Engineers outline wave‑mitigation wall for Times Square, say FEMA map revision could change building rules and uses

JR Evans Engineering presented a shoreline protection due‑diligence study to the Fort Myers Beach Town Council on Dec. 3, describing conceptual wave‑mitigation wall options for Times Square and the entire island and outlining how a certified system could support FEMA map‑revision requests.

Elizabeth, a civil engineer with JR Evans, said the objective of the study is to evaluate mitigation walls combined with enhanced dunes and pedestrian corridors and to assess the potential for a conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and later a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA. She described certified protection structures as those engineered to reduce wave heights below three feet on top of surge — the FEMA threshold at which a VE (high‑velocity) zone transitions to an AE zone.

Regulatory and design implications: Elizabeth explained how a successful map revision could reclassify landward parcels from VE to AE coastal, which typically reduces the design flood elevation and opens up opportunities for certain non‑residential uses at lower floors subject to dry floodproofing and DEP elevation requirements. She noted DEP’s coastal construction control line (CCCL) and higher DEP design flood elevations (for example, DEP elevations can be several feet higher than FEMA’s), and emphasized that residential habitable spaces would still face strict elevation and open‑foundation requirements.

Cost, scope and funding: The firm offered an engineering unit estimate of roughly $1,000 per linear foot for typical mitigation wall sections and provided a rough example that the Times Square segment could be in the low‑tens of millions (presenter used a mile‑based back‑of‑envelope to arrive at a roughly $11 million ballpark if a mile were required). Councilmembers discussed a potential island‑wide cost in the order of $37 million using extrapolated linear‑foot assumptions. Elizabeth said the design could incorporate beach access points and pedestrian corridors, which might make elements eligible for Tourist Development Council (TDC) funding, but that state permitting and site specifics would dictate feasibility.

Environmental and engineering questions: Council asked about living seawalls and habitat features; Elizabeth said living shoreline concepts and habitat‑friendly surface textures (including 3D‑printed elements that encourage oyster habitat) are part of the options being explored. She also described potential risks FEMA will examine (material scour, wave run‑up and reflection), and said engineers build splash‑pad features and other measures to reduce material loss and protect adjacent landward properties.

Value proposition: Councilmembers requested a value‑proposition analysis that quantifies benefits — for example, reduced flood insurance premiums, preserved property value and decreased business interruption — to help the community weigh costs and financing options. Elizabeth said the firm can support that work and that securing grants and state or TDC funds will be an important part of a financing strategy; she also offered to provide contacts and examples from prior local projects (Seascape, Dolphin Way, Little Hickory/Bonita Beach) that underwent LOMR work.

Next steps: The engineering team said it expects to provide a two‑month update on the coastal analysis phase, continue state and agency discussions, and refine conceptual designs and costs for council consideration. No commitments were made at the meeting on financing or construction timing.