Public costs of Florida red tides : a survey of coastal managers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Public costs of Florida red tides : a survey of coastal managers
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Morgan, Kimberly L.
Larkin, Sherry L.
Adams, Charles M.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
2008

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
System ID:
AA00000201:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text


S'.I -NIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


Coastal Manager Survey


Public Costs of Florida Red Tides: A Survey of Coastal Managers




By

Kimberly L. Morgan, Sherry L. Larkin, and Charles M. Adams


Industry Report 08-1






February 2008







Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






..i'_ N DIVERSITY OF
'','FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS

T A B L E O F C O N TEN T S........................................................ ...............................................3

A CK N O W LED G EM EN T S ............................ .............................................. ..................... 5

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... .................. .......................... ................ . 7

INTRODUCTION ............................... ... .. .... .... ..................9

PROCEDURES ........... .... ......................................9

SCO PE O F STU D Y ...... .. ...................... ...................... ............................... .... 10

SURVEY RESULTS ...... ............ .. ................... ..................... ............... 11

R response R ate ................ .......... ....................... ............................ 11
A g en cies ...................... ...................... ................... ....... 11
Funding Sources and Expenditures ............................................... ............................. 12
Communication or Activity Protocols ............ ..... ................................... 13

C O N CLU SIO N S .... ..................................................15

R E F E R E N C E S ..........................................................................17






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






..:'_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey LOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the EPA's Science to Achieve Results Program (R83-1707),
managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Research. We would also like to thank Barbara Kirkpatrick at the Mote Marine Laboratory,
members of Solutions to Avoid Red Tide (START), and Mr. Ray Judah, District 3 Lee County
Commissioner, for their assistance in this analysis.






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






..: ,_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
ABSTRACT
This study sought to determine the financial and managerial impacts of red tide events on
nine county and eighteen city governments charged with management of public beaches along
the Gulf coast in Florida. When included as a line item in annual budgets, earmarks for red tide
were limited to beach cleanup activities and ranged from $50,000 to $100,000 in 2006. Invoices
for red tide related beach clean up activities ranged from $11,114 to $250,000 per event from
2004-2007. Sarasota County spent an average of $4.87 per linear foot to remove the dead fish
resulting from six recent red tide clean-up efforts. Seven cities in Pinellas County were
reimbursed an average of $14.27 per linear foot of beach for red tide-related cleaning required
throughout 2005. This information may provide a useful baseline for estimation of red tide-
related budget needs for other cities and counties that are responsible for public beach
management. Expenditures were directly correlated with public beach length, severity of fish
kills, and available beach management budgets, but are conservative estimates since they did not
include in-kind labor or equipment expenses.


Keywords: economic; harmful algal blooms (HABs); Karenia brevis; red tide; public managers;
survey






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






..: ,_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR

INTRODUCTION
Florida is a popular tourist destination and is the top U.S. destination for at least one of
19 types of marine recreation including beach visitation, swimming, snorkeling, and scuba
diving (Leeworthy). In 2005, Florida hosted 77.2 and 6.4 million domestic and international
visitors, respectively, in 2005 (VISIT FLA). In addition, approximately 80% of Florida's
population resides in coastal counties such that the state's overall economy is critically
dependent on the health of the supporting marine ecosystem (Kildow). Harmful algal blooms
(HABs) are one threat to marine environmental quality. In Florida, blooms of Karenia brevis,
which are known as "red tides", have occurred along some part of the marine coastline in nearly
every year. The toxins that are produced during a red tide can kill marine life that eventually
washes ashore and creates a public nuisance (Baden, Steidinger, Flewelling). In addition, the
aerosolized toxins create a potential public health threat by irritating the eyes, nose, and
respiratory system up to three miles inland (Backer, Kirkpatrick).
A 2001 report submitted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Sea Grant College Program to the Committees on Appropriations suggested national
and local socio-economic impacts of red tide events that need to be quantified and addressed in
order to develop efficient, timely management responses. The report stated that research efforts
are needed to determine the nature and extent of private and public sector interactions in the case
of a HAB event. Once these affected areas and corresponding issues are identified, accurate and
efficient management decisions and aid estimates could be calculated and implemented at both
the local and national levels.
To date, however, no studies have attempted to quantify costs incurred by resource
managers to address the impacts caused by red tides, despite the need for resource allocation
decisions. To help address the is paucity of needed information, this study attempted to quantify
public expenditures and procedures resulting from red tide-related management and mitigation
issues which have affected publicly managed beaches. In this study, municipal and county-level
managers located on Florida's Gulf Coast were queried for specific information on (1) costs
associated with red tide blooms, (2) beach and red tide management protocols, (3) funding
sources and allocations, and (4) the existence and types of public relations efforts. The results of
this survey effort are expected to provide estimates of red tide-related expenditures incurred by
local governments that can be used to guide financial planning for other public agencies.

PROCEDURES
Nine Florida counties were selected for the analysis due to the historical patterns of
exposure to red tide blooms and popularity as tourist destinations. The counties selected (from
northwest to southeast) were Okaloosa, Franklin, Gulf, Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte,
Lee and Collier. All are coastal counties that border the Gulf of Mexico. In an effort to estimate
the fiscal costs of red tide events at a local level, 28 municipalities within the nine sample
counties were additionally selected based on their location to Gulf waters.
Top-level administrators within these locations were identified as the sample population,
which was effectively a census within the defined study region. A database of names and contact
information was compiled using the 2006 Membership Directory published by the Florida
Association of Counties and the Florida League of Cities, Inc. The interviews were conducted by
telephone by a single trained interviewer at the Florida Survey Research Center from January
through March 2007.






..: ,_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
The interviewer initially contacted the top-level county or city administrator to obtain
permission and recommendations with respect to identifying appropriate individuals within their
organizations that would most likely have access to the information associated with red tide
events. Due to the sporadic nature of red tide blooms and the complexity of government titles
and responsibilities across locales characterized by large ranges of population numbers, tourism
dollars, and public beach areas, it was necessary to broaden the traditional scope of potential
respondents. To that end, an effort was made to canvas all individuals that were actively
involved with beach management issues or funding and employee management responsibilities
within each public agency.
Respondents were first asked to discuss general beach management programs, and then
queried about costs and activities specifically associated with red tide events. Respondents were
encouraged to describe general types of beach management or maintenance programs, and to
provide data concerning fiscal year expenditures on both labor and equipment used in support of
these programs.
Questions pertaining to red tide events were designed to elicit detailed information for
each responding county or city agency. The red tide-specific section included actual or estimated
labor and equipment costs, evidence of communication protocols related to either clean-up
activities or public relations, types of activities undertaken or sponsored by the agency, funds
allocated to red tide mitigation or management, historical responses to red tide events, and
identification of agency departments charged with red tide-related responsibilities.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The total population for each county ranged from approximately 11,000 in Franklin to
905,000 in Pinellas, with an average of 307,000 persons. Lee and Collier counties each
experienced population growth rates exceeding 20% from 2002 to 2005. Manatee, Sarasota, and
Charlotte also witnessed an influx of residents over this same time period, with populations
increasing by 13.9%, 10.4% and 9.5%, respectively. Pinellas was the only county that
experienced a negative growth rate, less than two percent, from 2002 to 2005.
Okaloosa County hosted nearly three million visitors in 2005, with slightly fewer visiting
Pinellas and Lee counties, which received 2.4 and 2.3 million domestic visitors, respectively
(VISIT FLA). Sarasota and Collier each attracted more than one and half million tourists in
2005, while Manatee saw 770,000 visitors to its area.
With the exception of Franklin County, each of the remaining eight counties in the
sample had some number of publicly managed beachfront, ranging from a maximum of 35 miles
in Pinellas to a minimum of seven miles in Sarasota, for an average of nearly 17 miles (Table 1).
While Sarasota had the fewest overall miles, it had nearly as many public access point, or parks,
as Pinellas, with each having 30 and 31, respectively. Access to public beaches may be free or
fee-based, and can include boardwalks, piers, jetties, parking lots, state parks, and in some cases
are accessible by motorized vehicle. Each county's beaches exhibit a range of characteristics,
from the sugar-white sands of the Panhandle beaches, the flat expanses in Pinellas, the barrier
islands of Sarasota and Manatee, and the interwoven marshes of Collier.
To support the tourism industries in these regions, all of the counties collect tourist
development taxes that are administered through the related Tourism Development Councils
(Table 1). Tax rates ranged from two percent in Franklin to five percent in Pinellas, Charlotte,
and Lee. The remaining five counties collected four percent in taxes on tourism-dependent






..' l N DIVERSITY OF
''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
business revenues. In total, FY 2005-06 tourist development collections ranged from $304,000 in
Gulf, up to nearly $22 million in Pinellas, with an average of over $8 million across all nine
counties. Lee and Collier ranked just behind Pinellas, with total tourist tax collections of $17 and
$13 million, respectively. Okaloosa and Sarasota each collected just over $7 million and
Manatee slightly less than $5 million annually.
Four of the counties indicated that at least 25% of annual tourism tax collections were
earmarked for public beach management, maintenance, and improvements. In order to generate a
scale of beach-related expenditures for each county, one-fourth of annual tourism tax collections
were divided by miles of public beach managed by each county (Table 1). Tax collection records
revealed that Sarasota and Lee Counties could spend $265,429 and $236,528, respectively, per
mile of public beach. Pinellas and Collier Counties were each capable of allocating $164,023 and
$148,364 per public beach mile.
Eight of the 18 cities surveyed, or 44%, were located in Pinellas County, while Manatee
had three cities (Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, and Holmes Beach) with an average of 2,754
residents. Sarasota, Lee, and Collier counties were each represented by two cities, with average
populations of 35,240, 6,313, and 17,928, respectively. Longboat Key claimed county affiliations
with both Manatee and Sarasota, and is home to an estimated 7,603 people. Overall, the Census
population estimates ranged from the small community of North Redington Beach, with 1,482
inhabitants, to the sprawling metropolis of St. Petersburg, with nearly a quarter-million
individuals, both of which are located in Pinellas.

SURVEY RESULTS
Response Rate
Completed interviews were obtained on a total of 27 cities or counties for a response rate
of 87.1%. These 27 agencies included all nine counties (Okaloosa, Gulf, Franklin, Pinellas,
Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee and Collier) and 18 cites located within these counties. The 18
municipalities are located within the boundaries of five of the nine counties Pinellas, Manatee,
Sarasota, Lee and Collier. Six municipalities were either unreachable, or unwilling to respond to
the survey questionnaire. Of the total number of completions, four agencies were deemed
ineligible due to their distance from Gulf waters or their lack of publicly managed Gulf-facing
beaches.
Agencies
Six counties involved at least two or more of their departments in the physical
management of beach/red tide management responsibilities. Parks and Recreation and Public
Works/Utility departments were mentioned by the majority of county respondents (4 or more).
Natural Resources or Environment/Pollution Control departments were mentioned by three of
the counties. Sarasota and Gulf mentioned the involvement of their local branches of the Florida
Department of Health, while Gulf also included the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Franklin and Pinellas both mentioned the role of their Public Waste departments in
fish kill clean-ups. Sarasota and Lee referred to the roles of outside private contractors in water
monitoring and beach cleaning responsibilities, respectively. Okaloosa was the only county to
refer to the role of their Tourism Development Council. Finally, Pinellas, Manatee and Sarasota
stated the inclusion of the Management and Budget Office, the Division of Marine Rescue, and
Emergency Services, respectively, as holding responsibilities for beach-related physical
management tasks.






..: ,_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
The majority of cities interviewed, 12 out of 18, or 67%, assigned physical beach or red
tide tasks to their Public Works department, while more than half of all cities (10) hired private
contractors, contract labor, consulting firms, commercial fishers, marine inspectors, or
equipment and boat rental suppliers to handle beach cleaning work. Five cities mentioned the top
administrator, i.e. Town Clerk, City Manager, City Council, or Mayor, as having primary
responsibilities for managing beaches and red tide events. Three cities, Sarasota, Venice, and
Marco Island, noted that their beaches were physically cared for by their counties. Parks and
Recreation and Natural Resource departments were mentioned by three cities each, four of which
are located in Pinellas. Anna Maria was the only one to mention the Garbage Collection
department, although this could be considered equivalent to larger cities' Public Works
departments. Madeira Beach involved their Finance Director in physical management tasks,
primarily in the role of assigning funds to beach-related responsibilities.
Not surprisingly, three-quarters of the counties claimed their Tourism Tax Funds as the
source of dollars used in both beach maintenance and red tide management chores. Five of the
counties also mentioned their own county government "regular", "emergency" or "contingency
reserves" funds, with Pinellas and Charlotte relying solely on their own budgets for funding (no
mention of tourism tax funding). While Franklin County used its own funds to clean its beaches,
the respondent claimed that it "has no cities on the Gulf and is not greatly bothered by, nor
concerned with, red tide or other HABs."
Funding Sources and Expenditures
Overall, six counties provided estimated and historical financial information with respect
to overall beach maintenance efforts. General annual beach management and maintenance costs
ranged from nearly $1.5 million in Sarasota, down to $76,000 in Gulf. While some counties did
not provide red tide-related costs, several respondents noted allocations of large portions of
tourism tax dollars towards annual emergency beach cleaning accounts (which would be used in
the event of a red tide), which ranged from $25,000 in Okaloosa up to $400,000 in Sarasota.
Four counties had kept precise records of red tide related beach cleaning expenditures,
and included Pinellas, Sarasota, Lee and Collier. Sarasota respondents provided current red tide
cleaning expenditures of $51,148 for six separate events in FY 2006-07, which included labor,
equipment and vendor costs (Table 2). Pinellas offers a reimbursement program to its cities that
had incurred costs related to red tide cleaning in 2005, and seven cities received $78,090 in total
(Table 3). Pinellas' Office of Management and Budget has limited reimbursement parameters to
include actual overtime, temporary labor, and equipment costs related directly to red tides that
occurred during a specific time frame. Lee recorded costs of $250,000 for a single 2004 red tide
event in Fort Myers, and Collier spent $250,000 in 2005 in red tide-related cleaning
expenditures.
Seven cities are reimbursed by their host counties for at least some, but not all, of the
labor or dollar expenditures on red tide cleaning efforts, six of these in Pinellas, and one in Lee.
Four cities (Holmes Beach, Sarasota, Venice, and Marco Island) indicated that they would notify
their host counties in the event of a fish kill and, therefore, were not responsible for fiscal or
labor expenditures. Three municipalities (Bradenton Beach, Fort Myers Beach, and Naples)
indicated their own budgets were the only source of funds used to clean beaches after a red tide
event. Two cities, Clearwater and St. Petersburg, used beach parking fee collections to maintain
their beaches, and this would include cleaning up during a red tide event.






..' l N DIVERSITY OF
''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
A total of 11 of the 18 cities, or 61%, provided red tide-related financial and/or labor
costs. These numbers ranged from $1,420 received by Belleair Beach from Pinellas County for
its 2005 red tide clean-up efforts, up to Long Boat Key's annual red tide line item budget
allocation of $100,000 for cleaning its 10.5 miles of public beaches. The seven cities receiving
reimbursement funds from their counties collected between $1,420 up to $45,310 as a result of
2005 red tide events. Naples was the sole self-funded city to have a historical red tide annual
cleaning allocation of $50,000 in its budget, although Long Boat Key established its $100,000
red tide budget in 2006. The majority of labor and equipment used to clean red tide-related fish
kills is provided by regular city staff and machinery, and most counties waived the dumping fees
associated with dead fish disposal. However, several respondents mentioned the need for
overtime, contract labor, and prisoner trustees required to expedite the cleaning process,
depending on volume and location of dead marine creatures.
Overall, five counties shifted existing personnel and equipment for red tide cleaning
efforts, including Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte and Collier. These same five, plus Lee,
hired additional temporary labor or private contractors and utilized prison trustees to achieve the
timely removal of dead fish.
Communication or Activity Protocols
Five of the counties followed some program of public relations in the case of a red tide
event. Sarasota and Manatee have equipped their lifeguards with Blackberries, which are used to
send twice-daily reports of red tide conditions for their beaches that are staffed for 8-10 hours per
day, year-round. These two are joined by Charlotte and Collier in placement of red tide warning
signs on their public beaches. Gulf, Sarasota, Charlotte and Collier also issue press releases and
emails to media, hotels, Tourism Development Council, Chamber of Commerce, health care
agencies, and county websites. Manatee sends their Chief Lifeguard out into the community to
educate beach users, schools and other organizations. Sarasota was the only county with a
written, red tide-specific protocol designed to provide stringent guidelines as to policies and
procedures for beach cleaning and public safety notifications. Two counties do not manage their
beaches (Okaloosa) or do not have municipalities exposed to the Gulf of Mexico (Franklin).
Lastly, Pinellas and Lee Counties did not engage in any type of public notification efforts.
A total of 13 of the 14 cities that were directly responsible for red tide beach cleaning
followed similar action plans described as follows in the event of a red tide. Typically when a
complaint (odor or dead fish) was received by the city it was then investigated by natural or
marine resource personnel. Following their recommendations and any environmental or health
guidelines established by state or federal agencies (e.g., Florida Department of Health,
Environmental Protection Agency), the Public Works and/or Parks and Recreation departments
combined existing personnel and/or temporary labor and equipment to begin the cleaning
process. St. Petersburg, with its small beach length of approximately 650 feet, had their usual
private contractor remove any dead fish resulting from red tide blooms, and provided no further
elaborations. The remaining four cities notified their host counties as previously mentioned,
although Holmes Beach was willing to assist the county on a "where needed and as manpower is
available" basis. Holmes Beach is unique in that it possesses several "blind canals" where fish
kills build up, and it has hired commercial fishers to collect these with nets and haul them back
out into the Gulf. Only one city, Indian Rocks, provided the public with red tide information,
including red tide fact sheets that were provided by Pinellas County.






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






..: ,_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of funds for red tide-related cleanup were generated by tourism tax dollars,
with only two counties relying strictly on their regular county dollars, perhaps due to the lack of
public beaches in these areas (e.g., none were reported in Franklin and only one in Charlotte). In
all, four counties and two cities were able to provide actual dollar amounts specific to red tide
events that occurred on their public beaches. These six locations provided red tide-specific costs
totaling $653,890 over the 2004-07 time period, with total expenditures per event (including
labor, equipment, supplies and vendor fees) ranging from $11,114 to $250,000. Only two cities,
Longboat Key and Naples, have placed red tide cleaning costs as a line-item in the annual
budget, in the amounts of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively.
Although Sarasota County provided the only official written protocol outlining specific
policies and procedures in the case of a red tide event, each of the other counties and cities
appeared to follow a similar pattern of activity. Initially, a complaint of odor from a red tide-
related fish kill was received by the agency, either from a member of the public or from beach or
park personnel. An agency member, or private consultant, with some level of resource
management experience, was sent to the area to investigate the claim and establish a cleaning
protocol that would meet any human welfare, environmental and access restrictions (e.g., human
health hazard, turtle nesting site, protected dunes, etc.). At this point, cleaning personnel were
assigned from existing staff, outside labor agencies, or prison trustees, while machinery was also
either diverted from usual uses or rented from local suppliers. Once the debris was collected in
either trucks or garbage bags, it was hauled to local waste disposal sites following prescribed
regulatory procedures (e.g., dead fish might be bagged, buried, or incinerated in designated
locations).
In addition to data concerning red tide fiscal costs, respondents provided insight into the
difficulties associated with cleaning public beaches in the event of a fish kill. For example, many
of the Gulf County beaches harbor protected nesting areas for turtles and seabirds, as well as
native flora that have low tolerance levels for invasive mechanized equipment. Several beaches
have strict environment protocols in place to limit or prevent removal of washed up marine
materials for a set period of time in an effort to preserve the natural state of coastal ecosystems.
Such policies include criteria such as "no-rake" areas, cleaning only when there are "significant
numbers" of dead fish, or they require "one large fish per foot of shoreline" or "substantial
portion of the beach be covered by fish for 24-48 hours, or to a depth of six inches" before
cleaning can occur. Adherence to environmental policies must be enforced by public officials on
private businesses, and in some cases exceptions have been granted for resorts that have
established cleaning policies. On at least one occasion, the state health department stepped in and
required a county to clean private homeowners' beaches as the fish kill was deemed a human
health hazard.
Five of the counties, and only one city, mentioned public notification of an ongoing red
tide event, typically by placing warning signs on the beach and sending alerts to tourism-related
businesses. However, a few counties and cities mentioned financial support of the grassroots
organization START, or Solutions To Avoid Red Tide, which has active membership in most of
the responding regions and works to educate the public and businesses about red tide. Manatee
and Sarasota counties have equipped their lifeguards with Blackberries, which are used to send
twice-daily messages concerning red tide and other beach conditions.






..:'_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR
An important finding is the estimated costs of a red tide event per linear foot of beach.
Sarasota spent an average of $4.87 per linear foot of beach to provide the labor and equipment
necessary to remove the dead fish resulting from a single red tide event that occurred in October
2006 through February 2007. In Pinellas, seven cities were reimbursed an average of $14.27 per
linear foot of beach for red tide-related cleaning required throughout 2005; however, incidence
and duration of the events were not mentioned, and city expenditures may have exceeded county
reimbursements due to in-kind labor and equipment reallocations. This information may provide
a useful baseline for estimation of red tide-related budget needs for other cities and counties that
are responsible for public beach management. However, it should be noted that public
government protocols associated with red tide events are strongly dependent on all of the
following factors: the timing, duration and severity of an event; size of budget and labor force;
overall importance of tourism (evidenced by tourism tax collections); quantity and accessibility
of public beaches; and the environmental regulations that are specific to each locality.






..i'l N DIVERSITY OF
''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey' LOR

REFERENCES
Baden, D.G., Bourdelais, A.J., Jacocks, H., Michelliza, S., Naar, J. Natural and Derivative
Brevetoxins: Historical Background, Multiplicity, and Effects. Environmental
Perspectives, May 2005; 113(5): 621-625.
Backer, L.C., Fleming, L.E., Rowan, A., Cheng, Y.S., Benson, J., Pierce, R.H., Saias, J., Bean,
J., Bossart, G.D., Johnson, D., Quimbo, R., Baden, D.G. Recreational Exposure to
Aerosolized Brevetoxins During Florida Red Tide Events. Harmful Algae, 2003; 2:19-28.
Changnon, S.A. Shifting Economic Impacts from Weather Extremes in the United States: A
Results of Societal Changes, Not Global Warming. Natural Hazards, 2003; 29:273-290.
Flewelling, L.J., Naar, J.P., Abbott, J.P., Baden, D.G., Barros, N.B., Bossart, G.D., Bottein,
M.D., Hammond, D.G., Haubold, E.M., Heil, C.A., Henry, M.S., Jacocks, H.M.,
Leighfield, T.A., Pierce, R.H., Pitchford, T.D., Rommel, S.A., Scorr, P.S., Steidinger,
K.A., Truby, W.W., VanColah, F.M., Landsberg, J.H. Red Tides and Marine Mammal
Mortalities. Nature, 2005; 435: 755-756.
Florida Department of Revenue Office of Tax Research. Internet site:
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/ (Accessed July 14, 2007).
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
(FWRI). Internet site: http://research.myfwc.com (Accessed January 2006).
Kildow, J. Phase I Facts and Figures Florida's Ocean and Coastal Economies. National Oceans
Economics Program, June 2006. Internet site: http://noep.mbari.org/download/ (Accessed
September 23, 2006).
Kirkpatrick, B., Fleming, L.E., Squicciarini, D., Backer, L.C., Clark, R., Abraham, W., Benson,
J., Cheng, Y.S., Johnson, D. Pierce, R., Zaias, J., Bossart, G.D., Baden, D.G. Literature
Review of Florida Red Tide: Implications for Human Health Effects. Harmful Algae,
April 2004; 3(2): 99-115.
Leeworthy, V.R., Wiley, P.C. Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation National
Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. Silver Springs, MD: U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, November 2001.
Morgan, K.L. Economic Analyses of the Effects of Red Tide Events on Three Sectors of Florida
Coastal Communities: Restaurants, Residents, and Local Government. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, December 2007, Chp. 4.
Perry, M.J., Mackun, P.J.. Census 2000 Brief Population Change and Distribution, 1990-2000.
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Pub. No. C2KBR/01-2, April 2001.
Steidinger, K.A., Landsberg, J.H., Tomas, C.R., Burns, J.W. Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida.
Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force Technical Advisory Group Report #1. Submitted to
Florida's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL, 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/ (Accessed July 2007).
Visit Florida [VISIT FLA] Domestic Visitors to Florida, Florida Visitor's Study, 2005. Internet
site: http://media.visitflorida.org/about/research/ (Accessed 25 July 2007).






..:'l N DIVERSITY OF
Coastal Manager Survey FLORIDA






.. ,_i UNIVERSITY OF
' FLORIDA


Coastal Manager Survey


Table 1. Public beachfront area and tourist tax collection information for nine Florida Gulf
Coast counties

Tourist development tax, FY 2005-06b
Public
beachfronta Rate Receipts Dollars per mile
County (miles) (%) ($1,000) ($/beach mile)
Okaloosa 24 4.0 7,364 76,708
Franklin 0 2.0 669 N/A
Gulf 17 4.0 304 4,471
Pinellas 35 5.0 21,651 164,023
Manatee 14 4.0 4,760 85,000
Sarasota 7 4.0 7,432 265,429
Charlotte 12 5.0 1,625 33,854
Lee 18 5.0 17,030 236,528
Collier 22 4.0 13,056 148,364
a Public beachfront access miles retrieved from various online county government sources Sarasota:
http://apoxsee.co.sarasota.fl.us/; Charlotte: http://www.charlotte-florida.com/ ; Okaloosa:
hip \ "\ \ .co.okaloosa.fl.us/; Lee: http://www.lee-county.com/ ; Pinellas: Ihup \ \ \ .pinellascounty.org/; Gulf:
http://www.visitgulf.com/ ; Collier: Ihp \ I\ \\ .colliergov.net ; Manatee itp \ \ \ .flagulfislands.com/
b Validated tax receipts data for July 2005, through June 2006, Florida Department of Revenue, Office of Tax
Research.
' Calculated as 25% of annual FY2005-06 Tourist Development Tax collections (see Table 2). Franklin County
reported no Gulf-front public beaches.






... UNIVERSITYY OF
' FLORIDA


Coastal Manager Survey


Table 2. Sarasota County expenditures for six red tide events by public beach
Cost per event
Public beach / Red tide Labor Equipment Vendor Cost per
event number days Total beach area
(days) ($) ($) ($) ($/event) ($/ft)

Siesta Beach#1 37 10,202 5,167 1,16 16,533 6.89
Siesta Beach#2 2 327 327 0 654 0.27
Siesta Beach#3 25 2,813 1,238 1,865 5,916 2.46
Siesta Beach#4 20 10,147 5,776 720 16,643 6.93
North Jetty#1 7 5,522 3,713 1,890 11,155 12.39
North Jetty#2 1 137 109 0 246 0.27
Average 15 4,863 2,722 1,410 8,525 4.87
a Siesta Beach #1: October 2 November, 8, 2006; Siesta Beach #2: November 9-10, 2006; Siesta Beach #3:
December 4-29, 2006; Siesta Beach #4: January 8-28, 2007; North Jetty #1: February 1-7, 2007; North Jetty #2:
February 22, 2007.






..i'_ N DIVERSITY OF
'''FTLORIDA
Coastal Manager Survey 'f LOR

Table 3. Pinellas County reimbursements for 2005 red tide events by city public beach
Equipment / Costs per
Labor supplies Total beach area
City ($) ($) ($) ($/ft)
Belleair Beach 985 127 1,112 10.14
Indian Rocks Beach 9,215 5,096 14,311 5.04
Indian Shores (1) 9,972 304 10,250 22.32
Indian Shores(2) 8,160 20,878 29,038 38.09
Madeira Beach 10,868 35,998 46,866 7.01
North Redington Beach 1,199 843 2,042 14.64
Treasure Island 7,851 12,634 20,485 2.61
Average 4,863 5,064 8,525 14.27




Full Text

PAGE 1

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Public Costs of Florida Red Tide s: A Survey of Coastal Managers By Kimberly L. Morgan, Sherry L. Larkin, and Charles M. Adams Industry Report 08-1 February 2008 Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 2

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2

PAGE 3

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. ...3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................5 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............7 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........9 PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................... ...........9 SCOPE OF STUDY................................................................................................................. ......10 SURVEY RESULTS................................................................................................................. ....11 Response Rate.................................................................................................................. .......11 Agencies....................................................................................................................... ..........11 Funding Sources and Expenditures........................................................................................12 Communication or Activity Protocols....................................................................................13 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... ........15 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... .........17

PAGE 4

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 4

PAGE 5

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the EPA’s Scie nce to Achieve Results Program (R83-1707), managed by EPA’s Office of Research and Deve lopment, National Center for Environmental Research. We would also like to thank Barbara Kirkpatrick at the Mote Marine Laboratory, members of Solutions to Avoid Red Tide (STA RT), and Mr. Ray Judah, District 3 Lee County Commissioner, for their assi stance in this analysis.

PAGE 6

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 6

PAGE 7

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 7 ABSTRACT This study sought to determine the financial an d managerial impacts of red tide events on nine county and eighteen city governments charged with mana gement of public beaches along the Gulf coast in Florida. When included as a line item in annual budgets, earmarks for red tide were limited to beach cleanup activities and ranged from $50,000 to $100,000 in 2006. Invoices for red tide related beach cl ean up activitie s ranged from $11,114 to $250,000 per event from 2004-2007. Sarasota County spent an average of $4.87 per linear foot to remove the dead fish resulting from six recent red tide clean-up efforts. Seven ci ties in Pinellas County were reimbursed an average of $14.27 per linear foot of beach for red tide-related cleaning required throughout 2005. This information may provide a us eful baseline for estimation of red tiderelated budget needs for other cities and counties that are responsible for public beach management. Expenditures were directly correlated with public beach le ngth, severity of fish kills, and available beach management budgets, but are conservative estimates since they did not include in-kind labor or equipment expenses. Keywords: economic; harmful algal blooms (HABs); Karenia brevis ; red tide; public managers; survey

PAGE 8

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 8

PAGE 9

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 9 INTRODUCTION Florida is a popular tourist destination and is the top U.S. destination for at least one of 19 types of marine recreation including beach visitation, swimming, snorkeling, and scuba diving (Leeworthy). In 2005, Florida hosted 77.2 and 6.4 million domestic and international visitors, respectively, in 2005 (V ISIT FLA). In addition, appr oximately 80% of Florida’s population resides in coastal counties such that the state’s overall economy is critically dependent on the health of the supporting ma rine ecosystem (Kildow). Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are one threat to marine envir onmental quality. In Florida, blooms of Karenia brevis which are known as “red tides”, have occurred al ong some part of the mari ne coastline in nearly every year. The toxins that are produced during a red tide can kill marine life that eventually washes ashore and creates a public nuisance (B aden, Steidinger, Flewelling). In addition, the aerosolized toxins create a potential public h ealth threat by irritating the eyes, nose, and respiratory system up to three miles inland (Backer, Kirkpatrick). A 2001 report submitted by the National Ocean ic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Sea Grant College Program to the Co mmittees on Appropriati ons suggested national and local socio-economic impacts of red tide events that need to be quantified and addressed in order to develop efficient, timely management re sponses. The report stated that research efforts are needed to determine the nature and extent of private and public sector interactions in the case of a HAB event. Once these affected areas and corresponding issues are identified, accurate and efficient management decisions and aid estimates could be calculated a nd implemented at both the local and national levels. To date, however, no studies have attempte d to quantify costs incurred by resource managers to address the impacts caused by red tides, despite the need for resource allocation decisions. To help address the is paucity of need ed information, this study attempted to quantify public expenditures and procedures resulting fr om red tide-related management and mitigation issues which have affected publicly managed be aches. In this study, municipal and county-level managers located on Florida’s Gulf Coast were queried for specific information on (1) costs associated with red tide blooms, (2) beach an d red tide management protocols, (3) funding sources and allocations, and (4) the existence and t ypes of public relations efforts. The results of this survey effort are expected to provide esti mates of red tide-related expenditures incurred by local governments that can be used to guide financial planning for other public agencies. PROCEDURES Nine Florida counties were sel ected for the analysis due to the historical patterns of exposure to red tide blooms a nd popularity as tourist destinati ons. The counties selected (from northwest to southeast) were Ok aloosa, Franklin, Gulf, Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee and Collier. All are coastal counties that border the Gulf of Mexico. In an effort to estimate the fiscal costs of red tide events at a local level, 28 municipalities within the nine sample counties were additionally selected base d on their location to Gulf waters. Top-level administrators within these locati ons were identified as the sample population, which was effectively a census within the define d study region. A database of names and contact information was compiled using the 2006 Member ship Directory published by the Florida Association of Counties and the Fl orida League of Cities, Inc. Th e interviews were conducted by telephone by a single trained interviewer at the Fl orida Survey Research Center from January through March 2007.

PAGE 10

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 10 The interviewer initially contacted the top-level county or city administrator to obtain permission and recommendations with respect to id entifying appropriate i ndividuals within their organizations that would most likely have access to the information associated with red tide events. Due to the sporadic nature of red tide blooms and the complexity of government titles and responsibilities across locales characterized by large ranges of population numbers, tourism dollars, and public beach areas, it was necessary to broaden the tradit ional scope of potential respondents. To that end, an effort was made to canvas all individuals that were actively involved with beach management issues or f unding and employee management responsibilities within each public agency. Respondents were first asked to discuss general beach management programs, and then queried about costs and activities specifically associated with re d tide events. Respondents were encouraged to describe general types of beach management or mainte nance programs, and to provide data concerning fiscal year expenditures on bot h labor and equipment used in support of these programs. Questions pertaining to red tide events were designed to elicit detailed information for each responding county or city agency. The red tide -specific section included actual or estimated labor and equipment costs, ev idence of communication protocol s related to either clean-up activities or public relations, t ypes of activities undertaken or sponsored by the agency, funds allocated to red tide mitigation or management, historical responses to red tide events, and identification of agency departments charge d with red tide-relat ed responsibilities. SCOPE OF STUDY The total population for each county ranged from approximately 11,000 in Franklin to 905,000 in Pinellas, with an average of 3 07,000 persons. Lee and Co llier counties each experienced population growth rates exceeding 20% from 2002 to 2005. Manatee, Sarasota, and Charlotte also witnessed an influx of reside nts over this same time period, with populations increasing by 13.9%, 10.4% and 9.5%, respectivel y. Pinellas was the only county that experienced a negative growth rate, le ss than two percent, from 2002 to 2005. Okaloosa County hosted nearly three million vis itors in 2005, with slightly fewer visiting Pinellas and Lee counties, which received 2.4 and 2.3 million domestic visitors, respectively (VISIT FLA). Sarasota and Collier each attracte d more than one and half million tourists in 2005, while Manatee saw 770,000 vi sitors to its area. With the exception of Franklin County, each of the remaining eight counties in the sample had some number of publicly managed beachfront, ranging from a maximum of 35 miles in Pinellas to a minimum of seven miles in Sarasota, for an average of nearly 17 miles (Table 1). While Sarasota had the fewest overall miles, it had nearly as many public access point, or parks, as Pinellas, with each having 30 and 31, respectively. Access to public beaches may be free or fee-based, and can include boardwalks, piers, jettie s, parking lots, state parks, and in some cases are accessible by motorized vehicle. Each county’ s beaches exhibit a range of characteristics, from the sugar-white sands of the Panhandle beaches the flat expanses in Pinellas, the barrier islands of Sarasota and Manatee, and the interwoven marshes of Collier. To support the tourism industries in these re gions, all of the coun ties collect tourist development taxes that are administered thro ugh the related Tourism Development Councils (Table 1). Tax rates ranged from two percent in Franklin to five percent in Pinellas, Charlotte, and Lee. The remaining five counties collected four percent in taxes on tourism-dependent

PAGE 11

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 11 business revenues. In total, FY 2005-06 tourist development collections ranged from $304,000 in Gulf, up to nearly $22 million in Pinellas, with an average of over $8 million across all nine counties. Lee and Collier ranked just behind Pinellas, with total tourist tax collections of $17 and $13 million, respectively. Okaloosa and Sarasota each collected just over $7 million and Manatee slightly less than $5 million annually. Four of the counties indicated that at leas t 25% of annual tourism tax collections were earmarked for public beach management, maintenan ce, and improvements. In order to generate a scale of beach-related expenditures for each count y, one-fourth of annual tourism tax collections were divided by miles of public beach managed by each county (Table 1). Tax collection records revealed that Sarasota and Lee Counties could spend $265,429 and $236,528, respectively, per mile of public beach. Pinellas and Collier Count ies were each capable of allocating $164,023 and $148,364 per public beach mile. Eight of the 18 cities surveyed, or 44%, we re located in Pinellas County, while Manatee had three cities (Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, and Holmes Beach) with an average of 2,754 residents. Sarasota, Lee, and Collier counties were each represented by two cities, with average populations of 35,240, 6,313, and 17,928, respectivel y. Longboat Key claimed county affiliations with both Manatee and Sarasota, and is home to an estimated 7,603 people. Overall, the Census population estimates ranged from the small co mmunity of North Redington Beach, with 1,482 inhabitants, to the sprawling metropolis of St. Petersburg, with nearly a quarter-million individuals, both of which are located in Pinellas. SURVEY RESULTS Response Rate Completed interviews were obtained on a total of 27 cities or counties for a response rate of 87.1%. These 27 agencies included all nine c ounties (Okaloosa, Gulf, Franklin, Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee and Collier) a nd 18 cites located within these counties. The 18 municipalities are located within the boundaries of fi ve of the nine counties – Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee and Collier. Six municipalities we re either unreachable, or unwilling to respond to the survey questionnaire. Of th e total number of completions, four agencies were deemed ineligible due to their distance from Gulf waters or their lack of public ly managed Gulf-facing beaches. Agencies Six counties involved at least two or more of their departments in the physical management of beach/red tide management res ponsibilities. Parks and Recreation and Public Works/Utility departments were mentioned by the majority of county respondents (4 or more). Natural Resources or Environment/Pollution Cont rol departments were mentioned by three of the counties. Sarasota and Gulf mentioned the involvement of thei r local branches of the Florida Department of Health, while Gulf also includ ed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Franklin and Pinellas both mentioned the role of thei r Public Waste departments in fish kill clean-ups. Sarasota and Lee referred to the roles of outsi de private contractors in water monitoring and beach cleaning responsibilities, respectively. Okaloosa was the only county to refer to the role of their Tourism Development Council. Finally, Pinellas, Manatee and Sarasota stated the inclusion of the Mana gement and Budget Office, the Di vision of Marine Rescue, and Emergency Services, respectively, as holdin g responsibilities for beach-related physical management tasks.

PAGE 12

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 12 The majority of cities interviewed, 12 out of 18, or 67%, assigned physical beach or red tide tasks to their Public Works department, while mo re than half of all c ities (10) hired private contractors, contract labor, c onsulting firms, commercial fish ers, marine inspectors, or equipment and boat rental suppliers to handle beach cleaning work. Five cities mentioned the top administrator, i.e. Town Clerk, City Manager, City Council, or Mayor, as having primary responsibilities for managing beaches and red tide events. Three cities, Sarasota, Venice, and Marco Island, noted that their beaches were physically cared for by their counties. Parks and Recreation and Natural Resource departments were mentioned by three cities each, four of which are located in Pinellas. Anna Maria was th e only one to mention the Garbage Collection department, although this could be considered equivalent to larger cities’ Public Works departments. Madeira Beach involved their Fina nce Director in physical management tasks, primarily in the role of assigning fund s to beach-related responsibilities. Not surprisingly, three-quarters of the countie s claimed their Tourism Tax Funds as the source of dollars used in both beach maintenan ce and red tide management chores. Five of the counties also mentioned their own county governme nt “regular”, “emerge ncy” or “contingency reserves” funds, with Pinellas a nd Charlotte relying solely on their own budgets for funding (no mention of tourism tax funding). While Franklin C ounty used its own funds to clean its beaches, the respondent claimed that it “has no cities on the Gulf and is not greatly bothered by, nor concerned with, red tide or other HABs.” Funding Sources and Expenditures Overall, six counties provided estimated and hi storical financial information with respect to overall beach maintenance efforts. General annual beach management and maintenance costs ranged from nearly $1.5 million in Sarasota, down to $76,000 in Gulf. While some counties did not provide red tide-related costs, several resp ondents noted allocations of large portions of tourism tax dollars towards annual emergency b each cleaning accounts (which would be used in the event of a red tide), which ranged from $25,000 in Okaloosa up to $400,000 in Sarasota. Four counties had kept precise records of re d tide related beach cleaning expenditures, and included Pinellas, Sarasota, Lee and Collier. Sarasota respondents pr ovided current red tide cleaning expenditures of $51,148 fo r six separate events in FY 2006-07, which included labor, equipment and vendor costs (Table 2). Pinellas offers a reimburseme nt program to its cities that had incurred costs related to red tide cleaning in 2005, and seven cities received $78,090 in total (Table 3). Pinellas’ Office of Management and Budget has limited reimbursement parameters to include actual overtime, temporary labor, and equi pment costs related directly to red tides that occurred during a specif ic time frame. Lee recorded costs of $250,000 for a single 2004 red tide event in Fort Myers, and Collier spen t $250,000 in 2005 in red tide-related cleaning expenditures. Seven cities are reimbursed by their host countie s for at least some, but not all, of the labor or dollar expenditure s on red tide cleaning efforts, six of these in Pinellas, and one in Lee. Four cities (Holmes Beach, Sarasota, Venice, and Marco Island) indicated that they would notify their host counties in the event of a fish kill and, therefore, were not responsible for fiscal or labor expenditures. Three municipalities (Bra denton Beach, Fort Myers Beach, and Naples) indicated their own budgets were the only source of funds used to clean beaches after a red tide event. Two cities, Clearwater and St. Petersburg, used beach parking fee co llections to maintain their beaches, and this would include cleaning up during a red tide event.

PAGE 13

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 13 A total of 11 of the 18 cities, or 61%, provi ded red tide-related fi nancial and/or labor costs. These numbers ranged from $1,420 recei ved by Belleair Beach from Pinellas County for its 2005 red tide clean-up efforts, up to Long Boat Key’s annual red tide line item budget allocation of $100,000 for cleaning its 10.5 miles of public beaches. The seven cities receiving reimbursement funds from their counties co llected between $1,420 up to $45,310 as a result of 2005 red tide events. Naples was the sole self-funde d city to have a hist orical red tide annual cleaning allocation of $50,000 in its budget, although Long Bo at Key established its $100,000 red tide budget in 2006. The majori ty of labor and equipment used to clean red tide-related fish kills is provided by regular city staff and machinery, and most counties waived the dumping fees associated with dead fish disposal. Howeve r, several respondents mentioned the need for overtime, contract labor, and prisoner trustees required to expedite the cleaning process, depending on volume and location of dead marine creatures. Overall, five counties shifted existing pe rsonnel and equipment for red tide cleaning efforts, including Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte and Collier. These same five, plus Lee, hired additional temporary labor or private contractors and utilized prison trustees to achieve the timely removal of dead fish. Communication or Activity Protocols Five of the counties followed some program of public relations in the case of a red tide event. Sarasota and Manatee have equipped their lifeguards with Blackberries, which are used to send twice-daily reports of red tide conditions for their beaches that are staffed for 8-10 hours per day, year-round. These two are joined by Charlotte and Collier in placement of red tide warning signs on their public beaches. Gulf, Sarasota, Char lotte and Collier also issue press releases and emails to media, hotels, Tourism Developmen t Council, Chamber of Commerce, health care agencies, and county websites. Ma natee sends their Chief Lifeguard out into the community to educate beach users, schools a nd other organizations. Sarasota was the only county with a written, red tide-specific protocol designed to provide stringent guidelines as to policies and procedures for beach cleaning and public safety notifications. Two coun ties do not manage their beaches (Okaloosa) or do not have municipalities exposed to the Gulf of Mexico (Franklin). Lastly, Pinellas and Lee Counties did not engage in a ny type of public notification efforts. A total of 13 of the 14 cities that were di rectly responsible for red tide beach cleaning followed similar action plans described as follows in the event of a red tide. Typically when a complaint (odor or dead fish) was received by the city it was then investigated by natural or marine resource personnel. Following their reco mmendations and any environmental or health guidelines established by state or federal agencies (e.g., Fl orida Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency), the Public Works and/or Parks and Recreation departments combined existing personnel and/or temporary labor and equipment to begin the cleaning process. St. Petersburg, with it s small beach length of approximately 650 feet, had their usual private contractor remove any dead fish resul ting from red tide blooms, and provided no further elaborations. The remaining four cities notified their host counties as previously mentioned, although Holmes Beach was willing to assist the county on a “where need ed and as manpower is available” basis. Holmes Beach is unique in th at it possesses several “blind canals” where fish kills build up, and it has hired commercial fishers to collect these with nets and haul them back out into the Gulf. Only one city, Indian Rocks, provided the public with red tide information, including red tide fact sheets that were provided by Pinellas County.

PAGE 14

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 14

PAGE 15

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 15 CONCLUSIONS The majority of funds for red tide-related cl eanups were generated by tourism tax dollars, with only two counties relying strictly on their regul ar county dollars, perhaps due to the lack of public beaches in these areas (e.g., none were reporte d in Franklin and only one in Charlotte). In all, four counties and two cities were able to pr ovide actual dollar amount s specific to red tide events that occurred on their publ ic beaches. These six locations pr ovided red tide-specific costs totaling $653,890 over the 2004-07 time period, with total expenditures pe r event (including labor, equipment, supplies and vendor fees) ranging from $11,114 to $250,000. Only two cities, Longboat Key and Naples, have placed red tide cl eaning costs as a line-item in the annual budget, in the amounts of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. Although Sarasota County provided the only offi cial written protocol outlining specific policies and procedures in the case of a red tid e event, each of the other counties and cities appeared to follow a similar pa ttern of activity. Ini tially, a complaint of odor from a red tiderelated fish kill was received by th e agency, either from a member of the public or from beach or park personnel. An agency me mber, or private consultant, w ith some level of resource management experience, was sent to the area to investigate the claim and establish a cleaning protocol that would meet any human welfare, environmental and access restrictions (e.g., human health hazard, turtle nesting s ite, protected dunes, etc.). At th is point, cleaning personnel were assigned from existing staff, outside labor agencies or prison trustees, while machinery was also either diverted from usual uses or rented from local suppliers. Once the debris was collected in either trucks or garbage bags, it was hauled to local waste disposal si tes following prescribed regulatory procedures (e.g., dead fish might be bagged, buried, or incinerated in designated locations). In addition to data concerning red tide fiscal costs, respondents provided insight into the difficulties associated with cleanin g public beaches in the event of a fish kill. For example, many of the Gulf County beaches harbor protected nes ting areas for turtles and seabirds, as well as native flora that have low tolera nce levels for invasive mechanized equipment. Several beaches have strict environment protocol s in place to limit or preven t removal of washed up marine materials for a set period of time in an effort to preserve the natural stat e of coastal ecosystems. Such policies include criteria such as “no-rak e” areas, cleaning only when there are “significant numbers” of dead fish, or they require “one la rge fish per foot of shoreline” or “substantial portion of the beach be covered by fish for 2448 hours, or to a depth of six inches” before cleaning can occur. Adherence to environmental po licies must be enforced by public officials on private businesses, and in some cases exceptions have been granted for resorts that have established cleaning policie s. On at least one occasion, the stat e health department stepped in and required a county to clean private homeowners’ b eaches as the fish kill was deemed a human health hazard. Five of the counties, and only one city, me ntioned public notification of an ongoing red tide event, typically by placing warning signs on the beach and sending alerts to tourism-related businesses. However, a few counties and cities mentioned financial s upport of the grassroots organization START, or Solutions To Avoid Red Tide, which has active membership in most of the responding regions and works to educate the public and busin esses about red tide. Manatee and Sarasota counties have equippe d their lifeguards with Blackberr ies, which are used to send twice-daily messages concerning red tide and other beach conditions.

PAGE 16

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 16 An important finding is the estimated costs of a red tide event per linear foot of beach. Sarasota spent an average of $4.87 per linear foot of beach to provide the labor and equipment necessary to remove the dead fish resulting from a single red tide event that occurred in October 2006 through February 2007. In Pine llas, seven cities were reim bursed an average of $14.27 per linear foot of beach for red tide-related cleaning required th roughout 2005; however, incidence and duration of the events were not mentioned, a nd city expenditures may have exceeded county reimbursements due to in-kind labor and equipmen t reallocations. This information may provide a useful baseline for estimation of red tide-relate d budget needs for other cities and counties that are responsible for public beach management However, it should be noted that public government protocols associated with red tide events are strongly de pendent on all of the following factors: the timing, duration and severity of an event; size of budget and labor force; overall importance of tourism (evidenced by tour ism tax collections); qua ntity and accessibility of public beaches; and the environmental regulat ions that are specific to each locality.

PAGE 17

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 17 REFERENCES Baden, D.G., Bourdelais, A.J., Jacocks, H., Mi chelliza, S., Naar, J. Natural and Derivative Brevetoxins: Historical Background, Multip licity, and Effects. Environmental Perspectives, May 2005; 113(5): 621-625. Backer, L.C., Fleming, L.E., Rowan, A., Cheng, Y. S., Benson, J., Pierce, R.H., Saias, J., Bean, J., Bossart, G.D., Johnson, D., Quimbo, R., Baden, D.G. Recreational Exposure to Aerosolized Brevetoxins Duri ng Florida Red Tide Events. Harmful Algae, 2003; 2:19-28. Changnon, S.A. Shifting Economic Impacts from W eather Extremes in the United States: A Results of Societal Changes, Not Global Warming. Natural Hazards, 2003; 29:273-290. Flewelling, L.J., Naar, J.P., Abbott, J.P., Bade n, D.G., Barros, N.B., Bossart, G.D., Bottein, M.D., Hammond, D.G., Haubold, E.M., Heil, C.A., Henry, M.S., Jacocks, H.M., Leighfield, T.A., Pierce, R.H., Pitchford, T. D., Rommel, S.A., Scorr, P.S., Steidinger, K.A., Truby, W.W., VanColah, F.M., Landsbe rg, J.H. Red Tides and Marine Mammal Mortalities. Nature, 2005; 435: 755-756. Florida Department of Revenue Offi ce of Tax Research. Internet site: http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/ (Accessed July 14, 2007). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commi ssion – Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). Internet site: http://resear ch.myfwc.com (Accessed January 2006). Kildow, J. Phase I Facts and Figures Florida’ s Ocean and Coastal Economies. National Oceans Economics Program, June 2006. Internet site: http://noep.mbari.org/download/ (Accessed September 23, 2006). Kirkpatrick, B., Fleming, L.E., Squicciarini, D ., Backer, L.C., Clark, R., Abraham, W., Benson, J., Cheng, Y.S., Johnson, D. Pierce, R., Zaias, J., Bossart, G.D., Baden, D.G. Literature Review of Florida Red Tide: Implications for Human Health Effects. Harmful Algae, April 2004; 3(2): 99-115. Leeworthy, V.R., Wiley, P.C. Current Participat ion Patterns in Marine Recreation National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. Silver Springs, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration, National Ocean Service, November 2001. Morgan, K.L. Economic Analyses of the Effects of Red Tide Events on Three Sectors of Florida Coastal Communities: Restaurants, Residents, and Local Government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesv ille, Florida, December 2007, Chp. 4. Perry, M.J., Mackun, P.J.. Census 2000 Brief Population Change and Distribution, 1990-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bure au, Pub. No. C2KBR/01-2, April 2001. Steidinger, K.A., Landsberg, J.H., Tomas, C.R., Burns, J.W. Harm ful Algal Blooms in Florida. Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force Technica l Advisory Group Report #1. Submitted to Florida’s Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, 1999. U.S. Census Bureau. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/ (Accessed July 2007). Visit Florida [VISIT FLA] Dome stic Visitors to Florida, Florida Visitor’s Study, 2005. Internet site: http://media.visitf lorida.org/about/research/ (Accessed 25 July 2007).

PAGE 18

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 18

PAGE 19

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 19 Table 1. Public beachfront area and tourist ta x collection information for nine Florida Gulf Coast counties Tourist development tax, FY 2005-06b Public beachfronta Rate Receipts Dollars per milec County (miles) (%) ($1,000) ($/beach mile) Okaloosa 24 4.0 7,364 76,708 Franklin 0 c 2.0 669 N/A Gulf 17 4.0 304 4,471 Pinellas 35 5.0 21,651 164,023 Manatee 14 4.0 4,760 85,000 Sarasota 7 4.0 7,432 265,429 Charlotte 12 5.0 1,625 33,854 Lee 18 5.0 17,030 236,528 Collier 22 4.0 13,056 148,364 a Public beachfront access miles retrieved from vari ous online county government sources – Sarasota: http://apoxsee.co.sarasota.fl.us/ ; Charlotte: h ttp://www.charlotte-florida.com/ ; Okaloosa: http://www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/ ; Lee: http://www.lee-county .com/ ; Pinellas: http://www.pinellascounty.org/ ; Gulf: http://www.visitgulf.com/ ; Collier: http://www.collierg ov.net ; Manatee http://www.flagulfislands.com/ b Validated tax receipts data for July 2005, through June 2006, Florida Department of Revenue, Office of Tax Research. c Calculated as 25% of annual FY2005-06 Tourist Development Tax collections (see Table 2). Franklin County reported no Gulf-fro nt public beaches.

PAGE 20

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 20 Table 2. Sarasota County expenditures for six red tide events by public beach Cost per event Public beach / event numbera Red tide days Labor EquipmentVendor Total Cost per beach area (days) ($) ($) ($) ($/event) ($/ft) Siesta Beach#1 37 10,202 5,167 1,16 16,533 6.89 Siesta Beach#2 2 327 327 0 654 0.27 Siesta Beach#3 25 2,813 1,238 1,865 5,916 2.46 Siesta Beach#4 20 10,147 5,776 720 16,643 6.93 North Jetty#1 7 5,522 3,713 1,890 11,155 12.39 North Jetty#2 1 137 109 0 246 0.27 Average 15 4,863 2,722 1,410 8,525 4.87 a Siesta Beach #1: October 2 – Novemb er, 8, 2006; Siesta Beach #2: Nove mber 9-10, 2006; Siesta Beach #3: December 4-29, 2006; Siesta Beach #4: January 8-28 2007; North Jetty #1: February 1-7, 2007; North Jetty #2: February 22, 2007.

PAGE 21

Coastal Manager Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 21 Table 3. Pinellas County reimbursements for 2005 red tide events by city public beach Labor Equipment / supplies Total Costs per beach area City ($) ($) ($) ($/ft) Belleair Beach 985 127 1,112 10.14 Indian Rocks Beach 9,215 5,096 14,311 5.04 Indian Shores (1) 9,972 304 10,250 22.32 Indian Shores(2) 8,160 20,878 29,038 38.09 Madeira Beach 10,868 35,998 46,866 7.01 North Redington Beach 1,199 843 2,042 14.64 Treasure Island 7,851 12,634 20,485 2.61 Average 4,863 5,064 8,525 14.27