Consultants present hybrid wave‑mitigation wall concepts for Fort Myers Beach; council asks for costs and community outreach

Consultants for the Town of Fort Myers Beach presented a status update on April 8 on a shoreline protection due‑diligence study that recommends hybrid wave‑mitigation features — hardened structures combined with dune restoration and sand nourishment — to reduce wave heights behind the beach.

Elizabeth, the project lead, and Austin Wise, the team's senior coastal engineer, told the council the team completed island‑wide drone imagery, site visits, spatial analyses of FEMA flood zones and site‑specific wave‑propagation modeling. Austin said the center of the island experiences higher still‑water elevations in 100‑year storm conditions, and that properly designed structures could reduce wave heights that push a property from FEMA’s VE (high‑velocity) zone to an AE classification.

The consultants described a concept of overlapping, discontinuous segments that ‘‘break the waves’’ but do not attempt to stop storm surge. ‘‘Oh, what we're doing here is not stopping the surge… The really important thing to focus on is that we're breaking the waves,’’ Austin said, arguing that staggered openings can preserve public beach access while dispersing wave energy.

Site‑specific examples included a Times Square commercial scheme with a top elevation near 8 ft NAVD, single‑family locations requiring roughly 8.25 ft NAVD and a Newton Park public‑space scenario that could be capped onto an existing wall. The consultants said these are preliminary design elevations; the actual exposed height above existing ground would often be smaller once sand nourishment and existing elevations are considered.

On regulatory issues, Austin noted the team ‘‘disagrees with FEMA’’ about a Primary Frontal Dune delineation in places and said Coastal Construction Setback Lines and state (FDEP/DEP) permits will strongly influence siting. He described the FEMA conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) process: ‘‘Once the technical review is satisfied, they prepare a CLOMR… the design really has to make sure that it meets FEMA’s structural criteria and an operation and maintenance plan.’’

Council members pressed for additional analysis and public engagement. Councilor King asked whether Hurricane Ian was a 100‑year event; Austin replied Ian was ‘‘a little stronger than a 100‑year event’’ for much of the island. Several councilors asked the team to model velocities and downstream impacts to ensure a wall would not adversely affect neighboring properties, and to provide cross‑sections that show the structure, the nourished beach and landward property in profile.

Councilors also requested estimated maintenance costs and funding options. Elizabeth said the team is identifying grant opportunities and an implementation plan; staff proposed a next presentation with hydrodynamic animations and a public town‑hall format so residents could see the simulated with/without conditions.

The consultants confirmed they are working in parallel with several private property owners and recommended coordination so individual projects align with a potential townwide approach. They projected final deliverables and more detailed hydrodynamic modeling by late May–early June and offered to host a public information session at the next M&P meeting.

The presentation closed with visuals and an example photograph intended to illustrate the wave‑breaking concept; council members encouraged the team to prioritize clear public materials, cost ranges for maintenance, and the hydrodynamic modeling that will show whether protections at one site shift risk to another.

The council did not take any formal action at the meeting; staff said the consultants will return with the modeling, cross‑sections and funding strategy at a future session.