, the resilience of social and political

structures will be particularly challenged.110


09/15/09

24

Over the century, sea level rise and its associated effects have the potential not only to affect local

communities directly, but also indirectly in many sectors of the local economy – for example, tourism,

fishing, real estate. Recent studies have highlighted the potential economic impacts of climate change in

Florida. The Century Commission in its 2007 annual report to the Florida Legislature identified tourism

as one of the economic activities that will be most affected as beaches are gradually eroded by sea level

rise: “Tourism is likely to be hit harder by climate change than any other sector of Florida‟s economy.”111

A 2006 study by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and Florida Wildlife Federation looked at the

impact of a 15-inch rise in average sea level (mid-level scenario) this century in nine Florida coastal sites.

The study found costly consequences for Florida‟s commercial and recreational fishery and on coastal

tourism by contributing to beach erosion and property damage. It projected a loss of nearly 50 percent of

critical saltmarsh for fish nursery habitat and disappearance of roughly 30 percent of the ocean beaches

and two-thirds of estuary beaches at those sites.112

The study concluded that sea level rise, left

unchecked, would extensively alter habitats critical not only for Florida‟s fisheries, but for waterfowl,

shorebirds, sea turtles, manatees and many other wildlife species. According to that study, about 90% of

Florida‟s most important recreational and commercial fish and shellfish species spend at least part of their

lives in seagrass meadows, salt-marshes, mangroves and other estuarine habitats.113

In beach-related impacts alone, a 2000 estimate by the Environmental Protection Agency found that a 1

foot sea level rise due to climate change, on top of other factors such as land subsidence, would erode

most Florida beaches 100-200 feet unless measures were taken to hold back the sea.114

A 3-foot rise

would require the state to speed $4 to 8 billion just to replace the sand that would be lost to beach erosion.

The 2009 climate change report of the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council also gave attention to human-

related effects, concluding that climate change has the potential to threaten every aspect of life, from

essential infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, water systems) to the health of residents and visitors, the

state‟s economic well-being and long-term sustainability.115

While all future impacts cannot be predicted

and many environmental and human costs cannot be measured in dollars, the Council indicated that

“negative impacts will outweigh benefits for most sectors that provide goods and services. The impacts

will place immense strains on public sector budgets. The secondary impacts of climate change can

include higher prices, reduced incomes, and job losses.”116

The Tufts study, discussed above, also projected severe economic costs to Florida if greenhouse gas

emissions are not rapidly stabilized. That study estimated monetary values under the „business-as-usual‟

case for four major categories: loss of tourism revenue, increased hurricane damages due to the greater

intensity, residential real estate at risk from sea level rise, and increased costs of electricity generation as

temperatures and air-conditioning requirements rise. The analysis found that projected total annual costs

of inaction would be $92 billion by 2050 ($40 billion and $23 billion from tourism and real estate

respectively, the two most directly linked to sea level rise). 117

By 2100 the annual estimated costs

increased to $345 billion ($107 billion lost from tourism, and $56 billion from real estate). These

projections did not include other sectors such as fisheries, transportation and water systems.

These several studies illustrate significant potential impacts for Florida from climate change and sea level

rise in the coming decades that are worthy of concerted adaptation attention at state and local levels.

Estimates and projections will continue to be generated and will improve as scientific research proceeds

and better methods are developed for downscaling global and regional averages to this region. As

stressed by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, “distinguishing Florida-specific sea level trends from

future global trends is a critical research need.”118

Even as scientific understandings about climate change continue to advance, there is a growing sense of

urgency among the scientific community that adaptation actions need to begin now. Significant delay


09/15/09

25

into the next decade or beyond as climate continues to change reduces choices and options, and increases

the probability of more difficult and costly adjustments, accommodations, and coping strategies both for

human and natural systems.

The process of adaptation broken down into concrete goals and frames of reference (e.g., land use

planning, infrastructure, conservation, etc.), if begun now, provides policy-makers and local communities

time to define mutually-agreed goals and feasible actions that are science-based and flexible to

accommodate new information as it develops. For example, even the high global estimates of one meter

or more (approximately 40 inches) being projected for 2100, when viewed as a linear average over the

next 90 years mean less than half an inch per year or roughly 4 inches in ten years.

The next part explores some of the key policy tools currently available for policy makers and

communities to use to help build adaptive responses to sea level rise in Southwest Florida.

PART II -- POLICY

4. A SAMPLING OF LOCAL POLICY TOOLS

Whether climate change is viewed as a crisis, opportunity, or unknown phenomenon by communities or

individuals, the science is unequivocal that we will face sea level rise and other impacts from climate

change in the coming decades regardless of future actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because

such scientific evidence is so strong, scientists increasingly are calling for policy-makers to begin now to

prepare their communities for these anticipated impacts through adaptation strategies and actions.

A wide array of existing policy tools and program options are available to local governments to aid

communities in long-range planning and action for sea level rise preparedness. These policies and

programs provide local policy-maker the opportunity to begin now to integrate sea level rise into local

decision-making.

Adapting to the impacts of rising sea levels is a complex task and local governments face many

challenges. Science is at an early stage in understanding sea level rise due to climate change in this

region, but analytical work and observational data are advancing steadily to improve local projections and

likely impacts. Long-range policy planning for the sea level rise brings many advantages. The sooner the

process is begun, the more robust the range of options and involved the many community and other

interests. Starting now provides the time to minimize and potentially avoid some negative impacts of

local sea level rise, and put in place policies that can be accommodated through incremental and

consecutive measures, using the best available science, to identify vulnerabilities and act in measured

ways to address the most immediate and highest risks in ecological, economic, and human health terms.

Beginning adaptive planning processes now for sea level rise gives local governments a favorable

planning horizon for estimating impacts, identifying vulnerabilities, gathering the best scientific

knowledge, and working with all sectors of the community to prepare proactive and anticipatory

responses that build „resiliency‟ for future impacts. „Resiliency‟ has become a popular concept in relation

to coastal environments and communities and their ability to adapt to sea level rise. As defined by the

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a five-state Governor‟s coalition that includes Florida:

“resilience is the capacity of human and natural/physical systems to adapt to and recover from

change. To continue to enjoy living and receiving the benefits these coastal areas have to offer, there

is a need to make the natural, built, and social environments more resilient. Enhancing resilience


09/15/09

26

requires adjustments to day-to-day living as well as adjustments to processes of long-term settlement

and development of coastal areas.”119

The discussion below focuses on five policy tools which, though not designed originally for this purpose,

provide significant opportunities to build both community and natural system „resiliency‟ for sea level

rise: land use planning; coastal development along beaches, shorelines and estuaries; public facilities and

infrastructure; ecosystem conservation; and post-disaster redevelopment. Importantly, these tools are not

new, but already are well integrated into the operations of local governments and communities and

existing processes and institutional mechanisms. Moreover, by state mandate and „home rule‟ principles,

these tools endow local governments with strong leadership powers and decision-making authority for

designing solutions specifically for local social, economic, and environmental priorities, so long as

consistent with broad state policies.

For illustrative purposes, examples from Sarasota County‟s policy framework are included where helpful

to elaborate on specific sea level rise adaptive options its leaders and communities may consider.

Sarasota County and its municipalities have taken significant policy and program actions in climate

change mitigation through commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency,

and promote „green‟ technology. [See Box 8 on Sarasota County initiatives in climate change

mitigation].

Box 8: A Sampling of Sarasota County Initiatives in Climate Change Mitigation

Key activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pursue Climate Change Mitigation by Sarasota County

Local Governments include:

Sarasota County, the City of Sarasota and the City of Venice: members of ICLEI (International Council for

Local Environmental Initiatives), an association of local governments that provides consulting, training, and

evaluation tools for setting and achieving energy efficiency objectives.

Sarasota County:

1st U.S. County to sign the AIA 2030 Challenge for carbon neutrality – a voluntary pledge to design

county buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030.

1st Florida local government to gain LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) building

certification

1st ENERGY STAR labeled building in Sarasota County-County Judicial Center

Certified by the Florida Green Building Coalition as a Florida Green Local Government at the highest

Gold level

Participating in the ENERGY STAR 10% Challenge to improve county building energy efficiency by

10% and tracking all facility energy use

Completed greenhouse gas emissions inventory

Greening county fleet with hybrid electric vehicles and buses, Plug-in Hybrid Electric vehicles, and

alternative fuels

Preparing a County-Wide Energy and Climate Action Plan

Sarasota City:

Signed U.S. Mayor Climate Protection Agreement ( to reduce carbon emissions to 7% below 1990

levels by 2012) * Please check City‟s GHG inventory report online to verify

Completed green gas emissions inventory

Greening city government fleet with hybrid electric vehicles

Application in progress for Florida Green Local Government certification

City of Venice:

Signed U.S. Mayor Climate Protection Agreement


09/15/09

27

Program for alternative energy funding through penny sales tax


City of North Port:


Completed a comprehensive audit of energy usage in all City facilities

(Source: Sarasota County Gov. Sustainability Office and Municipal Gov. web sites)

Adaptation for climate change has been much slower to take hold in Sarasota County. There has been

little concrete movement to explicitly integrate climate change impacts into decision-making, including

sea level rise which is one of the most likely in the coming decades. Sarasota County and its

municipalities have been leaders in environmental stewardship and many local policies, including the five

areas highlighted below, reflect important actions that provide a strong foundation for further steps

toward sea level rise preparedness.

Sarasota County and its municipalities have made commitments to sustainable development and decision-

making processes based on three sustainability tests – economic viability, environmental soundness, and

social equity. In light of future climate challenges, these commitments and goals will be most effectively

advanced when local governments incorporate sea level rise and other climate change impacts across all

aspects of their public policy work, identify major vulnerabilities, and begin to build adaptive strategies

with the community. The discussion below provides a sampling of policies that offer opportunities to

begin this important process.

4.1 Land Use Planning

Land use planning and sea level rise in Florida are intricately linked. Current growth plans and

development projections have the majority of residents clustered near the coast or in flood plains,

reinforcing current growth patterns. The Century Commission in a 2007 report concluded that “climate

change considerations will likely affect all aspects of long-range land-use planning and make such

planning even more challenging, as well as important.”120

4.1.1 Local comprehensive land use plans

The overarching tool for land use planning in Florida is the local government comprehensive plan. A

state law requiring such plans was adopted in 1985 in response to problems being experienced with rapid

growth. This law, the Local Government Comprehensive Plan and Land Regulations Act, lays out state

goals and policies for comprehensive planning, detailed provisions on what is to be in local plans, and the

process to be used for preparation, amendment, and periodic updating, including public participation.121

Broad local duties and powers. Every county and incorporated city or town is required to have a

comprehensive plan to guide “the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,

and fiscal development of [their] area.”122

Local comprehensive plans become official public documents

guiding public decision-making and land use regulations once adopted by the Board of Commissioners.

The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) provides guidance and reviews each plan or any

amendments for compliance with the state comprehensive plan before adoption. Each plan also must be

consistent with the corresponding Regional Planning Council Regional Policy Plan.

State law does not explicitly require consideration of sea level rise in local comprehensive land use

planning. However, compliance with general state goals and policies for long-term development, which


09/15/09

28

are to be translated into substantive elements of the plans, increasingly will need to integrate climate-

associated sea level rise by the very nature of that new threat to coastal stability and resilience. Elements

that plans must cover include the location of land development; the provision of public facilities and

infrastructure for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes; conservation, use, and protection of

natural resources; housing; recreation and open space; capital improvements; and coastal management

(for coastal counties and cities). A plan‟s content must be comprehensive, internally consistent, and

financially feasible. Zoning, building codes, and other local land development regulations become

implementation tools for the policies adopted in the local comprehensive plan.

This state planning mandate is one of the main policy tools of local governments to guide and direct

future growth and development. State law delegates extensive authority and responsibility to the local

level as part of home rule powers under the constitution [see Box 9 on home rule]. As such,

comprehensive plans provide a key opportunity and obligation for local governments to take a leadership

role in integrating sea level rise issues into their near-term and long-term planning strategies and

decisions-making.

Box 9: Home Rule in Florida

Florida‟s Constitution and statutes give counties and cities significant powers over their own affairs. These

„home rule‟ powers include the ability of counties and cities to establish their own forms of government

through their charters, and then to enact ordinances, codes, plans, and resolutions, generally without prior

state approval in order to perform the necessary public functions and deliver needed public services. These

powers also include the ability to enforce such instruments „at home‟ and to make necessary changes as a

county or city grows. Of course, county and city laws cannot conflict with state and federal laws. The

concept of „home rule‟ is grounded in the principle that the citizens have great trust in their respective city

and county leaders.

Article VIII of the Constitution (1968) relates to local governments‟ home rule powers, including:

For counties -- Section 1(g): “Counties operating under county charters shall have all powers of local

self-government not inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the

electors. The governing body of a county operating under a charter may enact county ordinances not

inconsistent with general law. The charter shall provide which shall prevail in the event of conflict

between county and municipal ordinances.”

For municipalities -- Section 2(b): “Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary

powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render

municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided

by law. Each municipal legislative body shall be elective.”

In addition, in 1973 the Florida legislature enacted legislation to end challenges related to city and county

home rule powers, including the following –

§166.021 (Title XII), Powers of Municipalities.-- (1) As provided in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of the State

Constitution, municipalities shall have the governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable

them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services,

and may exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law.

(2) "Municipal purpose" means any activity or power which may be exercised by the state or its

political subdivisions.

(3) The Legislature recognizes that pursuant to the grant of power set forth in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of the

State Constitution, the legislative body of each municipality has the power to enact legislation

concerning any subject matter upon which the state Legislature may act, except:

(a) The subjects of annexation, merger, and exercise of extraterritorial power, which require

general or special law pursuant to s. 2(c), Art. VIII of the State Constitution;


09/15/09

29

(b) Any subject expressly prohibited by the constitution;

(c) Any subject expressly preempted to state or county government by the constitution or by

general law; and

(d) Any subject preempted to a county pursuant to a county charter adopted under the authority of

ss. 1(g), 3, and 6(e), Art. VIII of the State Constitution.

(4) The provisions of this section shall be so construed as to secure for municipalities the broad

exercise of home rule powers granted by the constitution….”

§125.01 (Title XI) (Powers and duties of county government): (1) The legislative and governing

body of a county shall have the power to carry on county government. To the extent not inconsistent

with general or special law, this power includes, but is not restricted to, the power to:

(a) Adopt its own rules of procedure, select its officers, and set the time and place of its official

meetings.

(b) Provide for the prosecution and defense of legal causes in behalf of the county or state and

retain counsel and set their compensation.

(c) Provide and maintain county buildings.

(d) Provide fire protection ….

(e) Provide hospitals, ambulance service, and health and welfare programs.

(f) Provide parks, preserves, playgrounds, recreation areas, libraries, museums, historical

commissions, and other recreation and cultural facilities and programs.

(g) Prepare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county.

(h) Establish, coordinate, and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for

the protection of the public.

(i) Adopt, by reference or in full, and enforce housing and related technical codes and regulations.

(j) Establish and administer programs of housing, slum clearance, community redevelopment,

conservation, flood and beach erosion control, air pollution control, and navigation and drainage

…. (k)1. Provide and regulate waste and sewage collection and disposal, water and alternative

water supplies, including … conservation programs….”

Planning horizon. State law currently specifies a minimum planning horizon of at least 10 years for most

elements of the comprehensive plans; 5-years for capital improvements.123

Local governments, however,

may extend their planning horizons beyond 10 years as needed to properly plan for future challenges.

As elaborated in Part I, a 5 to 10 year planning horizon does not capture the projected impacts that need to

be considered for sea level rise. National surveys show that many local jurisdictions are beginning to

employ 50 year planning horizons for purposes of climate change adaptation, and this is a strong

recommendation from recent United States climate assessments. In Florida, Hillsborough County has

begun an effort to employ a 50-year planning horizon as well.124

The Miami-Dade County Climate

Change Advisory Task Force, after two years of analyses, recommended in 208 that all their county

entities use 50 years as their planning horizon for purposes of climate change assessments, including sea

level rise.125

Future land use plan requirements. One of the key opportunities for addressing future sea level rise is

through the future land use plan required by the state legislation. This future land use plan is to reflect the

vision and direction of future development throughout the plan‟s territory including its coastal areas and

other sensitive ecosystems, e.g., beaches, estuaries, critical wildlife habitat, lands for recharge of

groundwater, and riverine systems. The future plan must be based on surveys, studies, and latest

available data.

As with sectoral elements of the comprehensive plan, state law currently does not require that climate

change and sea level rise be one of the factors dealt with in studies forming the basis of future land use

plans. But it does require inclusion of greenhouse gas reduction strategies, a change made by the Florida


09/15/09

30

Legislature in 2008.126

The Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team in its 2008 report to the

state government considered this an important initial step toward climate change action even though only

oriented toward energy use and climate change mitigation.127

On a multi-year basis, local governments revise and update, as needed, their local comprehensive plans

based on evaluation and appraisal reports. These cycles provide three key opportunities for sea level rise

adaptation: 1) revision of future land use plans and maps to reflect anticipated vulnerabilities from

projected sea level rise and adjust land use categories and densities accordingly, 2) systematically

assessing risks from sea level rise for the many essential services and functions, (e.g., infrastructure,

public facilities, transportation, etc.) that local governments are expected to provide to sustain quality of

life, local economies, and ecological services, and 3) developing information resources and guidelines,

and initial long-range climate change adaptation plans and strategies, including in particular for sea level

rise, across all relevant sectors and levels.

Reinforcing these important measures, the 2008 Florida Atlantic University report, “Florida‟s Resilient

Coasts”, singled out two specific options state policy-makers should consider as part of building a

responsive policy framework for climate change adaptation:

“Florida‟s comprehensive planning laws and procedures will need careful reexamination in light

of climate change predictions. In particular, coastal communities and regions that are likely to

experience long-term sea level rise and the combination of sea level rise, hurricanes, and storm surge

will want to ensure that development over the next several decades does not put people and

communities in harm‟s way.

“Future land use maps will have to be revised, and climate change impacts should be assessed in

Comprehensive Plans, including especially Coastal Management and Capital Improvement

elements.”128

2009 legislation on growth management. Enactment of new growth management legislation in 2009

moves even more „home rule‟ responsibility to local governments and results in even greater need for

updated, scientifically-grounded local comprehensive land use plans that incorporate a long planning

horizon and anticipated long-range issues such as sea level rise for coastal localities. That legislation,

entitled the Community Renewal Act, has a broad scope with many provisions in areas related to urban

development, school services, and housing.129

Of direct relevance to sea level rise adaptation, the new legislation amends the comprehensive planning

law as well as concurrency and development-of-regional-impact statutes giving local governments

increased authority to promote urban infill and urban redevelopment projects in designated urban service

areas, particularly a dense urban land area (defined in the legislation).130

This is accomplished by

authorizing local governments to use certain exemptions for proposed developments that normally would

apply under state law. These relate to giving developer exemptions, under certain circumstances, to

transportation concurrency requirements (which normally involve the developer expanding, upgrading or

building new roads) and the review process of the regional planning agency for development projects that

may have regional impacts. These provisions make the comprehensive plans even more central for

guiding long-range decisions because such exemptions must be supported by updated comprehensive

plans reflecting long-term transportation strategies for urban areas that include alternatives to new roads

(e.g., mass transit) and that identify the specific designated urban areas determined to be appropriate for

such exceptions.

For coastal communities, infill and redevelopment will be particularly important growth management

tools for sea level rise adaptation because they may provide much-needed revitalized urban areas to which

vulnerable coastal residents and business may move, thus reducing suburban and rural sprawl. At the


09/15/09

31

same time, these tools anticipate increased population densities in the urban areas so designated. Thus, it

will be essential for updated local comprehensive land use plans (and future land use plans) to incorporate

the best available scientific scenarios on local sea level areas so as to avoid designating the most

vulnerable areas for such infill and redevelopment.

Intergovernmental local and regional coordination on comprehensive plans, a continuing state

requirement, also will be even more critical with sea level rise adaptation strategies and designated urban

service areas since some developments may now be given exception from the formal development-of-

regional-review process. In addition, this legislation will place more responsibility on local governments

to self-initiate processes with the regional planning council for ongoing coordination, information-

sharing, and consultation in order to continue to have the best available analytical information on

potential regional and cumulative impacts from local plans and development decisions covered by the

new legislation.

4.1.2 Sarasota County’s Future Land Use Plan

Sarasota County has a long history of planning to deal with and anticipate the problems associated with

rapid growth. Its first formal plan, issued in 1981, was entitled Apoxee, the Seminole Indian word

meaning tomorrow, and this name has endured with subsequent plans. The County Plan guides

development in the unincorporated parts of the County (about 76% of the area). The County‟s four

incorporated municipalities (Sarasota City, City of Venice, North Port, and the Town of Longboat

(portion within the County) also prepare comprehensive plans for their territories pursuant to the same

state goals and requirements as those applied to county plans. These plans require compatibility because

their economic and ecological underpinnings for development and growth overlap and are intricately

linked in the near and long-term. [See Box 10 on Sarasota County statistics]

Box 10: Sarasota County and its Municipalities – Some Basic Statistics

Sarasota County is considered a highly desirable coastal location for its natural and cultural features and

year-round climate. The County and its Municipalities have experienced significant growth in recent years,

resulting in rapid economic development.

Land area:131

1. Sarasota County land area covers 572 square miles, its water area 154 square miles. 76% (435

square miles), is unincorporated– outside the four existing incorporated cities (Sarasota, North

Port, Venice, and Longboat Key (part). In the total land area of Sarasota County, Sarasota

comprises 2.6%, North Port 18.1%, Venice 2.9%, and Longboat Key (.4%).

2. Part of the 16 county Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), containing two

national estuaries (Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor), and portions of four major watersheds

(Myakka River, Piece River, Braden River, and Sarasota/Lemon Bay. These watersheds are

drained by over 420 miles of rivers and streams into over 70 square miles of estuaries and bays in

the county.

Population:132

2000 Population, according to the U.S. Census: full-time residents were 325,957, (with roughly

20% more with seasonal residents).

2008 estimates put Sarasota County‟s population at 393,608, roughly a 17 % increase over 2000.

Approximately 95% are considered urban, and 5 % rural. Even with the current economic

downturn and expected slowdown in population growth for the next few years, Sarasota is still

projected to reach half a million by 2025, and 556,700 by 2035.

Most of Sarasota County‟s population is along the coast.

The incorporated cities having the highest concentrations: North Port (56, 316), Sarasota (55,

174), Venice (22,146), and the county‟s portion of Longboat Key (5,081), with the unincorporated


09/15/09

32

area the remainder (254,891). (BEBR April 2008 est.)

Economic growth:133

In 2006, Sarasota County‟s gross domestic product was $12.3 billion, 12th

in the state.

Per capita personal income (2006):$52000, Florida average $38,000.

Sarasota County has been traditionally known as a tourist and retirement area. The County is

working actively to diversify the economy.

Sarasota County‟s current plan is Comprehensive Plan 2007 (adopted in November 2006).

134 It contains

12 chapters dealing with functional elements (e.g., environment, parks and recreation, watershed

management, public buildings and related facilities, transportation, housing, economic development,

future land use, and public school facilities). Each chapter contains updated information in that subject

area based on latest studies, data, and analyses and concludes with a „plan‟ specific to each chapter setting

out goals, objectives, and detailed policies for action. The policies laid out in each chapter‟s „plan‟

represent measures the County has committed to take to achieve the stated goals and objectives. These

policies trigger changes in county ordinances or land development regulations, as needed, or the manner

in which government agencies function or services are delivered.

The County Plan overall does not explicitly call for integrating sea level rise and associated climate

change impacts in each of the plan‟s elements (though its coastal element does recognize sea level rise

concerns for barrier islands and tidal shorelines, as discussed more below). Nevertheless, important for

sea level rise preparedness, the 2007 Plan introduces a 50-year planning horizon through its future land

use chapter and accompanying supplement, „Sarasota 2050‟. This supplement, adopted by county

ordinance in 2002 following approval of the framework in 2000, is an incentive-based and voluntary 50-

year land use plan which formally serves as an optional overlay to the County‟s Comprehensive Plan.

In defining the County‟s development vision and future growth directions, Sarasota 2050 employs the

longer planning horizon needed to meaningfully plan for projected sea level rise and related climate

challenges with incremental adaptive measures. Following the trend in the region and nation, Sarasota

2050 incorporates „Smart Growth‟ principles135

using „resource management areas‟ defined to reduce

urban and suburban sprawl (and the associated infrastructure costs), strengthen existing communities,

preserve environmental systems and rural areas, direct population growth away from floodplains, and

conserve water and energy.136

Among these resource management areas, Sarasota 2050 defines an Urban Service Boundary to

demarcate the county‟s urban service area.137

As noted in a 2008 study commissioned by Sarasota

County, approximately 90% of the population of Sarasota County lives in the developed areas within this

Urban Service Boundary.138

[See Figures 1 and 2] Being along the coast, this is the most desirable area

for residents and also the area which, in coming decades and through the century, will likely be most

stressed by climate change impacts from sea level rise and storm surge.


09/15/09

33

Figure 1: Sarasota County Urban Service Boundary Highlighted

(Source: EarthBalance. 2008. Figure 5, p. 21) (permission granted by Sarasota County)

Figure 2: Sarasota County Future Land Use Map (2007 Comprehensive Plan)


09/15/09

34

Sarasota County‟s Comprehensive Plan undergoes a full evaluation and appraisal every seven years. The

incorporation of „Sarasota 2050‟ as part of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan and the Plan‟s periodic

updating gives a significant opportunity for beginning to include sea level rise adaptation in a measured

and flexible way, incorporating adjustments in consecutive plans as new scientific information becomes

available.

Studies already are underway as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Requirement process for the next

updated plan to be issued in 2013. That exercise will benefit from two information-related projects

completed during 2009. The first is the „LIDAR Project‟, a project supported by FEMA and the

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to collect new digital topographic

information for Sarasota County with LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technology. LIDAR is a

laser-based remote sensing technology that uses active sensor-emitting pulses of light to measure and

record ground elevations at specific points. The LIDAR used for the County‟s project produces

topographic data with a vertical accuracy equal to or less than 7 inches. This digital information, which is

being collected for all coastal counties of Florida, will allow better modeling and forecasting for purposes

of storm surge and sea level rise.

The second project, lead by Pennsylvania State University with support from the U.S. Geological Survey

and NOAA, is a multi-year research effort using Sarasota County as a case study. Entitled “Influence of

sea level rise on societal vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge, Sarasota County, Florida”, the study

generated scenarios (based on Sarasota 2050 and other data mostly from 2000) of future hurricane storm

surges and sea level rise to 2100 using 30, 60, 90, and 120 centimeters of sea level rise (roughly

corresponding to 1, 2, 3, and 4 feet) overlaid with hurricane categories 1-5 storm surge.139

The Penn State project had three main goals: l) to provide knowledge to local officials, planners, and

other stakeholders about potential impacts and societal vulnerabilities to sea level rise-enhanced storm

surge, 2) to encourage use of information on storm surge and sea level rise to aid long-range planning,

and 3) to give insights into the kinds of information community decision-makers need to make long-range

plans to reduce risk of significant loss from future storm surge and sea level rise.140

An important aspect of the project was to illustrate methodology and modeling tools that can be used to

better develop long-term scenarios of sea level rise impacts for planners and decision-makers. It was not

intended to predict actual site-specific impacts since the storm surge data available for the project, while

the best available at the time, was generated in 2000 and has since been replaced by updated elevation

data from the LIDAR project noted above. Future modeling work for Sarasota County, however, will

have access to the latest elevation data for purposes of risk assessment and future land use plans. The

Penn State team may continue to provide modeling assistance to the extent requested by the county and

supported through NOAA/USGS funding. Example of the scenarios generated by the 2009 project are

shown in Figure 3.


09/15/09

35

Figure 3: Penn State Project: Scenarios of vulnerability of Sarasota County to 30, 60, 90, and 120

centimeters* of sea level rise with Category 2 and Category 3 hurricanes.

Category 2 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise

±

Category 3 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise

±

Source: Frazier, et al 2009 (permission granted).

* 30, 60, 90, and 120 centimeters of sea level rise equate roughly to one, two, three, and four feet

respectively.


09/15/09

36

4.2 Coastline Development – Beaches, Shorelines, Estuaries

4.2.1 Coastal Resource Management Legislation

Along the coastlines of all States in the Union, the federal government takes a direct national interest in

development and resource protection as coastal landowner (e.g., Everglades National Park), as regulator

(with wetland protection and pollution control), and through grants and subsidies (e.g., flood insurance,

beach nourishment). These federal policies are incorporated in Florida state policies and programs.

From there, the coastal resource planning and management authority is delegated principally to the local

level. Implementation is undertaken through local policies, land development regulations, ordinances and

guidelines.

Federal law promotes sea level rise adaptation. One of the most important coastal policies for guiding

this region‟s future response to sea level rise is the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

Originally enacted in 1972, this legislation is intended to protect the country‟s coastal resources by

promoting and giving incentives to encouraging responsible coastal management by states. Administered

by NOAA, the program is voluntary but provides incentives for coastal state participation. These

incentives include grants, technical assistance, and the right to review all federal and federally sponsored

activities that occur within their boundaries – known as „consistency reviews‟ – where the state maintains

coastal management plans and programs meeting federal standards.

The federal CZMA was amended in the late 1990s in response to sea level rise concerns. The Congress

found that “because global warming may result in a substantial sea level rise with serious adverse effects

in the coastal zone, coastal states must participate and plan for such an occurrence” (§302(l)). While the

CZMA does not require states to address sea level rise, it does specify that state coastal management

programs:

“should at least provide for … the management of coastal development … in areas likely to be

affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the

destruction of natural protective features such as beaches, dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands”

(§303(2)(B)).

The federal CZMA also encourages states to prepare, as a matter of national policy, “special area

management plans … for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable

coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas,

including those areas likely to be affected by … sea level rise” (§303(3)).

For purposes of coastal development control in the context of sea level rise adaptation, one additional

federal statute is worth discussion here. This is the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 which

aims to discourage development of designated undeveloped coastal lands and aquatic habitats along the

Atlantic and Gulf Coasts by restricting future federal expenditures and financial assistance. COBRA

prohibits most federal expenditures and assistance where development occurs on designated undeveloped

lands, called CBRA units.141

For purposes of this legislation coastal land is considered undeveloped if the

density of development is less than one structure per 5 acres of land above mean high tide. This

prohibition applies to federal flood insurance, home loans, loan guarantees, and new or expanded

infrastructure construction within the designated units should efforts be made for their development.

Over the years, the act has been amended several times and those areas covered have been expanded

significantly to further discourage coastal development by withholding federal assistance.


09/15/09

37

CBRA does exempt certain federal expenditures or financial assistance from these prohibitions, including

emergency operations essential to saving lives, and maintaining and replacing existing publicly owned

infrastructure. The act does not prohibit development in these designated undeveloped areas of barrier

islands and aquatic habitats if owners are willing to development their properties without the benefit of

federal financial assistance. While its implementation has been mixed, most designated areas have

remained undeveloped according to a 2007 report of the Government Accountability Office.142

This

federal legislation provides an extra policy tool for local governments to use as an incentive to encourage

property owners to pursue ecosystem conservation and related measures, including the transfer of

development rights, to keep such lands undeveloped (discussed under the next topic).

It should be noted before moving on to state legislation that numerous other federal laws outside the

scope of this assessment also have mandates related to coastal resource management that are implemented

through state programs and will be impacted by sea level rise although their mandates are not so directed.

These include federal legislation related to protecting endangered species (e.g., endangered sea turtles that

nest in Southwest Florida beaches and dunes), critical habitats for endangered species, wetlands, and

water pollution control.

State policies. Florida implements this Act through its „Coastal Program‟, initially approved in 1981, and

updated periodically. Implementation is led by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

working in partnership with seven other state agencies and five water management districts. Elements of

the program are enforced by 23 separate statutes. The two main statutes are the Beach and Shore

Preservation Act (Ch. 161), and the Coastal Management Law (Ch. 163.3178) within the Local

Government Comprehensive Planning Act discussed above.

Neither of these state statutes contains an explicit requirement to integrate sea level rise into local level

implementation. However, both contain provisions within which sea level responses and adaptive

policies can begin to be developed by local governments within the context of coastal zone management.

Taken together, they give significant authority to local coastal governments to manage coastal

development and protect coastal ecosystems for strengthened resiliency in the face of increasing sea

levels and storm surge. Florida‟s Beach and Shore Preservation Act. This state law aims to ensure protection of the state‟s

beaches and dunes by providing policy tools for local governments to control coastal construction and

beach erosion. Local responsibility for carrying out its provisions is delegated to county governments

(§161.25). Comprehensive beach and shore preservation programs may be developed for this purpose.

The act also authorizes boards of county commissioners to use all available county funds, levy special

benefits taxes, and issue special bonds to obtain funds to meet the costs of their beach and shore

preservation program, including, “costs of studies, surveys, planning, engineering, coordination,

negotiation, acquisition of lands, construction of works and facilities, operation and maintenance, and

other activities incidental to acquisition and construction to the extent considered proper and desirable by

the board of county commissioners” (§161.26).

As with other Florida laws related to coastal planning and development, the Beach and Shore Preservation

Act includes controls that will need to be applied taking into account sea level rise in the coming decades.

These include a coastal construction control line (CCCL) (calculated by the 100-year storm) where

construction seaward may be subject to additional regulations, a coastal setback line (the 30-year erosion

projection line) which prohibits major habitable structures seaward of the line, and a coastal building zone

(an area extending 1,500 feet landward of the mean high water mark) where new construction is required

to meet established wind and flood standards enforced through local government building codes. Beach

erosion control measures also are covered seaward of the coast‟s mean high water line. A permit is

required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for any activity by any public or


09/15/09

38

private entity related to coastal construction or any other physical change in this zone, including building

or changing seawalls and beach nourishment (§161.041(1).

These policy tools, in application, have had mixed results. Recent studies have found that exceptions and

variances to these standards are frequent and that these mechanisms, now some 20 years old, are

insufficient to adequately control coastal development and protect beaches, dunes, critical wildlife habitat,

and sensitive tidal waters, particularly in the fact of future sea level rise.143

For example, there is no

requirement for periodic recalibration of the coastal construction control, setback, or coastal building lines

as coastlines change. At the same time, the policies do provide that counties may implement more

restrictive standards. As the current framework for regulating coastal construction, the Beach and Shore

Protection Act provides the means for local governments to begin to phase in adaptive measures for sea

level rise, particularly as properties are reconstructed, areas are redeveloped after disasters, and private

ownership changes hands in the years and decades ahead.

Florida Coastal Management Act. The second major Florida Statute noted above, the Coastal

Management Act within the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulation Act, also places considerable authority and responsibility upon to local governments for

coastal resource management. Among the Act‟s objectives relevant for triggering sea level rise adaptive

responses are the following:

“maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone

environment, including its amenities and aesthetic values, …

continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life, … [and]

avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources (§163.3177(6)(g)

1a,1b,1d).

The Coastal Management Act also calls upon local governments to use their comprehensive plans to

“restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources.”

(§161.3178). Further, it spells out specific coastal management elements each local Comprehensive Plan

shall contain, including a detailed inventory of coastal uses, analysis of impacts from proposed future land

use plans; impacts from point source and non-point source pollution; redevelopment of coastal areas

where needed; and local regulatory and management techniques that will be used to protect the coastal

environment by mitigating threats to human life and controlling proposed development and

redevelopment (§161.3178(2)).

While few counties in Florida currently explicitly address sea level rise in their comprehensive plans or

associated regulations, recent studies done by the Tampa Bay and Southwest Regional Planning Councils

found that all counties in their regions have coastal management elements in their comprehensive plans

with goals, objectives and policies possible to apply to sea level rise issues.144

Importantly, for sea level rise preparedness, the Act also calls for designation of coastal high-hazard areas

defined as areas in the Category 1 storm surge zone as established by hurricane storm surge models

managed by NOAA and used by the National Hurricane Center. With anticipated sea level rise, these

coastal high-hazard areas are likely to be the most vulnerable zones and a priority for risk-management as

part of sea level rise adaptation strategies, including for public facilities and infrastructure investments, as

discussed later.


09/15/09

39

4.2.2 Coastal policy in Sarasota County

Sarasota County has some 35 miles of gulf shoreline, 31 miles of which are barrier islands. Of this, 33

miles are beach and 22 miles of that, mostly on barrier islands, are under active management as critically

eroded, according to Florida‟s Department of Environmental Protection.145

„Critically eroded‟ is defined

as a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to

erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational

interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Scientists agree, as

discussed in Part 1, that sea level rise and the associated increased storm surge will exacerbate this

problem.

Most of the County‟s existing shoreline already is developed. Its attractive beaches and waterfront are

prime areas for residential real estate and generate significant revenues from property taxes. Sarasota‟s

beaches also bring millions of dollars to the regional economy through tourism. This includes significant

income through the tourism development tax, some 50% of which is allocated back to beach maintenance

and nourishment, and to beach park facilities, in recognition of the importance of continuing to maintain

these amenities for tourism.146

Sarasota County‟s ocean and estuary shores, tidal waters, wetlands, and near-shore marine areas provide

critical habitat for many species, including endangered and threatened marine turtles, birds and mammals,

and serve as buffers providing storm protection for upland property and public infrastructure. Those

systems will be stressed by climate change associated sea level rise, increases in water temperatures,

altered timing of seasonal changes, increases in air temperatures, and changes in precipitation. The

potential impacts from sea level rise alone are significant, as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Overview of Potential Sea Level Rise Impacts on Estuarine Systems

Vulnerable Area Potential Impact on Estuarine Systems Ocean shores and

estuary shores

Wetlands

Estuarine open

water

Species

Coastal change (e.g., erosion, landward migration, barrier island disintegration,

Change in coastal water quality – saltwater intrusion, rising water tables

Migration of salinity

Inundation and erosion of coastal marches, beaches, mudflats, and other

wetlands (leading to loss of habitat for many species)

Altered tidal range and tidal asymmetry (leading to tidal mixing and changes in

sediment transport)

Increased salinity

Increased water depths

Inundation and/or migration inland of marsh species (including vegetation,

birds, invertebrates, and fish nurseries)

Altered structural diversity of foundation species (e.g., intertidal marsh plants)

Habitat changes which could impact a variety of species within marsh and

wetland ecosystems

Less sunlight available to submerged aquatic vegetation. (Adapted from U.S. EPA 2009, “Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas”, Table 1, p. 2)


09/15/09

40

Sarasota County through its Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances has many policy tools for

sustainably managing beaches, shorelines, and estuaries, the most vulnerable areas for sea level rise.

Highlighted here are changes in the County‟s 2007 Comprehensive Plan incorporating sea level rise

concerns in management policies for barrier islands and barrier island passes.

Pursuant to the state Beach and Shoreline Preservation Act, the County‟s Coastal Setback Code is the

local ordinance applying the state-mandated coastal construction control line and setback line to the

County‟s unincorporated coastal areas. It establishes a Gulf Beach Setback Line (GBSL) and a Barrier

Island Pass Twenty-Year Hazard Line (PHL) to control coastal construction and excavation seaward of

these lines for the purpose of protecting public health and safety from extreme storm events, ensure public

access to the beaches, maintain and manage beaches, beachfront dunes, shoreline stability. The ordinance

is the implementing tool for the coastal management element of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan.147

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan‟s coastal management component (Chapter 2) introduced sea level rise

concerns in the context of the County‟s barrier islands and other beaches and continued shoreline

hardening (e.g., seawalls). Noting the IPCC projection of global average sea level rise of about 2 feet by

2100, the component discusses likely coastal impacts from sea level rise and the need for planning

choices in that context:

“…These changes may create or destroy coastal wetlands and salt marshes, inundate coastal

sediments, and induce saltwater intrusion into aquifers, leading to salinization of groundwater.

Further inland intrusion of saltwater along our shorelines will affect the health, composition, and

aerial coverage of our coastal ecosystems and habitats.

“Changing sea level will also have effects on coastal construction. Scientists estimate that 70 percent

of the world‟s sandy beaches are affected by coastal erosion induced by relative sea level rise. How

our community responds to these changes may very well determine whether we will have beaches or

hardened shorelines in their stead.”148

(emphasis added)

The coastal component characterizes the beaches and dune systems as specific habitats continually

adjusting to natural changes (including sea level rise, storm waves and currents) and human-induced

changes (e.g., shoreline hardening, channel dredging and beach vegetation removal). It calls for historic

and predicted sea level rise and projected shoreline changes to be considered in the development of bay-

wide management plans and in the adoption of management guidelines.149

In that context, the Plan requires development by 2009 of a Beach and Inlet Management strategy

incorporating “the long-term effects of sea level rise within the management policies” in furtherance of

Environment Goal 1 to “protect, maintain and, where deemed necessary in the public interest, restoring

the Barrier Island, beach, and estuarine systems of Sarasota County.”150

[emphasis added]

The Plan also calls for regulatory action to tighten restrictions on the construction of seawalls, setting out

a policy that prohibits further hardening of Gulf beaches or passes unless found to be in the public

interest.151

This policy was enacted in response to a new, more precise GIS-based inventory of shoreline

hardening undertaken in 2005 (as part of the state required coastal inventory update).

The GIS-based inventory found that almost 7 miles (about 20%) of the County‟s beaches were bounded

by a shore protection structure on the landward side. The finding raised concerns about more beach

erosion and loss explicitly in the context of increasing sea levels and storm surge. As reviewed in Part 1

of this assessment, there is scientific consensus that impacts from sea level rise are amplified where

landward migration of beaches, wetlands, and other key natural systems is impeded by development

structures, including shoreline hardening.152


09/15/09

41

Sarasota County also has a strong public interest in protecting its shorelines, beaches, and tidal areas as

critical habitat for endangered species. For instance, Sarasota County beaches have the highest density of

endangered and threatened sea turtles nesting on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Its policy commitment to

manage and restore beaches as critical habitat for these species is laid out in the County‟s Marine Turtle

Protection Code, and implements the federal Endangered Species Act and Florida‟s Marine Turtle

Protection Act.153

In compliance with the Plan‟s new policy restricting additional seawalls in the county‟s unincorporated

areas, the County Coastal Setback Code was amended in 2008 to prohibit further hardening of Gulf

beaches or passes unless found by the Board of County Commissioners to be in the public interest. The

tests for this finding are rigorous including a determination by the County that all other less structural

alternatives are not feasible, these other alternatives including, for example, beach nourishment, moving

the residence landward, or elevation of the upland structure.154

This new policy restricts future shoreline hardening on the County‟s barrier islands and other beaches. As

such, it represents an important adaptation tool for addressing long-range climate-associated sea level rise

impacts in coastal areas. It is one of several adaptation options available to local governments for

maintaining or restoring coastal beaches and shorelines in the face of future sea level rise. Table 2 below

gives a synopsis of these adaptation options, many of which are touched on in some fashion in this

assessment. A local government adaptation strategy for sea level rise may wish to have most of these

options in its „policy toolkit‟ to be flexibly employ singly or in combination, as needed and as

opportunities arise.

Table 2: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Options for Maintaining/Restoring Beaches,

Shorelines, and Estuaries Adaptation

Options

Additional

Management

Goals Addressed

Benefits Constraints Examples

Allow coastal

wetlands to

migrate inland

(e.g., through

setbacks, density

restrictions, land

purchases)

Preserve habitat for

vulnerable species;

preserve coastal

land/development

Maintains

species habitats;

maintains

protection for

inland

ecosystems

In highly developed

areas, there is often no

land available for

wetlands to migrate or

it can be costly to

landowners

Buzzards Bay,

Massachusetts

Promote beach

nourishment; build

up base of

wetlands by

adding sediment

Maintain sediment

transport

Protects coastal

land from storms

Requires continual

management, e.g.,

with beach

nourishment, wetland

sediment maintenance;

can be very costly

Beach nourishment:

Florida; Wetlands

accretion: Southern

Louisiana

Prohibit hard

shore protection


vulnerable species;

maintain sediment

transport

Allows for

species

migrations

inland

Alternatives to

bulkhead construction

may be more

expensive and more

difficult to permit

Numerous states and

local governments

have drastically

reduced permits for

hard protection

(e.g., Sarasota

County, Florida;

North Carolina;

King County,

Washington


09/15/09

42

Remove hard

protection or other

barriers to tidal

and riverine flow

(e.g., riverine and

tidal dike

removals)

Maintain sediment

transport; maintain

shorelines

May allow for

beach and

wetland

migration

Costly and destructive

to shoreline property

King County,

Washington

Incorporate beach

and wetland

protection into

infrastructure

planning (e.g.,

transportation

planning, sewer

utilities)

Maintain water

quality; preserve

habitat for

vulnerable species

Protects beaches

and estuaries and

important

infrastructure

Houston-Galveston

long range

transportation plan

Manage retreat

through a type of

easement placed

along the shoreline

to prevent

property owner

from holding back

the sea, but allow

other types of use

(sometimes called

a „rolling‟

easement)

Maintains water

quality; maintains

sediment transport

Lower long-term

costs; sediment

transport remains

undisturbed;

property owner

bears risks of sea

level rise

Does not prevent

migration of salinity

gradient

Worcester County,

Maryland; South

Carolina Coastal

Council; California

Coastal

Commission; Texas

(Adapted from U. S. EPA, 2009. “Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas”, Table 2, pp. 6-7)

Balancing public and private interests along developed coastlines. There are challenges to local

governments with many of these adaptation options, particularly where coastlines already are highly

developed for residential use. In the near-term, government decisions concerning specific adaptation

options along vulnerable coastlines will involve balancing present-day coastal property owners‟ interests

in protecting their residential use with the long-range interests of the public in protecting beaches and

shorelines for their ecosystem and economic services.

In 1995, the Florida legislature enacted a statute aimed at clarifying constitutional protections and the

considerable case law already existing at Federal and state levels concerning when decisions by

government may result in a „taking‟ of private property for public use, thus requiring compensation.

Commonly known as the Bert-Harris Act, that legislation provides for compensation where government

action places „inordinate burden‟ on an „existing use‟ or „vested right‟.155

These tests are themselves

intensely fact-specific and must be applied on a case-by-case basis. There has been limited court action

to-date, possibly for this reason. While there is little data available, it may be that where a potential Bert-

Harris issue has arisen, there has been preference for administrative settlements rather than litigation. The

Bert-Harris Act is applicable to new legislation or new ordinances enacted after 1995 and many of the

policy tools currently available to local governments for coastal management were enacted earlier.

Over the long-term, property rights are not protected from market forces, and the market may play an

increasing role in shifting interests and behavior concerning coastal development. In the coming decades,

developed coastal areas will likely become increasingly threatened by rising seas, with impacts

progressively more severe and costly when coupled with tropical storms and other extreme weather

events. Insurance rates and market values are very likely to be affected. Adaptation options to make


09/15/09

43

coastal areas more resilient to sea level rise and storm surge, such as those noted in Table 2, may become

increasingly attractive to vulnerable coastal communities particularly when coupled with incentives.

Successful transition to more resilient patterns of private property use along shorelines will require

providing better information to current and prospective property owners about anticipated localized sea

level rise impacts and associated storm surge and flooding. In addition, a variety of incentives (used

alone and in combination) will be important for local governments to develop to promote property owner

participation in adaptive measures for sea level rise. Incentive measures may include some of the policy

tools noted below, further developed and targeted to be most effective to the needs of the time, including

incentives related to conservation, transfer of development rights, and post-disaster redevelopment. 4.3 Ecosystem Conservation

The discussion so far has focused on a few examples of local policy tools available for sea level rise

adaptation that are implemented mainly through land development regulations, ordinances, rules, and

guidelines. These tools integrate conservation into development, but are not solely directly to

conservation.

Another set of important local policy tools available for sea level rise adaptation has conservation as the

primary goal. These are voluntary and incentive-based programs, in contrast to the regulatory-based

programs above. They involve public acquisition of land or development rights where there are willing

sellers in order to reduce development pressures and allow coastal migration of beaches and estuaries

inland. State law recognizes this option as an important component of local comprehensive planning as

follows:

“Each county shall establish a county-based process for identifying and prioritizing coastal properties

so they may be acquired as part of the state's land acquisition programs. This process must include the

establishment of criteria for prioritizing coastal acquisitions which, in addition to recognizing pristine

coastal properties and coastal properties of significant or important environmental sensitivity,

recognize hazard mitigation, beach access, beach management, urban recreation, and other policies

necessary for effective coastal management.” (§163.3178(8)

Applied to sea level rise adaptation, the strategic use of this tool to acquire highly vulnerable lands can

significantly enhance overall resiliency of natural and human systems for the climate change impacts to

come. The 2008 report of the Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team gave this option

prominence as part of its recommended state Adaptation Planning Framework. Good management

objectives, according to the Action Team, should include „[p]urchasing private coastal lands that have

been strategically targeted to provide buffers for retreating shorelines, to preserve and protect habitats and

ecosystem functions, and to increase the resiliency of the shoreline to recover from storm events.”156

In Sarasota County, where development pressures have been strong, conservation will be an increasingly

important tool for the remaining natural coastal areas. The 2008 Native Habitat Mapping and Risk

Assessment study, commissioned by Sarasota County for its Comprehensive Plan, found that from 1995

to 2007 the county‟s unincorporated natural areas decreased by about 12% due mainly to urban

development.157

Among the habitats hardest hit was „coastal hammock‟, a type of native habitat landward

of beaches and dunes on elevated areas that formerly were dunes, or on floodplain sand deposits with

vegetation or forests tolerant of heavy salt and wind.158

The majority of this habitat, which was reduced

by almost 20% during the study period, is along the central ridge of barrier islands and along shorelines of

tidal streams, and supports vegetation that helps keep erosion down and serves as a natural buffer against

storms.


09/15/09

44

Working with current regional data and growth projections, the Native Habitat study also found that by

2060, urban areas in the region area expected to expand to about 40% of the total regional acreage (from

its current 15%) and comprise the third largest percentage of urban land use of any region in the State.159

In light of these projections, without special measures to protect remaining native habitat, the study

concluded that natural systems and wildlife corridors in Southwest Florida will be fragmented, if not

replaced, by urban development.

Three existing policies are sampled here for their potential to expand land and resource conservation as a

long-range adaptation option in the face of increasing sea levels and storm surge. These are: l) the state-

run Florida Forever Program, 2) county-led environmentally sensitive lands programs, and 2) transfer of

development rights mechanisms.

4.3.1 Florida Forever Program

In 2001, the Florida legislature established the Florida Forever Program to support acquisition of lands for

conservation throughout the state. Today, the Program is considered the largest of its kind in the U.S.,

directing billions of dollars to the purchase of land and development rights.160

Since its inception, the

program has protected thousands of acres important as species habitats, ecological greenways, natural

floodplains, fragile coastlines, functional wetlands, and groundwater recharge. It is not the only public

land acquisition program in Florida, but one of the most prominent.

Notably for this assessment, Florida Forever is one of the few state programs that explicitly incorporate

climate change and sea level rise. In 2008, the Florida legislature added a provision recognizing sea level

rise adaptation as a valuable purpose for bringing lands into the program, and requiring staff to include a

climate-change category in the annual Florida Forever work plan:

“A climate-change category list of lands where acquisition or other conservation measures will

address the challenges of global climate change, such as through protection, restoration, mitigation,

and strengthening of Florida‟s land, water, and coastal resources. This category includes lands that

provide opportunities to sequester carbon, provide habitat, protect coastal lands or barrier islands, and

otherwise mitigate and help adapt to the effects of sea-level rise and meet other objectives of the

program.” (emphasis added) (§259.105(17)(d)).

The program‟s main goals, as stated in the Florida Forever Act, include to protect, maintain, restore and

enhance essential natural resources, ecosystem services, corridors for wildlife, biodiversity, wetland

systems, and water supplies for current and future needs of natural systems and citizens (§259.105(4)).

The legislation promotes innovative strategies in addition to direct purchase such as public-private

partnership agreements with lease-back options, rural land stewardship designations, and the purchase of

conservation easements where title remain with the property owner (§259.105(1)12(b)).

The Program receives state funding annually which is distributed by the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection to other state agencies according to set percentages for acquisition of lands and

development rights to be held in trust for the citizens of Florida.161

Importantly for local conservation,

21% of Florida Forever funds are directed to the Florida Department of Community Affairs to make

grants to local governments or nonprofit environmental organizations for the acquisition of urban open

spaces, parks, and greenways to implement local government comprehensive plans (§259.105(3)(c)). A

75% local match is required which can be flexibly met using federal grants or loans, private donations,

and environmental mitigation funds as part or all of the match.

In addition, water resource management is given high priority in the program. The Act specifies that 30%

of the funds shall go to acquisition of lands and capital project expenditures needed to implement water


09/15/09

45

management district priority lists. In this region, the Southwest Florida Water Management District

(SWFWMD) develops plans for acquisition, conservation, and restoration of key ecosystems for water

management to ensure their protection, recovery and proper functioning. SWFWMD already has begun

efforts to incorporate climate-related sea level rise and storm surge in its planning as a member of the

Adaptation Task Force of the Florida Energy and Climate Change Action team. It‟s revised 2008

Strategic Plan and updated Regional Water Supply Plan will incorporate climate change concepts and

discussion of impacts on the water supply component of its activities.162

Sea level rise impacts are

expected to add new stresses to existing water supply systems, including salt water intrusion, that

underscore the need to ensure protection of critical watershed areas, including natural recharge areas.

4.3.2 Environmentally-Sensitive Lands Protection Programs

Since the late 1980s, a bottom-up initiative started by county governments has involved purchase and

preservation of endangered and environmentally significant lands. Given various formal names, these

programs are incentive-based, funded by a small ad valorem tax approved by voters. With this authority,

counties raise funds to purchase lands or acquire conservation easements or other arrangements with

willing property owners based on agreed conservation criteria.

Sarasota County, among several in the state, has an Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program

(ESLPP). The program was created in 1999 after passage of a voter referendum authorizing a local ¼

mill ad valorem tax and an original $53 million bond limit. By 2005, the program was approaching this

bond limit after acquiring about 14,500 acres. In November 2005, a second referendum passed by 80%,

extending and expanding the program with a $250 million bond limit and adding a new category called

Neighborhood Parklands. That referendum extended the ad valorem tax another 10 years and set a 60%-

40% split for ESLPP-Neighborhood Parklands.

The County currently partners with the Sarasota Conservation Foundation, a non-profit organization, who

assists with negotiations and the overall acquisition process. A 9-member committee of community

representatives oversees the purchases to ensure properties meet the criteria and are used for the good of

the public. The County applies about 90% of the funds raised to acquire qualified properties or

development rights, and 10% for current and future management costs.

Properties nominated for the Sarasota County program must meet one or more of the following qualifying

criteria: l) contain rare species or other special features, 2) adjacent to public lands or waterways, 3) of

high ecological quality, 4) maintain water quality in either a natural stream system, recharge area or

estuary, or 5) have long-term viability for maintaining habitat functions.

The Sarasota County program also promotes less-then-fee-simple conservation initiatives, normally

through conservation easements. [See Box 11 on conservation easements] In recent years,

conservation easements have become an area of growth, both in the formal program and through different

forms of private conservation initiatives showing strong community support for land protection.

Box 11: What is a Conservation Easement?

A conservation easement is an encumbrance which creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement

between a landowner and a government agency or a qualifying land protection organization (often called a „land

trust‟) for the purposes of conservation. Sometimes this agreement includes a transfer of use rights, which is why it

is called an „easement‟. The agreement restricts whatever activities on the property that are mutually agreed in order

to promote specified conservation goals. The property remains private property of the landowner.


09/15/09

46

Once agreed, the conservation easement „runs with the land‟, is recorded in local land records and becomes part of

the chain of title for the property. Technical assistance with management of the property, and other incentives, may

be provided by the county as an additional benefit to the owner so long as they are consistent with the conservation

goals and duties set out in the agreement.

Florida law recognizes the conservation easement and provides for its creation, acquisition, and enforcement (F.S.

§704.06).

Under the ESLPP, Sarasota County has protected 62 parcels totally 27,465 acres since the 1999

referendum. It is among the top four counties in the state for acreage protected without federal funds. In

addition, it has protected 8 neighborhood parklands parcels totally 32 acres since the 2005 referendum.

This is an important new component of the program for promoting local benefits and use since these

parcels are typically in urban areas and easily accessible to community residents. In addition, the county

has promoted and encouraged private conservation easements. As of August, 2009, distribution of

acreage in these various forms was as follows:163

ESLPP Acreage: 27,465 acres

(Fee simple acquisition 14,281 acres )

(Conservation easements 13,184 acres)

Neighborhood Parklands 32 acres

Private Conservation Easements (various forms): 956 acres

Total Public and Private acreage protected: 28,453 acres

In 2008, Florida voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution authorizing a state tax

exemption for real property dedicated in perpetuity for conservation purposes, including through

perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections.164

This provides an

additional incentive tool for local governments to promoting conservation easements on environmentally

sensitive lands, in addition to the federal income tax deductions and reductions of estate tax for qualifying

conservation easements that already exist.

To date, these state and county incentive-based land conservation programs have not actively pursued

acquisition of coastal properties vulnerable to sea level rise. As communities in Southwest Florida face

the growing challenges of rising seas and storm surge, the conservation option for vulnerable coastal

properties may become increasingly attractive as a voluntary option for property owners either through

fee simple acquisition and less-then-fee simple conservation agreements.

4.3.3 Transferable development rights

Finally, another local policy tool available to facilitate either of the above incentive-based conservation

programs is the offering of transferable development rights to coastal property owners. This is a concept

that has been available through zoning ordinances in most Florida counties since the 1980s. But it has

been rarely used in this region which suggests it may need more fine-tuning and development to be an

attractive option for property owners while still protecting the public interest. In the coming years and

decades, as sea level rise coupled with storm surge negatively impacts more coastal properties, this may

be a tool worth more study and attention.

Within the latest Comprehensive Plan, Sarasota County made efforts to revitalize the concept through its

future land use chapter and supplemental „Sarasota 2050‟ plan. As noted earlier, Sarasota 2050 creates a

Resource Management Area system of different land use overlays to the Comprehensive Plan. One of

these overlays is the Greenway Resource Management Area, the purpose of which is to designate a


09/15/09

47

network of riverine systems, floodplains, native habitats, storm surge areas and uplands as priority

resources to protect in perpetuity.165

To convert such lands to conservation when in private ownership, the Plan‟s future land use chapter and

Sarasota 2050 promote a Transfer of Development Rights Program as an added incentive for property

owners. The general concept is to give landowners the ability to transfer their development rights over

ecologically valuable or sensitive lands to other areas that are suited for more intense forms of

development. Since development rights are the focus, arrangements are possible where the property

owner could keep title to the coastal lands subject to a conservation easement, while gaining development

rights to a property inland.

The program is explicitly recognized as a mechanism to promote resettlement from high-risk coastal areas

(e.g., barrier islands) to inland areas that are less vulnerable. For example, the Plan‟s Future Land Use

Policy 1.1.4 states:

“In the event that natural forces render a property located in the coastal high hazard area unbuildable,

or reduce the development potential of a property as allowed by the prior acreage and the underlying

zone district, utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights concept will be encouraged.

Development Rights, in such cases, shall be determined based upon pre-disaster conditions.”166

The Comprehensive Plan also suggests some of the areas that could benefit from further attention to

improve the effectiveness of this program. These include density and land use compatibility restrictions

and other stipulations on development in the receiving areas that have traditionally made such programs

less attractive to potential users.167

4.4 Public Facilities and Infrastructure

The built environment also needs priority attention for sea level rise preparedness and adaptation by all

levels and sectors in this region. As noted in Part 1, Florida‟s coastal economy contributed 78% of the

Florida‟s total gross domestic project in 2006. More than three-quarters of the state‟s population is living

in coastal counties of Florida. As of 2006 this was 13.7 million persons. Quality of life and growth in a

community is strongly influenced by the location, extent, and quality of the public facilities (e.g., public

buildings, services, schools), public infrastructure, and other built investments. As defined by the Florida

Energy and Climate Change Action Team, the built environment broadly speaking is “the aggregate of all

buildings, facilities, and structures designed and built to provide shelter or to house the full breadth of

human activity, as well as the infrastructure designed and built to support or protect such human

activity”.168

Local governments have a leading role in development and growth of the build environment in many

ways. These include decision-making about location, design, and maintenance of public infrastructure --

highways, water supply and sewerage systems, wastewater management, and stormwater drainage

systems.

To date in Florida, sea level rise adaptive response considerations have been largely absent in public

facilities and infrastructure planning by local and regional governments according to a 2007 Florida State

University study by its Department of Urban and Regional Planning.169

That study focused on three

aspects of local infrastructure planning: l) water supply systems that draw from aquifers or surface waters

close to the coast, 2) centralized wastewater management systems located in low-lying areas near the

coast, including those with surface water discharges of treated wastewater, and 3) highways, bridges, and

causeways in coastal areas.


09/15/09

48

Through interviews with local and regional planners from 20 coastal cities and counties most vulnerable

to sea level rise and literature surveys, the study found that sea level rise was not explicitly addressed in

most of the long-range planning processes, nor was it perceived by comprehensive planners to be a major

threat in most cases. Local infrastructure planners (e.g., transportation, water related services) seemed

more convinced of the importance of accounting for sea level rise in their long-range plans but many were

unsure whether this was feasible at the local level. General concerns included questions about how to

deal with such long time frames (e.g., to 2100), lack of adequate scientific information, the need for more

state policy direction, and insufficient money and other resources.170

The findings of this study seem relatively parallel, though more specific, to those of an earlier baseline

study done by Mote Marine Laboratory in 1990.171

That study, sponsored by the Governor‟s Coastal

Resource Management Citizen Advisory Committee and performed by Mote with the assistance of the

Coastal Management Office of the then Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, also surveyed

local governments of Florida‟s coastal counties and cities asking, among other things, whether the local

Comprehensive Plan addressed sea level rise in any if its elements. The survey found that, as of 1990,

there was relatively little reference to the issue of sea level rise in comprehensive plans, at least of the

kind requiring local commitments for policies or programs.172

Without a mandate, priorites reflected in

the plans had to be addressed first. While many local governments indicated they were monitoring the

issue, especially through popular sources of information, a significant number had not yet made extensive

use of technical sources of information.

The FSU study confirmed that, while there still are no explicit requirements for addressing sea level rise

in infrastructure planning, many existing provisions particularly within the state comprehensive planning

legislation give broad powers and discretion to local governments to do so. As with the 1990 study, the

FSU study also identified the need to provide up-to-date information on sea level rise to local

governments.

Importantly, this work provided insights on current barriers to sea level rise integration – apart from the

lack of a policy mandate. The study found one of the fundamental challenges to be that most local

planners adhere to the two minimum planning requirements of the state legislation (5-year and 10-year

periods). Regional water supply planning and major transportation projects generally are on a 20-year

timeline. Neither of these ranges is sufficiently long-range to properly develop and implement

appropriate adaptive responses to resident sea level rise for public infrastructure with a service life of 50

to 100 years.

In the context of long-life infrastructure, The FSU study underscored the IPCC finding that the “long

timescales of sea-level rise suggest that coastal management, including spatial planning, needs to take a

long-term view on adaptation to sea level rise and climate change….”.173

The U.S. Climate Change

Science Program has made similar observations. In a 2009 report on sea level rise along the Mid-

Atlantic, the Program identifying short-term thinking as a major barrier for coastal institutions to address

sea level rise.174

In light of such global and national findings, the FSU study recommended for adaptive response planning

the use of a 75 to 100 year range for planning the location and design of new infrastructure.175

It also

suggested that use of only historical data for infrastructure design was no longer adequate for long-life

structures since sea level rise rates may accelerate due to increased polar ice melt in the coming decades.

Florida‟s coastal program, as with most coastal programs in the U.S., was designed in the 1980s when sea

level rise was not an issue and sea levels were considered stable. Historical data of winds and storm surge

(e.g., the 100-year storm) were the main inputs for long-range planning, and this is no longer sufficient.


09/15/09

49

The FSU study also recommended that planners supplement historical data for 50-year and 100-year

planning horizons by developing a few (2-4) Florida-specific scenarios and probabilities for future sea

level rise projections using the most recent IPCC and U.S. climate change data and assessments.176

The 2008 report of the Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team reached similar conclusions. As

part of an Adaptation Planning Framework for Florida, the Team recommended that the “practice of

adapting the built environment to the impact of climate change [be made] an integral component of

comprehensive planning” and that potential future impacts of climate change be included in design

requirements for buildings and structures in order to go beyond the historic data and take into account

these new risks for achieving a minimum service life of 75-100 years.177

Taking a decision along these lines, the Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force in its 2008

report to the Miami-Dade County Commissioners recommended that all county agencies involved with

infrastructure or built investments incorporate into their planning processes an assessment of climate

change impacts including sea level rise using a 50-year planning horizon. [See Box 12: on Miami-Dade

Climate Change Advisory Task Force recommendations]

Box12: Miami-Dade County Climate Change Advisory Task Force –

An Action Agenda for Adaptation

In July 2006, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance establishing the

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. The Task Force was charged with identifying potential

future climate change impacts to Miami-Dade County and providing ongoing recommendations to the

Commissioners on mitigation and adaptation measures to respond to climate change. Comprised of twenty-

five appointed members representing diverse sectors and experts, the Task Force established six committees:

science; greenhouse gas reduction; build environment adaptation; natural systems adaptation; economic,

social, and health adaptation, intergovernmental affairs.

The Task Force Science Committee first prepared a „Statement on Sea Level in the Coming Century‟

submitted a background piece in recognition that the “biggest concern for South Florida … is the threat of sea

level rise.”178

Final recommendations were based on the very high likelihood that Miami-Dade County would

experience at least a further 3-5 feet of sea level rise during this century with an accelerated rate of rise into

the following century, with spring high tides from +6 to +8 feet.179

The recommendations, accepted by the County Board in April 2008, covered some 35 specific actions with

both mitigation and adaptation. Two-thirds focused on proactive adaptation for the built and natural

environments to “take now to begin the process of making the County more resilient to the impacts that we

are likely to experience.”180

Key adaptation recommendations included using a 50-year planning horizon in

all county departments, expand the mission of the County‟s Office of Sustainability to serve as centralized

climate change focal point for adaptation, use County Charter authority to establish minimum criteria and

standards for climate change, including sea level rise, for public investment by all County municipalities, and

acquire as much remaining undeveloped land as possible to maximize over time the amount of open land

available for adaptation.181

In the years and decades to come, development and management of the built environment and public

facilities and infrastructure increasingly will face sea level rise and other climate challenges.

Incorporating sea level rise response measures into infrastructure planning along a 50-year or longer

planning horizon will be an important policy action going forward. Adaptation options available for

preserving coastal land and development, including infrastructure, involve many of the same policy tools

discussed above, used jointly or incrementally as feasible and appropriate. Drawing upon a 2009 USEPA

synthesis report of adaptation options for coastal areas, Table 3 below brings together some of these local


09/15/09

50

adaptation policy tools and options with which local governments can begin to address projected sea level

rise impacts on the built environment, including public infrastructure, in vulnerable coastal areas.

Table 3: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Options for Preserving Coastal Land/Development

(Including Infrastructure) Adaptation

Option

Additional

Management

Goals Addressed

Benefits Constraints Examples

Land exchange

programs –

owners exchange

property in the

floodplain for

county-owned

land outside the

floodplain (e.g.,

transfer of

develop. rights)


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches and

wetlands

Preserve open

spaces; more land

available to

protect beaches

and wetlands

Program is

voluntary; land

must be available

for development

elsewhere

Suffolk County,

New York

Integrate coastal

management into

land use planning


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches, wetlands

Requires more

state agency

oversight; allows

for conservation

and management

goals to be

incorporated

Cal be difficult to

have local and

state agencies

agree; private

property rights

Oregon, Chesapeake

Bay (Virginia),

Florida; North

Carolina.

Create permitting

rules that

constrain locations

for landfills,

hazardous waste

dumps, mine

tailings, and toxic

chemical facilities


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches and

wetlands; maintain

water quality

Zones accordingly

to protect

estuaries and

coastal zones

Can be difficult to

enact these zoning

regulations

Many states have

recognized the

impacts sea level

rise and flooding

will have on these

types of facilities,

but few have taken

action

Manage

realignhemt and

deliberately

realign

engineering

structures

affecting rivers,

estuaries, and

coastlines


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches and

wetlands; maintain

sediment transport

Reduces

engineering costs;

protects

ecosystems and

estimaries; allows

for natural

migration of

coastlines,

estuaries, rivers

Can be costly United

Kingdom/European

Union

Land acquisition

program –

purchase coastal

land that is

damaged or prone

to damage and use

it for conservation


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches and

wetlands

Can provide a

natural buffer to

inland areas;

prevents

development on

the land

Can be expensive;

land may not be

available

New Jersey Coastal

Blue Acres

Integrated Coastal

Zone Management

(ICZM) – using an

integrated

approach to

achieve


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches and

wetlands; maintain

water availability;

Considers all

stakeholders in

planning,

balancing

objectives;

addresses all

Stakeholders must

be willing to

compromise;

requires much

more efforts in

planning

European Union;

Australia


09/15/09

51

sustainability maintain water

quality; maintain

sediment transport;

maintain shorelines

aspects of climate

change

Incorporate

consideration of

climate change

impacts into

planning for new

infrastructure

(e.g., homes,

businesses)


vulnerable species;

maintain/restore

beaches,

shorelines,

wetlands

Engineering could

be modified to

account for

changes in

precipitation or

seasonal timing of

flows; siting

decisions could

take into account

sea level rise

Land owners will

likely resist

relocating away

from prime

coastal locations

Rhode Island State

Building Code

(Adapted from U.S. EPA. 2009. “Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas”, Table 4, p. 10-11)

4.5 Post-Disaster Redevelopment

Florida state law requires that coastal county and city comprehensive plans meet certain state

goals: l) protection of human life against the effects of natural disasters and 2) limitation of public

expenditures that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas (§163.3177(g)1g and h).

Achievement of these goals will be newly challenged by sea level rise in the coming decades.

In furtherance of these goals, state law requires coastal counties and municipalities to prepare

post-disaster redevelopment plans (PDRPs) as part of the coastal management element of their

comprehensive plans (§163.3178(2)(d)). These plans are to establish long-term policies regarding

redevelopment, infrastructure, densities, nonconforming uses, and future land use patterns. They are to be

single, stand-alone guides tailored to local features and sustainability goals to aid decision-making in

preparation for natural disasters and for long-term redevelopment after the disaster. Generally, the coastal

management element is to incorporate policies and objectives to become more disaster-resilient, to

identify pre-disaster measures that help communities prepare and mitigate before a disaster and post-

disaster activities for short-term recovery and long-term redevelopment to create conditions improved

over those that existed before the disaster.

All 203 coastal counties and municipalities are required to prepare a Post-Disaster

Redevelopment Plan. While most counties have indicated their intent to do so, resource and other

constraints have delayed their development in most counties.

4.5.1 Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan Pilot Project

In 2007, the Florida Department of Community Affairs working with the Division of Emergency

Management launched a three year initiative to jump-start local level post-disaster redevelopment

planning.182

The initiative will culminate in a Best Practices Guide for developing Post-Disaster

Redevelopment Plan. Federal funds from NOAA administered through the coastal management program

of FDEP and from FEMA provide support for the overall project and pilot projects in several

communities which will be principal inputs to the guide. A statewide focus group representing federal,

state, regional, and local organizations, as well as the academic and economic development communities

was created to support the overall project.

This focus group developed the following definition: “A Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan identifies

policies, operational strategies, and roles and responsibilities for implementation that will guide decisions

that affect long-term recovery and redevelopment of the community after a disaster. The plan emphasizes


09/15/09

52

seizing opportunities for hazard mitigation and community improvement consistent with the goals of the

local comprehensive plan and with full participation of the citizens. Recovery topics addressed in the plan

should include business resumption and economic redevelopment, housing repair and reconstruction,

infrastructure restoration and mitigation, short-term recovery actions that affect long-term redevelopment,

sustainable land use, environmental restoration, and financial considerations as well as other long-term

recovery issues identified by the community.”183

Sarasota County is one of the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan pilot communities. Other communities

involved are Hillsborough County, Manatee County, Nassau County, Panama City, and Polk County.

The Sarasota County project began in 2008 with formation of a stakeholders working group and

subgroups in economic development, environmental restoration, infrastructure, housing, and public

outreach. It has progressed to public workshops. The Penn State U. project on sea level rise scenarios for

Sarasota County, noted above, were introduced to the working group as an illustration of information

tools and planning techniques. The pilot initiative and the resulting Best Practice Guide provide an

important opportunity to explicitly incorporate sea level rise adaptation strategies and response measures

as part of the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan.

In addition, the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP) also brings together other important concepts

and programs also associated with sea level rise adaptation. These relate to giving special attention to

designated coastal high-hazard areas and maintaining accurate floodplain maps..

4.5.2 Coastal High Hazard Areas

State law requires coastal management elements of local government comprehensive plans to include

designation of „coastal high hazard areas‟ (CHHAs) and mitigation of negative impacts, including

providing evacuation routes for hurricanes, hurricane shelters and transportation facilities.

(§163.3178(2)(h)) The coastal high hazard area was redefined in 2001 to provide more standardization

statewide; it is now defined as the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane. This zone is determined

through a computerized storm surge model managed by NOAA called SLOSH (Sea, Lake, Overland

Surges from Hurricanes). State law also defines a „hurricane vulnerability zone‟ of coastal areas (also

referred to as areas subject to coastal flooding) as those areas requiring evacuation in the event of a 100-

year storm or Category 3 hurricane. Local governments were given until July 1, 2008, to “amend their

future land use map and coastal management element to include the new definition of coastal high-hazard

area and to depict the coastal high-hazard area on the future land use map” (§163.3178(9)(c)).

Sarasota County incorporated the new coastal high-hazard areas definition in its 2007 Comprehensive

Plan.184

The coastal high-hazard area also is recognized in the future land use policy (FLU Policy 1.1.3)

and future land use map (Figure 9-2). Residential development within this area destroyed by natural

forces is required to conform to certain provisions for redevelopment and is encouraged to use the

Transfer of Development Rights concept, as described earlier.

Developed and natural areas located in coastal high hazard areas will become increasingly vulnerable as

sea levels rise in the decades to come. New elevation data generated by the LIDAR project, noted earlier,

will be valuable technical information for updating maps showing coastal high-hazard areas. During

2009, the computerized model (SLOSH) managed by NOAA and used by the National Hurricane Center

to estimate storm surge heights and winds of hurricanes for categories 1 – 5 will be updated with this new

LIDAR elevation data to provide more accurate accounts of current high-risk areas. The updated SLOSH

model for the Tampa Bay Region (which includes Sarasota County) is expected to be released by the end

of 2009. This will be important input for ensuring the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan pilot project for

the County is working with the most current delineation of coastal high-hazard areas, as well as a the

other hurricane zones.


09/15/09

53

4.5.3 Floodplain management and mapping

Floods are a leading cause of natural disaster losses in Florida. Identifying high-risk coastal areas for

floods, especially those that are predictably and repeatedly damaged, is a significant issue for post-

disaster redevelopment planning. To manage flood risk and promote community actions to mitigate

losses as the result of a disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its National

Flood Insurance Program invest significant resources to identify local flood hazards and publish the data

on local flood maps.

Communities adopt these floodplain maps and supporting regulations for floodplain management and

development control in high-risk areas in order to be able to participate in the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP). Community participation in NFIP allows local residents to purchase federal flood

insurance. As explained by the National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 publication on mapping the

flood zone, FEMA‟s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS, or „flood maps‟) are used for setting flood

insurance rates, regulating floodplain development, and communicating the 1-percent-annual-chance

flood hazard (the 100-year flood) to those who live in floodplains.185

Coastal flood maps are generated using models that include land elevation data, the topography of the

coast, wave and erosion processes, and storm surge to predict coastal flood elevations. Traditionally, the

most common floodplains mapped have been those created by the 1-percent-annual chance flood which is

based on historical data.

Increasing sea levels and storm surges from climate change will pose new challenges for coastal

floodplain management and for maintaining accurate flood maps. The changing natural shoreline and

water surface elevations will create the need for continuous map maintenance and updates. In addition, it

will be important that future floodplain maps begin to factor in best available projections of sea level rise

because historical data (the 100-year flood) may not be sufficient for identifying high-risk flood zones in

the face of rising seas.

An important technical advance for updating and maintaining flood maps for sea level rise, disaster

preparation, and redevelopment planning is the move to digital map formatting through a multi-year

project funded by FEMA between 2003 and 2008. Led by FEMA and the Southwest Florida Water

Management District for this region, the map modernization project has generated the new elevation data

base using the LIDAR technology, noted above. The output of this data base is used in geographic

information systems to delineate the predicted floodplain area.

In Sarasota County and throughout the state, local flood zone areas are now being re-examined to develop

detailed, digital flood hazard or Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These digital maps, as explained on Sarasota

Government‟s web site, “will reflect current flood risks and areas of recent growth, replacing older paper

maps produced many years ago. Once adopted, everyone will have up-to-date, reliable, internet-

accessible information about their flood risk on a property-by-property basis.”186

It is anticipated that the

Sarasota county wide flood map including the cities of North Port, Sarasota, Venice and the Sarasota

County portion of the Town of Longboat will be digital in 2010. To the extent possible, the maps also

will identify the coastal construction control line described earlier.

These new maps will help policy-makers, planners and coastal managers more accurately identify the

most vulnerable areas for projected sea level rise (also the most high-risk flood zones) and generate plans

that can properly reflect areas where redevelopment would not be advised. They also will be a valuable

resource for residents, property owners, insurance companies, real estate agents, and the community-at-

large by building awareness about current flood risks in specific locations, a critical issue for sea level rise

preparedness, and where flood insurance should be encouraged.


09/15/09

54

5. KEY PRINCIPLES FOR ADAPTATION

The following are some key principles to keep in mind with local adaptation to sea level rise. These are

drawn from existing principles local governments already employ, and good practices emerging from

local adaptation experiences elsewhere. Such experiences are being recorded in a growing array of new

reports, surveys, and guidance materials nationally and internationally aimed at sharing ideas, generating

discussion, distilling lessons learned, and broadening the adaptation „tool kit‟ for local governments.187

[See Box 13 below for a sample of initiatives in other jurisdictions.]

Box 13: Emerging practice with sea level adaptation at local and state level

1. Sampling of local government leadership:

o Miami-Dade County: Climate Change Advisory Task Force recommends 35 specific actions, two-

thirds on adaptation (2008).

o King County, Washington (Seattle area): detailed adaptation plan and guide for local gov‟t. (2007)

o Boston, MA: new Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – built on higher ground and cost to

account for SLR (based on EPA-commissioned climate change study)

o New York City: identifying vulnerable infrastructure, neighborhoods, and protection strategies

(Columbia U. advisors).

2. Sampling of other state-level adaptation initiatives:

o North Carolina – State Coastal Resources Commission manages program; policy of gradual retreat;

no more seawalls

o Texas – migratory prescriptive easements required for beach private property („rolling‟ easements)

o New Jersey – Coastal Blue Acres acquisition, public land acquisition of storm-affected & storm-

prone coastal areas

o Gulf of Mexico Alliance – five-state long-term goal: encourage communities, businesses, and

individuals to adopt new methods for risk mitigation and resilience (Action Plan II)

o California, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington developing new climate change/SLR

adaptation plans or expanding old ones

o Rhode Island, Maine: SLR adaptation plans in place.

a) Plan early

Early planning for the impacts of sea level rise is likely to bring considerable advantages. Many decisions

made today will have consequences for decades. It is cheaper, for example, to protect an existing critical

ecosystem or habitat or design new housing or infrastructure to cope with a future rise or to than to

retrofit or restore later on. Many communities and natural systems are already stressed. Existing stresses

coupled with sea level rise will challenge the resiliency of many of these systems, as well as native

species, and their chances for successful adaptation. Early planning can help to minimize or avoid some

of the negative impacts and risks from sea level rise.

The periods from now to 2030, and then through to 2050, are the most relevant for early adaptation

planning beginning now. Replacement and restoration decisions for most of the assets within local

economies will be made within this time frame, together with design decisions on longer lived assets.

Some of the adaptations may take decades of gradual change. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council in its 2006 study of sea level rise in Tampa Bay undertaken in cooperation with the Southwest

Florida Regional Planning Council expressed it well:

“The sea is already rising and many shores are already eroding. It is important to keep in mind that

an effective response may require a lead-time of many decades. If we develop areas where wetland


09/15/09

55

migration is preferred in the long run, it might take a lead-time of 50-100 years to relocate the

development. Even in areas we decide to protect, shore protection measures can take decades to plan

and implement.” 188

b) Build on existing policy tools

Local governments have many policy tools already available (a few explored above) that can significantly

facilitate and support initial actions for sea level rise preparedness. While new policies likely also will

emerge with time as learning progresses, existing tools provide significant authority and responsibility for

action, are already well-integrated within normal operations and have existing processes and institutional

mechanisms. Mobilizing the existing framework provides a cost-effective, ready-made platform for

beginning to build a process and strategy for sea level rise adaptation. Early action also will provide

valuable experience and knowledge which local governments can use to advise and guide needed policy

strenthening at state and federal levels.

c) Be systematic and strategic in assessing and managing risk

As characterized by the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, climate change adaptation is essentially

is a risk-management strategy; it is not be a smooth or cost-free endeavor, nor is it foolproof.189

In the

context of sea level rise, there are uncertainties about the timing and magnitude of future rise and impacts.

Adapting to likely impacts will be more complicated and costly with more rapid rates of rise. Risk

management strategies include avoiding the risk, reducing the negative effect of the risk, distributing the

risk among different parties, and accepting some or all of the consequences of a particular risk.

A risk-management approach applied to sea level rise adaptation provides a framework for decision-

making that aims to minimize and disperse adaptation costs among stakeholders and over future years.

Using different timeframes and scenarios for protected sea level rise, risk management can provide a

systematic process for identifying vulnerabilities and weighing the costs and benefits of each option,

including the political feasibility. It is a flexible approach, allowing for phased actions and regular review

to make adjustments and minimize errors. Faulty decisions may lead to under-adaptation (sea level rise

factors are given insufficient weight in decision-making), over-adaptation (sea level rise factors are given

too much weight in decision-making), or mal-adaptation (decisions are taken that make an activity more

vulnerable to sea level rise).

Box 14 below gives a hypothetical example of how a risk management approach could be applied to sea

level rise adaptation with local storm water facilities.

Box14: Incremental decision-making for sea level rise adaptation – Subject: storm water facilities

1. Steps in process:

Identify threats to stormwater facilities using different timeframes and scenarios for sea level rise (e.g., low,

medium, high)

For each time line and scenario, determine the specific types of impacts likely

For each time line and scenario, identify actions with respect to the probable impacts and weigh potential

benefits against the real costs using a precautionary approach (see below)

For each time line and scenario, prioritize risk reduction measures


09/15/09

56

Possible timeframes:

Time Frame > Near Term

(25 yrs out)

Intermediate

(50 years out)

Long Term

(100 years out)

CHANGE low moderate high

RISK low low very high

POLICIES

ADOPTED NOW

employ current

practices

prepare reactive

practices

envision proactive

practices

2. Local Government orientation:

Understands that, at this time, sea level projections are increasingly uncertain at distant timelines, but that

there is high probability the time will come, within the long-range planning horizons already employed,

when sea level rise will cause unacceptable harm to its stormwater infrastructure.

Recognizes the need to start now to frame the types of preparations needed to prevent significant risk in 10

decades, and that such preparations cannot be precisely specified, but they can be accurately characterized.

Uses existing information to envision the basic geography, land-use, performance, financial, and other

dimensions of its stormwater systems in 10 decades.

Works back to the present from its 10-decade configuration to identify transitional policies and practices

needed in 25 and 50 years, types of changes to its current practices and reactionary practices that can

achieve ongoing stormwater management needs while reconfiguring the overall system to its 10-decade

goal.

Repeats this process in reviewing plans periodically.

(Adapted from contribution of Dr. Estevez, Center Director, Coastal Ecology, Mote Marine Laboratory)

d) Integrate across sectors and disciplines

To be strategic, adaptation planning cannot be done in isolation from other functions of government.

Adaptation is an on-going process that needs to be integrated into all affected sectors as well as regional

planning where appropriate. Initially, adaptation planning should be used to education planners of

potential impacts and planning implications. With time, integration of sea level rise considerations into

comprehensive plans and policies should become common place across all government departments as

well as within departmental plans.

Experience elsewhere also suggests that designating a centralized focal point/office within local

government to monitor and coordinate information and activities on sea level rise and related climate

changes is a useful step for integrated planning. Duties of such a focal point office could include

promoting collaboration among departments and projects, identifying gaps or areas of possible

duplication or overlap, linking data bases and monitoring for new scientific information, and identifying

possibilities for sharing costs, facilities, and expertise.

e) Better connect science to the community

Policy-makers, planners, and resource managers need reliable, current scientific information about local

sea level rise projections to plan constructive and cost-effective responses to the likely impacts. Severe

under-projections may prompt inadequate preparation for change while significant over-estimates may

exhaust and redirect resources inappropriately.

Ideally, scientific information should flow from scientists directly to policy makers and other decision-

makers who need it most. „Science-based‟ decision-making, or „decisions-informed-by science‟ is a

common place expectation. However, studies have shown that many management decisions continue to

be made without scientific input.190

Moreover, as found by the 2007 Florida State University survey of


09/15/09

57

local and regional planners in several coastal areas, local and regional planners and managers have little

spare time or resources to research and understand the latest scientific findings about sea level rise and

translate them for policy and community use.191

A large share of the responsibility for communicating climate change at the local level still falls to

scientists and technical experts. This is an area where communication strategies and approaches are

particularly important and scientists need help. While the climate science is essential, studies also have

found that effectively communicating science to policy-makers, planners, managers, and the public-at-

large requires an ongoing process of information translation and exchange, including other-than-scientific

viewpoints and needs, and the integration of climate change with non-climate change concerns.192

In

recent years, the production of scientific reports on climate change and sea level rise has reached almost

unmanageable levels (even for scientists) and research continues at an accelerating pace with more new

findings and publications. Adaptation planning for sea level rise requires translating and communicating

the science in a form that best fits the decision-making process and community involved. Translation can

help assure that the available scientific information is comprehensible to the community and also help

scientists understand the information needs of decision-makers, and how information should be presented

to be most useful for policy action.

f) Promote broad-based consultation and participation

The process of adaptation planning and implementation is just as important as the eventual plan or

strategy. Processes ensuring consultation with and participation of all interested and affected people are

fundamental to local government decision-making. Developing a successful adaptation plan for sea level

requires the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, technical and scientific experts, community

and business organizations, and „citizens-at-large‟. Much of the near-shore and vulnerable land to sea

level rise is in private hands making land owners a particularly critical group of stakeholders to be

involved in adaptation planning and risk management. Some options with sea level rise adaptation may

require significant tradeoffs and the most-affected stakeholders need to be active participants in such

deliberations.

To effectively participate, stakeholders and interested citizens need to be informed. Local governments

have a responsibility to provide summaries of current, accurate scientific information on sea level rise and

likely impacts in a useable form for the community. These summaries should address issues of certainty

and uncertainty, how to use such information in understanding and prioritizing risks, and ways to reduce

those risks. Some stakeholders may resist taking action or supporting a broad plan, especially if they

perceive the major impacts to be far in the future or uncertain or if the proposed adaptation actions will be

expensive. To start a process of outreach and education to the public, officials may provide information

that emphasizes the impacts that can already be seen, the uncertainties involved, the importance of taking

action as a precaution against the worst impacts.

Policy-makers and other decision-makers should be a part of this on-going process to gain insights on

community and expert views concerning both projected impacts and potential adaptation actions. The

participation of government officials, businesses, civic groups and the general public can help generate

ideas as well as build consensus and support for an adaptation plan. Since some adaptation actions may

be capital intensive or politically unpopular, it is necessary to build political will to fund and support

adaptation measures.

g) Apply a precautionary approach

The precautionary approach is an important principle in public decision-making. As applied to sea level

rise adaptation, it requires an informed but cautious approach to decisions where full information on


09/15/09

58

impacts and risks may not be available at the time of decision-making, particularly where decisions may

be effectively irreversible.

Using the precautionary approach, sea level rise and other climate change impacts should be taken into

account in all decision-making where climate change may affect the ability of ecosystems and

communities to cope with other non-climatic pressures. The approach also carries an obligation, if the

level of harm may be high, to take action to avoid, remedy, or reduce such harm even where uncertainties

exist about the likelihood or level of harm occurring.

h) Mainstream both adaptation and mitigation

There is growing recognition that both adaptation and mitigation are essential components of a

comprehensive and coordinated climate change policy. As noted earlier, attention has been almost

exclusively on mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and only in recent years has adaptation

begun to receive policy attention in some state and local governments. At the national level the U.S., as

one of the wealthiest economies, does not yet have an adaptative strategy.

Mitigation continues to be critical long-range strategy for reducing the severity of future impacts and

eventually stabilizing the climate. Adaptation is essential as a defensive measure. Adaptation by itself,

however, has limits and barriers. At some point the magnitude and rate of change may become so severe

that effective adaptation is no longer possible or only at very high social, economic, and environmental

costs. Therefore, both adaptation and mitigation are essential for reducing sea level rise and other climate

change impacts on humans and their environments.

While adaptation and mitigation are both necessary as part of modern climate change policy, their

application may not always be complementary and their stakeholder groups and sectoral interests may

diverge. For example, an adaptation strategy that targets inland areas as receiving zones for coastal

populations may run counter to a mitigation strategy that targets the same land for sequestering carbon in

vegetation or new forest plantations. However, reclaiming and reforesting an area as part of an adaptation

plan may also have positive benefits for mitigation. Thus, it is important that a proposed mitigation or

adaptation option also be assessed in relation to the climate policy overall.

i) Strengthen and expand mechanisms for regional coordination and collaboration

Sea level rise adaptation strategies benefit from regional coordination and collaboration, particularly

where decisions with comprehensive plans may have the effect of impacting adjacent jurisdictions and

affecting community or regional resilience. Two regional institutions in Southwest Florida have

responsibilities and capacities particularly important for fostering regional perspectives to sea level rise

adaptive planning and action. These are the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)

and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC).

SWFWMD guides and provides a framework for water supply planning and management for the eight

water basins and 16 counties within its District, including Sarasota County. The District‟s mission is to

provide a sustainable water supply while restoring and protecting natural systems, and is a strong partner

with local governments and organizations supporting data development, analytical work, and education

activities that advance sound water resources management and use. As discussed in early sections of this

assessment, salt water intrusion and the loss of wetlands and other natural water recharge areas already

are threats to the region‟s water supply which will be exacerbated by sea level rise and more extreme

flooding from increased storm surge. SFWWMD is in the process of updating its strategic plan and

regional water management plan to explicitly incorporate climate change and sea level rise

considerations.


09/15/09

59

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), serves six counties in southwest Florida,

including Sarasota County. It serves as a regional information clearinghouse, conducts research, and

assists in implementing a number of local, state, and federal programs aimed at protecting and improving

local communities and their quality of life. It works in three main areas: long-range planning, tactical

planning (e.g., intergovernmental coordination, emergency preparedness), and transportation planning.

Importantly, the Council is perhaps the main regional organization with a two-decade history addressing

climate issues. This work has expanded into adaptation in recent years and current projects include a

vulnerability assessment of climate change, including sea level rise, for Southwest Florida being finalized

during 2009 and adaptation pilot projects.

SWFRPC has a general legislative mandate to review all local comprehensive land use plans for

consistency with its Strategic Regional Policy Plan. It also has responsibility to review large-scale

development projects (known as Development-of-Regional-Impact (DRI) projects) which could have a

substantial effect on more than one county. Florida legislation enacted in 2009 provides certain

exemptions from this DRI review process for projects in urban land areas so designated in comprehensive

plans. As local governments build adaptive measures for local sea level rise, this new exemption

underscores the heightened importance of increased intergovernmental coordination, already required by

state law, on a self-initiating basis with regional planning councils on decisions whether certain urban

service areas should be exempt from the formal DRI review process.

Many of the sea level rise issues facing one government are likely to be similar to those facing an

adjacent jurisdiction. It also is important for local governments to reach out and coordinate directly with

neighboring governments. Particularly in times of resource constraints, pooling resources and sharing

information, as well as harmonizing policies, may be important cost-saving steps. Coordination and

collaboration with neighboring governments with sea level rise adaptation also helps ensure compatibility

of non-climate change policies that may impact adaptation planning for sea level rise.

j) Promote supportive state and federal policies

While there are many initiatives in adaptation planning that can be taken by local governments, at some

point legislative action should happen at higher levels of government to provide explicit policy direction

and support for consistency at local and regional levels. This has been a message from Governor Crist‟

climate change initiatives and two major reports to the legislation during 2008: l) the Florida Energy and

Climate Change Action Team Final Report, Adaptation Planning Framework and 2) “Florida‟s Resilient

Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change” produced by the Florida Atlantic

University. State policy tools include regulation, incentives, financial support and education. These

resources are important over the long-term to support local capacity building, development of scientific

information for practitioners, providing staff training, and public outreach. Experience elsewhere has

shown that additional dedicated resources will be needed from state and federal sources to effectively

strengthen knowledge resources and adaptive response capabilities for sea level rise and other climate

change impacts over the long-term. Local governments will need to take a lead in promoting state and

federal policies that best meet their local needs and priorities.

6. LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD

A primary role of local governments in this region as local sea level rise impacts are better understood is

to provide leadership in building adaptation strategies and plans to prepare for the near-term and long-

range challenges ahead. Some ideas where leadership actions might be taken now include:


09/15/09

60

a) Climate Change Adaptation Focal Point:

Designate a focal point unit/ office in local government, with resources to the extent possible,

to provide a centralized point for coordination on sea level rise and related climate change

information, monitoring, analysis, and collaboration across sectors and disciplines.

Experience elsewhere with local government initiatives with adaptation to climate change has

shown that having a champion within the local government helps to ensure that the initiative

receives sufficient attention and support. Initiatives in several Florida counties include

climate change adaptation within their sustainability programs.

b) Local Government Adaptation Working Group or Team:

Create a local government adaptation team with representatives from environmental services,

planning, infrastructure, emergency management, budget, and all other affected sectors to

operational and capital plans and identify challenges and opportunities for adaptation to sea

level rise within each department or entity (This is the King County, Washington approach)

c) Local Comprehensive Plans:

Begin to incorporate a longer-range planning horizon (e.g., 50 years) in local comprehensive

land use plans and departmental master plans in order to capture scientific projections and

likely impacts associated with local sea level rise. Use the best available scientific

information to develop near-, medium-, and long-term scenarios for assessing local risks and

vulnerabilities as a basis for defining local actions.

Begin the process of identifying and incorporating needed adaptation measures in all relevant

sectors of local comprehensive land use plans.

d) Climate Change Advisory Body:

Designate an existing or establish a new community advisory body of scientists and technical

experts from all relevant disciplines to advise on and make recommendations to the local

government on priority actions needed for sea level rise adaptation. The mandate and

experience of the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Advisory Task Force, functioning

since 2006, may provide insights for creating a climate-focused advisory group in other

counties. Broward County, Monroe County, and Brevard County (the Spacecoast) have

begun climate change task forces following on the Miami-Dade pattern.

e) Community Surveys:

Obtain information about community understanding of sea level rise and perceptions of risks,

vulnerabilities, and needed local actions; collaborate with researchers to help conduct

surveys, use focus groups and other means to help collect, analyze, and summarize the

results.

f) Emerging good practice:

Take advantage of the growing body of climate change adaptation experience being gained

by other local and state governments which is being reported in adaptation guidebooks,

manuals, frameworks, surveys and other materials increasingly available in published form

and on the internet that share best practices and lessons learned. Learning from others in

similar situations can greatly help simplify and guide local officials, planners, and interested

community leaders to initiate and sustain an effective adaptation planning process and

outcome.


09/15/09

61

g) Community outreach:

Build partnerships with existing community networks and organizations that may be

receptive to engaging in outreach, education, and networking on issues and probable impacts

from sea level rise. For example, for Sarasota County, explore collaborations with a network

of local groups associated with the Sarasota County Neighborhood Environmental

Stewardship Team (NEST) (See Box 15 below). Explore interest in local community groups

forming committees on specific issues or activities.

Collaborate with local/regional environmental and science coalitions such as the Science and

Environment Council of Sarasota County and its many non-profit and governmental members

on initiatives to expand outreach and information dissemination throughout the region.

Box 15: Sarasota County Neighborhood Environmental Stewardship Team

The Sarasota County program called „Neighborhood Environmental Stewardship Team‟ (or NEST) is a voluntary

association of people (neighbors, civic groups, student organizations, and others) who want to better understand and

improve environmental conditions in their local watersheds and have approached the county for help. The initiative

was launched initially in 2002 in response to queries from residents and local groups on how to address specific

water management problems experienced in their neighborhoods (e.g., stormwater drainage) and how to do water

conservation.

Under the leadership of Sarasota County Water Resources, the program was created and today has grown to over 20

neighborhoods. The County designated a NEST Coordinator as a focal point and facilitator for questions and

inquiries, helping to find expertise and grant funds for local projects, and serving as liaison between groups and

connecting groups. The Coordinator also helps new groups create their own NESTs or join one that already exists,

depending on their interests and ideas.

Today, the NEST program is one of the primary community networks practicing environmental stewardship in their

neighborhoods and yards, and teaching participants to become „citizen scientists‟ in their own communities. NEST

members partner with other county and municipal organizations and local universities on specific projects. The

scope has broadened much beyond water to include caring for the land, plants and animals making up the

ecosystems that local communities share, and organizing activities to explore local environments, enhance water

body health, and promote native habitats. The NEST approach to environmental stewardship is reflected in its

brochure: “How we care for our yards helps determine which wildlife can live there, and how healthy our bays and

streams are. It is up to us all to do our part in caring for those natural resources and passing them on for tomorrow.”

Many of the participants in the NEST groups are grass-roots leaders in local environmental stewardship. Sea level

rise is surely one of the emerging challenges for local environmental stewardship in the years ahead. Associations

such as NEST are valuable community resources to foster local climate change dialogue and action.

Source: Sarasota County NEST coordinator, and NEST brochure available online at

<http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/NestBrosmall.pdf>.

h) Public/Private Partnerships:

Build collaborations with scientific organizations and university departments working on

various scientific issues important for sea level rise adaptation.

Explore opportunities with chambers of commerce, economic development and business

groups and, „green‟industry entrepreneurs for joint projects to promote private sector

awareness and dialogue on sea level rise, issues of vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation

options, and opportunities for social and economic development.


09/15/09

62

i) State Action:

Promote state action to strengthen state policies by requiring integration of sea level rise in all

elements of comprehensive plans for consistency across local governments and develop other

supportive fiscal policies and technical assistance programs for local adaptation measures.

Take a lead role in defining and promoting state and federal policies that best meet their local

needs and priorities.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Climate protection is not a new policy area for local governments in Florida. Many actions already have

been taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly through energy conservation, and to protect

beaches, shorelines, dunes, rivers and tidal systems as buffers against storms and extreme weather events.

Many of these actions have brought other important non-climate benefits and will continue to do so in

such areas as savings on energy bills, reducing air pollution, and sustaining tourism, fisheries, and other

resource-based economic activity important our high quality of life.

However, many in the climate science and advocacy communities have continued to be frustrated that not

nearly enough is being done in adaptation for the scale of the challenges ahead. Climate scientists, with a

sense of urgency, have been calling for policy action, especially since the 1990s, as the science became

clearer that impacts such as sea level rise were unavoidable.

Research on climate and social change suggests that even if communities and individuals have high levels

of knowledge, concern about local climate change impacts still are largely disconnected from people‟s

daily lives.193

This is for many reasons including perceptions that there is no real immediacy or that

impacts are remote (in comparison to disasters, health risks, and other immediate concerns), the long time

lags between needed social action and climate change, and skepticism about the ability to find real

solutions because the problems are so overwhelming. Under these scenarios, many local governments

and local community leaders have been slow to start dialogue on climate change adaptation because of

perceptions of no political or community support.

These studies also suggest, however, that communities are gradually becoming more interested in and

ready for dialogue on local climate change impacts and options for proactive adaptation. Leadership in

some local and state governments around the country already has achieved significant local policy

development in adaptive planning for sea level rise and other local impacts of climate change.

In Southwest Florida, among many regions of the country, sea level rise is a climate change issue that will

significantly and persistently challenge local governments, communities, and residents for decades to

come. With early planning and proactive adaptation, however, there is good reason for optimism.

Positive benefits can be achieved for long-term social and economic development and for the better future

we will leave for generations to follow. Thomas Friedman, in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, observed

about climate change and other challenges facing our society today, that we have exactly enough time to

make real choices so the future is our choice not our fate -- IF we begin now.194

The kinds of policy

tools, principles, and leadership ideas highlighted in this assessment provide a broad array of options and

opportunities for local governments and communities to provide leadership in sea level rise adaptation

planning and implementation for now and the decades to come.


09/15/09

63

Notes

1 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council. 2008. Scientific

Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States. pp. 8-17. 2 Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. The Effects of Climate Change on Florida’s Ocean & Coastal

Resources. A special report to the Florida Energy and Climate Commission and the people of Florida. p. vii. 3 Crist, C. 2007. “Governor Charlie Crist‟s 2007 State of the State Speech.” Available online at:

http://www.flgov.com/2007_sos. 4 Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. 2007. “First Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature,

January 16, 2007.” pp. 41. 5 Id. pp. 8, 61.

6 Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, supra note 2, at 2.

7 Executive Order 07-128. July 13, 2007.

8 Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team. 2008. Florida’s Energy and Climate Change Action Plan,

Appendix F: Adaptation (ADP) Planning Framework for Florida. 9 See the new Commission web site at:

http://myfloridaclimate.com/climate_quick_links/florida_energy_climate_commission. 10

Leiserowitz, A. (Yale University), and K. Broad (University of Miami) (Yale survey). 2008. “Florida: A Public

Opinion Survey on Climate Change.” 11

“What is Climate Change”. NOAA National Weather Service Web Site at:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/climate/Climatechange.pdf. 12

Early writings of Dr. Jim Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, on greenhouse gas effects and

global sea level trends, available online at <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html>; and of James Titus,

Project Manager for Sea Level Rise at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1982, available on the

archive of EPA‟s Global Warming site at

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRAppendixBrtc.html>. 13

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra note 1 at

19-20. 14

Nobel Foundation. 2007. “The Nobel Peace Price 2007 – Presentation Speech”. Online at:

http://nobelprize.org:80/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/presentation-speech.html. 15

See, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra note 1

at 20-21. 16

National Academy of Sciences. “Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 2008 Edition.” p 2. 17

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra note 1 at 6;

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007g. “Report of Working Group I: Frequently Asked Question 5.1:

“Is Sea Level Rising?” p. 111. 18

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” p. 30.

Geneva, Switzerland. 19

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007f. “Report of Working Group I: Ch. 6: “Palaeoclimate”, p. 465. 20

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra note 1 at 3. 21

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007e. Working Group I Report, Chapter 5: “Observations:

Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”. p. 387. 22

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” p. 30. 23

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007e. Working Group I Report, Chapter 5: “Observations:

Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”. p. 387. 24


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis --

Summary for Policymakers”, p. 9; and IPCC 2007f, Ch. 6: “Palaeoclimate”, p. 476. 26

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007f. “Report of Working Group I: Ch. 6: “Palaeoclimate”, p. 465. 27

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis --

Summary for Policymakers. p. 2. 28

Id. 29

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. p. 36. 30

Hansen, J., et al. 2007. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?”, in 2 The Open Atmospheric

Science Journal, p. 226.


09/15/09

64

31

“Antarctic Drill Core Data Set to Galvanise Sea Level Concerns,” February 11, 2009 web article quoting Dr. Tim

Naish, Director of Victoria University‟s Antarctic Research Center, at:

http://www.3news.co.nz/defaultStrip.aspx/tabid=213&articleID=90719. 32

Hansen, J., et al. 2008. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?”, in 2 The Open Atmospheric

Science Journal 2008. 33

Id. 34

Solomon, S., et al. 2009. “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions” in 106 Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), February 10, 2009, p. 1704. 35


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis --

Summary for Policymakers. p. 2. 37

U.S. EPA climate change website: “Climate Change – Health and Environmental Effects” (accessed Feb. 10,

2009). 38

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” pp. 32-

33. 39


NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Surface temperature analysis. Online at NASA GISS‟

website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008. (Accessed 02/03/09 and 03/19/09). 41


Id. 43

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. p. 45, Table 3.1. 44

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science. Chapter

11: “Regional Change Projections”, p. 889. 45

This paragraph is summarized from the IPCC Working Group 1, Ch. 11 analysis, which also is referenced and

repeated in Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra

note 1 at 4. 46

Washington Post, February 15, 2009. “Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates”. Chicago AFP,

February 15, 2009. “Climate change could be even worse than feared”. 47

International Scientific Congress on Climate Change. March 12, 2009. “Key Messages from the Congress.”

Available on Congress website at <http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages>. 48

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis --

Summary for Policymakers.” p. 5. 49

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007g. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.”

“Frequently Asked Question 5.1: Is Sea Level Rising?” p. 111. 50

U.S. EPA climate change web site. “Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise” online at

http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html. (Accessed Jan. 19, 2009). 51


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007e. “A Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

– Chapter 5: Observations – Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level, p. 409. 53


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1984 to the present issued some 24 sea level rise reports listed on

their website with links to each document). Online at <http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrreports.html>. 55

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. “Working Group II Report: Impacts, Adaptations, and

Vulnerability – Chapter 14: North America, p. 619. 56

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.”

Chapter 5: “Observations – Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level.” p. 387. 57


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. “Report of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptations, and

Vulnerability – Summary for Policymakers.” p. 17. 59

International Polar Year Programme 2007-2008. Press release: “Polar research reveals new evidence of global

environmental change,” (25 February 2009); Shepherd, A., and Wingham, D. 2007. “Recent Sea-Level

Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets” in 315 Science 1529-1532. 60

International Scientific Congress on Climate Change. New York Times, March 11, 2009. “Researchers: Sea

Level May Rise Faster than Expected”; also International Scientific Congress on Climate Change. “Key Messages

from March 10-12, 2009 Meeting” Available at: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages.


09/15/09

65

61

James Painter. “Americans on alert for sea level rise.” BBC News online, April 8, 2009. 62

Timmer, J. March 31, 2009. “Scientists track the ocean‟s rise as the global warms” (summary of panel discussion

at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in February 2009). 63

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” in 315 Science 368-370,

19 January 2007. p. 370. 64

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009b. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-

Atlantic Region (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1). p. 539. 65

Hansen, J.E. 2007a. “Scientific reticence and sea level rise” in Environmental Research Letters 2 (2007) 024002.

p. 3. 66

Id. at 4. 67

Id. at 4; also Rahmstorf, S. 2007. “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” in 315

Science 368-370, 19 January 2007. p. 370. 68

Pfeffer, W.T., et al. 2008. “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” in

321 Science 1340-1343 (5 September 2008), p. 1342. 69

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. 2008. “Second Report and Initial Recommendations –

presented to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners April 2008. p.1. 70

Mitrovica, J., et al. 2009. “The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse” in Science, Vol 323, p. 753 (6

February 2009). 71

Supra note 66; International Polar Year Programme, 2007-2008. Press release: “Polar research reveals new

evidence of global environmental change”; Timmer, J., supra note 62. 72

AP Associated Press, article of February 23, 2008. “Ministers get close look at Antarctic ice threat”, by Charles J.

Hanely, from Troll Research Station, Antarctica; Hansen, J. 2008. “Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist”

inState of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans, pp. 6-15. 73

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008b. “Abrupt Climate Change – Final Report, Synthesis and

Assessment Product 3.4”. p. 7. 74

Id. at 8. 75

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009a. Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems (Synthesis and

Assessment Product 4.2). 76

Id. at 1. 77

Id. at 5-9. 78

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis”,

Chapter 11: “Regional Climate Projections”. p. 849. 79

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis”,

Chapter 3: “Observations – Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”. p. 237. 80

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, supra note 1 at

69.. 81

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Saving Florida‟s Vanishing Shores.” March 2002. p. 2. 82

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, supra 2 at 21.” p. 21. 83

NOAA. “Mean Sea Level Trends for Stations in Florida.” Online at:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=fl. 84

NOAA. “Main Sea Level Trends for Stations in Florida – St. Petersburg, Florida”. 85

Estevez, E. 2006 [check]. “Projecting Sea Level Rise for the Southwest Florida Coast” (unpublished, prepared

for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program). Mote Marine Laboratory: Sarasota, FL. 86

NOAA. “Main Sea Level Trends for Stations in Florida” (trends for Cedar Key, Fernandina, Key West, Miami

Beach, Pensacola, St. Petersburg). 87

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, supra note 2 at 3. 88

Beever III, J. W. et al. 2009. “DRAFT Southwest Florida/Charlotte Harbor Climate Change Vulnerability

Assessment,” p. 45 (Table 8). 89

Walton, T. March 2007. “Projected sea level rise in Florida” in Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 1832-1840. 90

Harrington, J., and T. Walton. August 2008. “Climate change in Coastal Areas in Florida: Sea Level Rise

Estimation and Economic Analysis to Year 2080.” p. 6. 91

Walton, T., supra note 89 at 1836. March 2007. 92

Id. at 1839. 93

Stanton, E.A., and Ackerman, F. 2007. Florida and Climate Change – The Costs of Inaction. (Tufts University). 94

Id. at 10.


09/15/09

66

95

Id. at 8 (Table 4) and 10 (Table 7). 96

Rahmstorf , S., supra note 63; Hansen, J., supra note 65. 97

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. 2008b. “Second Report and Initial Recommendations –

presented to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners April 2008. p.1. 98

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. 2008a. “Statement on Sea Level in the Coming Century”

(presented by the Task Force Science and Technology Committee on January 17, 2008). p. 3. 99

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. May 2008. Strategic Beach Management Plan. p. 2. 100

National Ocean Economics Program. June 2008. Phase II: Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report.”

Facts and Figures booklet, p. 7. 101

Id. 102

Id. 103

U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2009b, supra note 64 at 539-541. 104


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. Working Group II Report: Impacts, Adaptations, and

Vulnerability, Chapter 6. 106


Estevez, E. D. 1987. “Implications of Sea Level Rise for Wetlands Creation and Management in Florida” in

Proceedings of the 14th

Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. pp. 103-113. 108

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Web page on “Climate Change and Public Health”, at

http://www.edc.gov/climatechange/effects/default.htm. 109

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008c. Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and

Welfare and Human Systems (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6). p. ES-5-10. 110

Id. at ES-8. 111

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, supra note 4 at 62. 112

National Wildlife Federation (in affiliation with Florida Wildlife Federation). June 2006. An Unfavorable Tide –

Global Warming, Coastal Habitats, and Sportfishng in Florida. 56 pp. 113

Id. at 12. 114

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Saving Florida‟s Vanishing Shores.” March 2002. 115



Stanton, E.A., and F. Ackerman, supra note 93 at ii. 118


Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009. “Governor‟s Action Plan II”. p. 26. 120

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, supra note 4 at 41. 121

Florida Statutes, §163.3167. 122


Florida Statutes, § 163.3177(5)(a) and 163.3177(3)(a)1. 124

Deyle, R.E., et al. 2007. “Adaptive Response Planning to Sea Level Rise in Florida and Implications for

Comprehensive and Public-Facilities Planning.” p. x. 125

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force, supra note 97 at 9. 126

Florida Statutes, §163.3177 (6)(a). 127

Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team. 2008. “Florida‟s Energy and Climate Change Action Plan.”

Appendix F: Adaptation (ADP) Planning Framework for Florida, p. 8. 128

Florida Atlantic University, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions. 2008. Florida’s Resilient Coasts: A

State Policy Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change. p. 27. 129

Florida Statutes, Chapter 2009-96 (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 360, frequently referred to as simply

SB360). 130

Florida Statutes, §163.3164(34). 131

EarthBalance. September 2008. “Native Habitat Mapping and RiskAssessment”. p. 2. 132

Sarasota Government Planning and Development Services, using data from the Bureau of Economic and

Business Research (BEBR), University of Florida. 2008 Estimates were released 11/03/08. 133

National Ocean Economics Program, supra note 100 at 16. 134

Sarasota County Government. 2007. “Comprehensive Plan 2007”.


09/15/09

67

135

A 2009 NOAA publication entitled “Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities” applies „smart

growth‟ principles to climate change and other issues specifically facing coastal and waterfront communities. See

NOAA 2009a. 136

Sarasota County Government. “Comprehensive Plan 2007,” Chapter 9, p. 9-6. 137

Sarasota County Government. “Comprehensive Plan 2007,” Chapter 9 – RMA – Sarasota 2050, p. 9-67. 138

EarthBalance, supra note 131at 20. 139

Frazier, Tim, et al. 2009. “Influence of sea level rise on societal vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge hazards,

Sarasota County, Florida.” (Study of the Pennsylvania State University). 140

Project description online at NOAA‟s Climate Program Office, Sectoral Applications Research Program website:

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo_pa/cpo_pa_index.jsp&pa=sarp&sub=coast.jsp. 141

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended, Public Law 97-348 (1982). 142

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007. “Coastal Barrier Resources System – Status of

Development That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal Agencies.” 143

For example, see Florida Action Team on Energy and Climate Change, supra 127; see also Ruppert, T.K., and

Ankerson, T. 2008. “Eroding Long-Term Prospects for Florida‟s Beaches: Florida‟s Coastal Management Policy”;

and Hauserman, J. 2007. “Florida‟s Coastal and Ocean Future: A Blueprint for Economic and Environmental

Leadership.” (Natural Resources Defense Council). 144

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. August 2006. “Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region.” p. 22; and

Beever III, J. et al, supra note 88 at 178-182. 145

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). May 2008. Strategic Beach Management Plan. p.

6,7. 146

Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2008-026, §3(d)(1)). The Tourism Development Tax is authorized under the

Florida Local Option Tourism Development Tax, Florida Statute Ch. 125.0104. 147

Coastal Setback Code (Chapter 54, Article XXII of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances), §54-722. 148


Id. at 2-50. 150

Id. at Chapter 2, Environment Policy 1.2.3. 151

Id. at Chapter 2, Environment Policy 1.1.2. 152

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. “Working Group II Report: Impacts, Adaptations, and

Vulnerability – Chapter 14: North America, p. 622-23. 153

Sarasota County Sea Turtle Protection Program, online at

http://www.scgov.net/EnvironmentalServices/ResourceProtection/SeaTurtle.asp. (Accessed May 1, 2009). 154

Coastal Setback Code (Chapter 54, Article XXII of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances), §54-724(b). 155


Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team. supra note 127 at 16. 157

EarthBalance. supra note 131 at 1. (The requirement was stated in Comprehensive Plan 2007, Chapter 2,

Environmental Policy 4.3.3). 158

EarthBalance, supra note 131 at 55-58. 159

EarthBalance, supra note 131 at 25. 160

Florida Forever website at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm. 161

Id. . 162

Personal communications with Mikel Renner, Planning Department, Southwest Florida Water Management

District. DRAFT abstract: “Managing Water Resources in Florida in an Uncertain Future” by email attachment

April 17, 2009, email communications during April 2009. 163

Email and personal communications with Brooke T. Elias, Environmentally Sensitive Lands Purchase Program,

Sarasota County Government, May 12, 14, 2009, and July 23, 2009. 164

Florida Constitution. Section 3(f). 2009. 165

Sarasota County Government. “Comprehensive Plan 2007,” Chapter 9 – RMA – Sarasota 2050, p. RMA-9-45. 166

Id. at Chapter 9, p. 9-47. 167

Id. at Chapter 2, p. 2-105. 168

Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team, supra note 127 at 25. 169

Deyle, R.E., et al., supra note 124. 170

Deyle, R.E., et al., supra note 124 at xii-xv and 33-39.


09/15/09

68

171

Estevez, E., 1990. “Perceptions of Risk in Florida‟s Local Governments Resulting from Sea Level Rise”, in

Proceedings: Long-term Implications of Sea Level Change for the Mississippi and Alabama Coastlines, September

27-28, 1990. 172

Id. at 94. 173

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007j. “Working Group II Report.” Chapter 6: “Coastal”, p. 46;

also Deyle, R. E., et al, supra note 124 at iii. 174

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009b. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-

Atlantic Region (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1), p. 495-6] 175

Deyle, R. E., et al, supra note 124 at 42-43. 176

Deyle, R.E., et al, supra note 124 at 42. 177

Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team, supra note 127 at 25-26. 178

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force, supra note 97 and supra note 98. 179

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force, supra note 97 at 1. 180

Id. 181

Id. at 9-14. 182

Division of Community Planning, Department of Community Affairs. Web site at:

http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/PDRP/overview.cfm. (Accessed on 5/13/09) 183

Id. 184


National Academy of Sciences. 2009. “Mapping the Zone: Flood Map Accuracy.” p. 1. 186

Sarasota County Government web site. “Flood Map Updates” online at:

http://www.scgov.net/FloodMapUpdates/Default.asp. (Accessed 01/29/09 and 05/22/09). 187

See, for example, Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2008. “Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and

Localities are Doing”; H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2007. “A Survey of

Climate Change Adaptation Planning”; Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2004. “Coping with Global

Climate Change – the Role of Adaptation in the United States”; King County, Washington. 2007. Preparing for

Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments; Bedsworth, L., and Hanak, E. 2008.

“Preparing California for a Changing Climate”; Moser, S C., and Tribbia, J. 2007. “More Than Information: What

California‟s Coastal Managers Need to Plan for Climate Change.” 36pp.; Moser, S C., and Dilling, L. (eds). 2007.

Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. 549pp.;

Bizikova, Livia, Tina Neale, and Ian Burton. 2008. Canadian communities’ guidebook for adaptation to climate

change. Including an approach to generate mitigation co-benefits in the context of sustainable development;

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2005. “Climate Change Risk and

Vulnerability: Promoting an efficient adaptation response in Australia”; New Zealand Government, Ministry for the

Environment. 2008. “Preparing for Climate Change: A guide for local government in New Zealand”; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas”; World

Bank. 2008. “Climate Resilient Cities: 2008 Primer.” 188

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. August 2006. “Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region.” p. 55. 189

Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2004. “Coping with Global Climate Change – the Role of Adaptation in

the United States”. pp. ii-iii. 190

Moser, S. C. and Tribbia, J. 2007. “More Than Information: What California‟s Coastal Managers Need to Plan

for Climate Change.” p. 8. 191

Deyle, R. E., et al, supra note 124. 192

Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. 2007. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and

Facilitating Social Change. 193

For example, Moser, S.C. and Tribbia, J., supra note 190, and Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L., supra note 192. 194194

Friedman, T. L. 2008. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why we need a Green Revolution and How it can Renew

America.


09/15/09

69

REFERENCES

I. SOURCES USED

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2005. “Climate Change Risk and

Vulnerability: Promoting an efficient adaptation response in Australia.” (Final Report March 2005).

Baker, E. J., Deyle, R. E., Chapin, T.S., and Richardson, J.B. 2008. “Are We Any Safer? Comprehensive

Plan Impacts on Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter Demand in Florida” in 36 Coastal Management

294-317.

Bedsworth, L., and Hanak, E. 2008. “Preparing California for a Changing Climate.” 27pp. (Public

Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA.)

Beever III, J. W., Gray, W., Trescott, D., Utley, J., Cobb, D., and Beever, L.B. 2009. “DRAFT

Southwest Florida/Charlotte Harbor Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.” 317pp. (Technical

Report 09-2, draft dated 6/30/2009). (Fort Myers, FL., Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council)

(Available online at

<http://www.swfrpc.org/content/ABM/Vulnerability_AssessmentTACDraft_20090630.pdf>.)

Bizikova, L., Neale, T., and Burton, I. 2008. Canadian communities’ guidebook for adaptation to

climate change. Including an approach to generate mitigation co-benefits in the context of

sustainable development. First Edition. (Environment Canada and University of British Columbia,

Vancouver).

Centers for Disease Control. Web page on “Climate Change and Public Health”, at

http://www.edc.gov/climatechange/effects/default.htm. (Accessed 02/19/09).

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. 2007. “First Annual Report to the Governor and the

Legislature, January 16, 2007.” (Available online at

<http://www.centurycommission.org/recommendations.asp>).

Coastal States Organization (CSO). 2007. “The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in

Adaptation to Climate Change – Final Report of the CSO Climate Change Work Group.”

Coastal States Organization (CSO). 2008. “The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs in

Adaptation to Climate Change – Second Annual Report of the Coastal States Organization‟s Climate

Change Work Group”. (Available online at

<http://www.coastalstates.org/uploads/PDFs/CSO%202008%20Climate%20Change%20Report.pdf>.

)

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC §1451-§1465. 1972, as amended by the Energy Policy

Act of 2005.

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council. 2008.

Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States. 261 pp. (Available

online at <http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc/documents_reports>).

Crist, C. 2007. “Governor Charlie Crist‟s 2007 State of the State Speech.” (Available online at

<http://www.flgov.com/2007_sos>.)


09/15/09

70

Crist, C. 2007. “Governor Charlie Crist‟s Keynote Address, Florida Summit on Global Climate Change,

July 12, 2007”. (Available online at <http://www.flgov.com/release/9213>.)

Deyle, R.E., Chapin, T.S., and Baker, E.J. 2008. “The Proof of the Planning is in the Platting: An

Evaluation of Florida‟s Hurricane Exposure Mitigation Planning Mandate” in 74 Journal of the

American Planning Association 3 (2008), 349-370.

Deyle, R.E., Bailey, K.C., and Matheny, A. September 2007. “Adaptive Response Planning to Sea Level

Rise in Florida and Implications for Comprehensive and Public-Facilities Planning.” 65pp.

(Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University).

EarthBalance. September 2008. “Native Habitat Mapping and Risk Assessment”. (Sarasota County,

Resource Protection Services). 112 pp. plus maps.

Estevez, E. 2006. “Projecting Sea Level Rise for the Southwest Florida Coast” (unpublished, prepared

for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program). Mote Marine Laboratory: Sarasota, FL.

Estevez, E. 1990. “Perceptions of Risk in Florida‟s Local Governments Resulting from Sea Level Rise”

in Proceedings: Long-term Implications of Sea Level Change for the Mississippi and Alabama

Coastlines, September 27-28, 1990. pp. 87-101. (Department of Information Services, Division of

Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University).

Estevez, E. 1987. “Implications of Sea Level Rise for Wetlands Creation and Management in Florida” in

Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. pp. 103-113.

Florida Atlantic University, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions. 2008. Florida’s Resilient

Coasts: A State Policy Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change. 72pp. (Florida Atlantic

University, Fort Lauderdale, FL).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). May 2008. Strategic Beach Management

Plan. (Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems of FDEP).

Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Team. 2008. “Florida‟s Energy and Climate Change Action

Plan.” Appendix F: Adaptation (ADP) Planning Framework for Florida. (Online at

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/climatechange/actionplan_08.htm>).

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. “The Effects of Climate Change on Florida‟s Ocean &

Coastal Resources. A special report to the Florida Energy and Climate Commission and the people of

Florida.” Tallahassee, FL. 34pp. (Available on line at

<http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/default.htm>.)

Florida Statutes. 2009. Chapter 161 (particularly the Beach and Shore Protection Act), Chapter 163

(particularly the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,

and the Coastal Management Act), Chapter 259 (Available online at

<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES>.)

Frazier, Tim, Nathan Wood, and Brent Yarnal. 2009. “Influence of sea level rise on societal

vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge hazards, Sarasota County, Florida.” [Pennsylvania State

University study] (forthcoming, available from Tim Frazier, [email protected]).


09/15/09

71

Friedman, Thomas L. 2008. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why we need a Green Revolution and How it can

Renew America. (Farrer, Strauss, and Giroux: New York).

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009. “Governor‟s Action Plan II for Healthy and Resilient Coasts, 2009-

2014”. 35 pp. (Available online at <http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/pdfs/ap2_final2.pdf>).

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2007. “A Survey of Climate

Change Adaptation Planning.” 52pp. (Online at

<http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/meeting_reports.shtml>.)

Hansen, J. 2008. “Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist”, in State of the Wild 2008-2009: A

Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans. W. Woods, Ed. Wildlife Conservation

Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. (Available online through

<http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html>.)

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., Raymo,

M., Royer, D.L. and Zachos, J.C. 2008. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?”,

in 2 The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 217-231. (Available online through

<http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html>.)

Hansen, J.E. 2007a. “Scientific reticence and sea level rise” in Environmental Research Letters 2 (2007)

024002. 6pp. (Available online through <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html>.)

Hansen, J., 2007b. “Why we can't wait: A 5-step plan for solving the global crisis”, in Nation, 284, no.

18 (May 7), 13-14. (Available online through <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html>.)

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt,

G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen,

A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y.

Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D.

Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher,

N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang. 2007. “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS

modelE study” in 7 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2287-2312.

Harrington, J., and Walton, T. August 2008. “Climate change in Coastal Areas in Florida: Sea Level

Rise Estimation and Economic Analysis to Year 2080.” Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Hauserman, J., 2007. “Florida‟s Coastal and Ocean Future: A Blueprint for Economic and Environmental

Leadership.” (Natural Resources Defense Council). (Available at

<http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/florida/flfuture.pdf>.) (Accessed 01-19-09.)

International Scientific Congress on Climate Change. “Key Messages from March 10-12, 2009 Meeting”.

(Available on Congress website at

<http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages>.)

International Scientific Congress on Climate Change. New York Times, March 11, 2009. “Researchers:

Sea Level May Rise Faster than Expected”. (Available online at

<http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/11/11climatewire-researchers-warn-that-sea-levels-will-

rise-m-10080.html>.)


09/15/09

72

International Polar Year Programme (IPYP). 2007-2008. Press release: “Polar research reveals new

evidence of global environmental change,” (25 February 2009). (Available online at

<http://www.ipy.org/index.php?/ipy/detail/state_of_polar_research/>.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” Geneva,

Switzerland. (Available online at <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm>.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. “Report of Working Group I: The Physical Science

Basis -- Summary for Policymakers.” Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at

<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm>.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. “Report of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptations,

and Vulnerability – Summary for Policymakers.” Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007d. “Report of Working Group III: Mitigation of

Climate Change – Summary for Policymakers.” Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007e. “Report of Working Group I,” Chapter 5:

“Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”. Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007f. “Report of Working Group I,” Chapter 6:

“Palaeoclimate”. (Available online at <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm>.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007g. “Report of Working Group I: Frequently Asked

Question 5.1: “Is Sea Level Rising?” Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007h. “Report of Working Group II,” Chapter 14: “North

America”. Geneva, Switzerland. (Available online at <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-

wg2.htm>.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007i. “Report of Working Group II,” Chapter 18:

“Interrelationships between Adaptation and Mitigation”. (Available online at


Leiserowitz, A. (Yale University), and Broad,K. (University of Miami) (referred to as „Yale Survey‟).

2008. “Florida: A Public Opinion Survey on Climate Change.” (Available online at

<http://environment.yale.edu/uplands/FloridaGlobalWarmingOpinion.pdf; or through the following

link: http://research.yale.edu/environment/climate/>.)

King County, Washington. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and

State Governments. 172pp. (Written by the Center Impacts Group, University of Washington, in

association with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability).

Lloyds, Inc. Sept. 2008 “Communities and Climate Change – Maintaining Future Insurability”.

(Available online at


09/15/09

73

<http://www.lloyds.com:80/News_Centre/Features_from_Lloyds/Call_for_insurers_to_help_prevent

_coastal_flooding_090809.htm>.)

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. 2008a. “Second Report and Initial

Recommendations (presented to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners April 2008).

(Available online at <http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/library/08-10-

04_CCATF_BCC_Package.pdf>.) (Accessed 01/27/09 and 05/01/09).

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force. 2008b. “Statement on Sea Level in the Coming

Century” (presented by the Task Force Science and Technology Committee on January 17, 2008).

(Available online at <http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/library/08-10-

04_CCATF_BCC_Package.pdf>.) (Accessed 01/27/09 and 05/01/09).

Mitrovica, J., Gomez, N., Clark, P. 2009. “The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse” in

323 Science 753 (6 February 2009).

Moser, S C., and Tribbia, J. 2007. “More Than Information: What California‟s Coastal Managers Need to

Plan for Climate Change.” 36pp. (Prepared for the California Energy Commission, Public Interest

Energy Research Program, October 2007).

Moser, S C., and Dilling, L. (eds). 2007. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate

Change and Facilitating Social Change. 549pp. (Cambridge University Press).

Mulkey, S. 2007. “Climate Change and Land Use in Florida: Interdependencies and Opportunities”

(Report prepared for the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida). Department of Botany,

University of Florida. (Available online through Century Commission website at <

http://www.centurycommission.org/critical.asp>.)

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Surface temperature analysis. (Online at NASA

GISS‟ website <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008>.) (Accessed 020309).

National Academy of Sciences. 2009. “Mapping the Zone: Flood Map Accuracy” (Free Executive

Summary of a book by the same title). (National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC).

(Available in PDF at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12573.html>.)

National Academy of Sciences. 2008. “Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 2008

Edition.” (Available online at <http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf>.)

(Accessed 013109).

National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP). June 2008. Phase II: Florida’s Ocean and Coastal

Economies Report.” (Judith Kildow, Principal Investigator, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute, commissioned by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council). (Available online from the

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council at

<http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/meetings/economics_forum.htm>.)

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA‟s website on ocean and

coastal management contains information about each state coastal management program. For Florida,

see online at <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/fl.html>.


09/15/09

74

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009a. “Smart Growth for Coastal

and Waterfront Communities.” 53pp. (Project partners with NOAA: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, International City/County Management Association (ICMA), and Rhode Island Sea Grant.

(NOAA, Washington, DC). (Available online at <http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/report.html>.)

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009b. “Main Sea Level Trends for

Stations in Florida”. (Online at

<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=fl>.) (Accessed January 23,

2009 and April 7, 2009).

National Wildlife Federation (in affiliation with Florida Wildlife Federation). June 2006. An

Unfavorable Tide – Global Warming, Coastal Habitats, and Sportfishng in Florida. 56 pp. (National

Wildlife Federation: Reston, VA).

Natural Capitalism Solutions. 2007. “Climate Protection Manual for CITES”. Online at:

http://www.climatemanual.org/Cities/Chapter1/index.htm. [Note: focus is mitigation]

New York City Climate Change Action Plan (undated). (Available at

<http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_climate_change.pdf>.) (Accessed

011909.)

New Zealand Government, Ministry for the Environment. 2008. “Preparing for Climate Change: A

guide for local government in New Zealand.” (July 2008).

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2007. “Ocean Facts: Global Warming‟s Effects on

Florida‟s Oceans and Coasts Demand Immediate Action”. (Available at

<http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/florida/FLGW.PDF>.) (Accessed 011909)

Pew Center for Global Climate Change. “Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global

Climate Change”. (Online at <http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-

basics/climate_change_101.) (Accessed February 10, 2009).

Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2008. “Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and Localities

are Doing.” (Available online at <http://www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/adaptation>.)

Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2008. “Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach”

(Report prepared by Frances G. Sussman and J. Randall Freed). (Available online at

<http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Business-Adaptation.pdf>.)

Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2004. “Coping with Global Climate Change – the Role of

Adaptation in the United States” (report prepared by William E. Easterling III, Pennsylvania State

University, Brian H. Hurd, New Mexico State University, and Joel B. Smith, Stratus Consulting,

Inc.). (Available online at <http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-

depth/all_reports/adaptation..)

Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, S. O‟Neel. 2008. “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-

Century Sea-Level Rise” in 321 Science 1340-1343 (5 September 2008.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” in 315 Science

368-370, 19 January 2007.


09/15/09

75

Rubinoff, P., N. D. Vinhateiro, C. Piecuch. 2008. “Summary of Coastal Program Initiatives that address

Sea Level Rise as a result of Global Climate Change”. (Rhode Island SeaGrant/Coastal Resources

Center, University of Rhode Island).

Ruppert, T.K., and Ankerson, T. August 19, 2008. “Eroding Long-Term Prospects for Florida‟s

Beaches: Florida‟s Coastal Management Policy.” (Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences,

University of Florida). 157 pp.

Sarasota County Government. 2009a. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program.

(information available online at

<http://www.scgov.net/EnvironmentalServices/NaturalResources/ResourceManagement/ESLPP.asp>

) (rechecked 9/09/09).

Sarasota County Government. 2009b. “Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning Project” (Online at

<http://www.scgov.net/pdrp/default.asp>.) (rechecked 9/09/09).

Sarasota County Government. 2009c. “Flood Map Updates.” Online at

<http://www.scgov.net/FloodMapUpdates/Default.asp>. (accessed 01/29/09 and 05/22/09).

Sarasota County Government. 2009d. NEST Program (Neighborhood Environmental Stewardship

Teams). (Online at <http://www.scgov.net/EnvironmentalServices/Water/Conservation/NEST.asp>.)

Sarasota County Government. 2008. Coastal Setback Code (Chapter 54, Article XXII of the Sarasota

County Code of Ordinances), §54-724(b). (Summary of amendment and new code online at

<http://www.scgov.net/EnvironmentalServices/Coastal/Setback.asp>.) (accessed 1/12/2009 and

4/28/2009).

Sarasota County Government. 2007. “Comprehensive Plan 2007”. (Online at

<http://www.scgov.net/PlanningandDevelopment/CompPlan/CompPlan.asp>) (rechecked 9/09/09).

Science and Environment Council of Sarasota County (SEC). 2009. (Information about this not-for-

profit organization is available online at < http://www.secsc.org/>.)

Shepherd, A., and Wingham, D. 2007. “Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland

Ice Sheets” in 315 Science 1529-1532,

Sierra Club. 2006. “The School of Big Storms: The High Cost of Compromising our Natural Defenses

and the Benefits of Protecting Them”. (Available at

<http://www.sierraclub.org/gulfcoast/downloads/bigstorm.pdf>.) (Accessed on 011909).

Stanton, E.A., and Ackerman, F. November 2007. Florida and Climate Change – The Costs of Inaction.

(Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute and Stockholm Environment

Institute-US Center). (Available online at <http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Florida_lr.pdf>.)

Solomon, S., Plattner, G-K., Knutti, R., and Friedlingstein, P. 2009. “Irreversible climate change due to

carbon dioxide emissions” in 106 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 1704-

1709, February 10, 2009.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. August 2006. “Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region.”

75pp. (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: Pinellas Park, FL).


09/15/09

76

Timmer, J. March 31, 2009. “Scientists track the ocean‟s rise as the global warms” (summary of panel

discussion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in February

2009). (Online website report by ARS Technica: The Art of Technology at

<http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/scientists-track-the-oceans-rise-as-the-globe-

warms.ars>.)

Titus, J. 2000. “Does the U.S. Government Realize that the Sea is Rising? How to Restructure Federal

Programs so that Wetlands and Beaches Survive.” 30 Golden Gate University Law Review 717-778.

(Available online at <http://www.sierraclub.org/gulfcoast/downloads/bigstorm.pdf>.) (Accessed

011909).

Titus, J. 2002. “The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation” (DOT Center for Climate

Change Workshop October 1-2, 2002). (Available online at

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Transportation_Paper.pdf>.) (Accessed

011909)

Titus, J., and V. Narayanan. 1995. The Probability of Sea Level Rise. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. 186 pp. (Available online at

<http://Yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsProbability.html

>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009a. Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems (Synthesis

and Assessment Product 4.2). Lead Agency: U.S. Geological Survey. January 16, 2009. (Available

online at <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report-all.pdf>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009b. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the

Mid-Atlantic Region (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1). U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. (Available online at <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/final-report/>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008a. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-

Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4). (Available online at

<http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/final-report/>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008b. Abrupt Climate Change – Final Report (Synthesis and

Assessment Product 3.4). December 16, 2008. Lead Agency: U.S. Geological Survey, Contributing

Agencies: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation.

(Available online at <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008c. Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human

Health and Welfare and Human Systems (Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (Available online at

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid+197244>.)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008d. Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate --

Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands (Synthesis and

Assessment Product 3.3). (Available online at <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-

3/default.php>.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal

Areas.” (Climate Ready Estuaries Program, EPA 430-F-08-24, January 2009) Washington, D.C.,


09/15/09

77

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Available online at

<http://www.epa.gov/cre/adaptationoptions.html>.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Saving Florida‟s Vanishing Shores.” March 2002.

(Available online at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/saving_FL.pdf>.) (Accessed

January 12, 2009, and April 6, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. “Climate Change and Florida” (EPA publication 230-F-

97-008i). (Available online at

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUKSV/$File/fl_impct.p

df>.)

U.S. Global Change Research Program/U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Climate Literacy: ‘The

Essential Principles of Climate Sciences’ – A Guide for Individuals and Communities. Second

Version, March 2009. (Available online at:

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/Literacy/Climate%20Literacy%20Booklet%20Low-Res.pdf..)

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007. “Coastal Barrier Resources System – Status of

Development That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal Agencies.” 66pp.

(Washington, D.C., GAO-07-356, March 2007).

Walton, T. March 2007. “Projected sea level rise in Florida” in Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 1832-

1840. (Report from the Florida State University, Beaches and Shores Resource Center, Institute of

Science and Public Affairs). (Available online at <http://www.sciencedirect.com>.)

World Bank. 2008. “Climate Resilient Cities: 2008 Primer. (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and

Recovery, World Bank, Washington, DC).

II. SELECTED WEB SITES:

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, at: http://www.centurycommission.org/critical.asp.

Florida Energy and Climate Change Commission, at:

http://myfloridaclimate.com/climate_quick_links/florida_energy_climate_commission

Global Change Master Directory (maintained by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center):

http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website: http://www.ipcc.ch.

International Polar Year Programme 2007-2008 website: http://www.ipy.org.

NASA GISS recent research website: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/

NOAA National Climatic Data Center site on Global Warming:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (renamed the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 2009, see

website below)


09/15/09

78

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site on climate change:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science. This site is aimed for policy makers and stakeholders.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): http://www.globalchange.gov. Visit old USCCSP

website at http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php.

****

An Assessment Policy Tools for Local Adaptation to Sea Level Rise

Documents

Transcript of An Assessment Policy Tools for Local Adaptation to Sea Level Rise