[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                                                                                       3.ao





                     PRE-STORM PLANNING FOR POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT:


                                          POLICHS AND OPTIONS
                                   FOR FLORIDA'S BEACHFRONT AREAS



                                                   Phase I








                                               FINAL REPORT





                                                February,1994















                 This study was funded in part by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Coastal Man-
                 agement Program, with the support of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                 under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 7972, as amended.


















               PRE-STORM PLANNING FOR POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT:


                                  POLICIES AND OPTIONS
                           FOR FLORIDA'S BEACHFRONT AREAS



                                           Phase I











                                         February,1994













           FAU/F1U joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
           Florida Atlantic University, Department of Economics, Boca Raton, FL
           Flack & Associates, Tallahassee, FL
           Successful Communities Institute of 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, FL










                                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



                   The contents of this document were produced for the Division of Beaches and
            Shores within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under DEP
            contract C-8151. The following persons and organizations were responsible for
            producing the contents of this document for the first phase of the project:


                   FAU/FIU joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Ft.
                   Lauderdale, FL
                         Patricia M. Metzger
                         Michele E. Correia
                         Robert K. Lincoln, Esq.
                         Martin Schneider
                         Sean College
                   Florida Atlantic University, Department of Economics, Boca Raton, FL
                         Dr.. William B. Stronge
                   Deborah E. Flack, Flack and Associates, Tallahassee, FL
                   Successful Communities Institute, 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, FL
                         James F. Murley, Esq.
                         Patricia S. McKay
                   International Land Policy Research Center, Washington, D.C.
                         Frank Schnidman, Esq.


                   The project staff wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and guidance of
            Kirby Green, III, Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, in overseeing the
            progress of the first phase of this project, for which we are deeply grateful. We also
            extend our gratitude to the following persons for the time and effort they
            contributed to reviewing and critiquing a draft of this report:


                   Dr. Robert G. Dean, Chairman, Coastal and Oceanographic Engineerin g
                         Department, University of Florida
                   Wayne Daltry, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning
                         Council
                   Al Devereaux, Bureau Chief, Coastal Engineering and Regulation, Division of
                         Beaches and Shores (DEP)



                                                     2








                  Dr. David Godschalk, Professor, City and Regional Planning, University of
                        North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                  Caroline Knight, Florida Coastal Management Program, Department of
                        Community Affairs
                  Alan C. Pierce, County Planner/ Emergency Management Director, Franklin
                        County, FL
                  Gary T. Ridenour, Director, Brevard County Growth Management
                        Department
                  Lonnie Ryder, Environmental Administrator, Division of Beaches and
                        Shores (DEP)
                  Stan Tait, Executive Director, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
                        Association







            Patricia M. Metzger
            Project Manager


            February,1994






















                                                   3










                      PRE-STORM PLANNING FOR POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT:
                                  Policies and Options for Florida's Beachfront Areas


                                                                                     Phase I



                                                                                      Contents




                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                              .........................................................................................2
                      GLOSSARY            ....................................................................................................................6
                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                           ...........................................................................................9
                      Section 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND                                                  .......................................... 14
                      Section 2. PURPOSE OF PROJECT (Phase 1)                                   ........................................................... 17
                      Section 3. PURPOSE FOR PROPOSED POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT
                      POLICY AND BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS                                                    ............................................ 18
                                 3.1. Intergovernmental Coordination of Post-storm Redevelopment
                                 Polices     ................................................................................................................. 21
                                 3.2. Baseline Assumptions                      ............................................................................ 23
                      Section 4. POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR BEACHFIZONT
                      AREAS          ........................................................................................................................... 27
                      Section 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF A POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT
                      POLICY FOR BEACHFIZONT AREAS                                   ..................................................................... 32
                                 5.1. Pre-storm Identification of Post-storm Beach Management
                                 Options        ............................................................................................................... 32
                                             5.1.1. Purpose          ......................................................................................... 32
                                             5.1.2. Categories of Post-storm Beach Management Options                                            .... 33
                                             5.1.3. Minimum Criteria for Determining Post-storm Beach
                                             Management Options                   ......................................................................... 35
                                             5.1.4. Implementation of the Pre-storm Identification Process..38
                                             5.1.5. Resources for Inventory of Beachfront Conditions                                        .......... 48
                                 5.2. Post-storm Reassessment of Beach Management Options                                                ............. 49
                                             5.2.1. Purpose         ......................................................................................... 49
                                             5.2.2. Implementation of Post-storm Reassessment and Damage
                                             Assessment         ............................................................................................ 50
                      Section 6. COMPARE14G COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE
                      BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS                                     ....................................................................... 53
                                 6.1. Costs and Benefits from a Beach Restoration                                   .................................... 55
                                 6.2. Costs and Benefits of Reduced SiteCoverage                                   ..................................... 56
                                 6.3. Costs and Benefits of Reduced Site Coverage Coupled with a Beach
                                 Restoration          ......................................................................................................... 57
                                 6.4. Costs and Benefits of Relocation Landward                                  ....................................... 58
                                 6.5. Post-Storm Analysis of Beach Management Options                                            ...................... 58
                      Section 7. OBJECTIVES OF PHASE II                                .................................................................... 59




                                                                                            4










                                                                          LIST OF APPENDICES



                      APPENDIX A. Counties with Coastal Construction Control Lines                                                    ................. 61
                      APPENDIX B. Bibliography of Post-Disaster and Hazard Mitigation
                      Literature         ....................................................................................................................... 62
                      APPENDIX C. Legal Context of Proposed Post-storm Redevelopment
                      Policy for Beachfront Areas                     ....................................................................................... 64
                      APPENDIX D. Defining and Determining "Substantial Damage                                                    ..................... 79
                      APPENDIX E. Pre-storm Application of a Replatting Program for Post-storm
                      Redevelopment              ............................................................................................................ 90
                      APPENDIX F. Impacts of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993
                      on Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line Program                                          .................................. 99




                                                                               LIST OF TABLES

                      TABLE 1. Public Purpose of a Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Florida's
                      Beachfront Areas              .......................................................................................................... 20
                      TABLE 2. Baseline Assumptions                           ............................................................................. 24
                      TABLE 3. Categories of Post-storm Beach Management Options                                                   .................... 34
                      TABLE 4. Minimum Criteria for Post-storm Beach Management Options ..37
                      TABLE 5. Inventory of Beachfront Conditions                                     .................................................... 40
                      TABLE 6. General Implementation Strategies for Post-storm Beach
                      Management Options                     ................................................................................................... 47



















                                                                                            5












                                                GLOSSARY



             Beach and Dune System: The part of the coastal system extending seaward from
             the established Coastal Construction Control Line to the depth of normal wave
             influence on the bottom, including the beach (i.e., the zone of unconsolidated
             material that extends landward from the mean low-water line to the place where
             there is marked change in natural or man-made physiographic form, or to the line
             of permanent vegetation), the dune (i.e., a mound, ridege, or escarpment
             predominantly made of sandy material), and all other related natural and man-
             made features.



             Beach Enhancement Program: A program, authorized and permitted by the'state, to
             maintain and/or improve the stability of the beach and dune system. Can include
             planting of dune vegetation and reconstruction of damaged beach and dune system.


             Beach Restoration Program: A program, authorized or identified in the State
             Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan to place sand on an eroded beach for the
             purposes of restoring it as a recreational beach, providing storm protection for
             upland properties and establishing habitat.


             Coastal, Construction Control Line (CCCL): Established pursuant to the provisions
             of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, to preserve and protect beaches and the coastal
             barrier dunes adjacent to such beaches from imprudent construction which can
             jeopardize the stability of the beach-dune system, accelerate erosion, provide
             inadequate protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or
             interfere with public beach access.


             Conservation Easements: A legal method that restricts a landowner's actions on
             property in order to conserve important recreation, environmental, or historical
             values by acquiring a specific interest.

             Critically Eroding Areas: B@achfront areas where development or recreationa'I
             interests are imminently threatened by erosion processes.








                                                       6








              Erosion Control Line: The line, established only in areas with an authorized beach
              restoration project, determined in accordance with the provisions of ss. 161.141-
              161.211, Florida Statutes, which represents the landward extent of the claims of the
              state in its capacity as sovereign titleholder of the submerged bottoms and shores of
              the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the bays, lagoons and other tidal reaches
              thereof on the date of the recording of the survey as authorized in s. 161.181, Florida
              Statutes.


              Erosion Control Programs: Beach restoration and preservation-type activities such
              as inlet sand transfer, dune r 'epairs, dune reconstruction, revegetation, and the
              construction of dune protective structures in order to mitigate the impacts of
              erosion on upland structures.


              Frontal Dune: The first natural or manmade mound or bluff of sand which is
              located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height,
              continuity, and configuration to offer protective value.


              Hazardous Coastal Areas: In general, beachfront areas that are especially susceptible
              to high rate's of erosion and where erosion and other coastal processes threaten the
              stability of upland structures.


              Major Structures: Houses, mobile homes, apartment buildings, condominiums,
              motels, hotels, restaurants, towers, other types of residential, commercial, or public
              buildings, and other construction having the potential for substantial impact on
              coastal zones.



              Non-conforming Structure: Any structure which was not constructed pursuant to a
              permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or which cannot be
              demonstrated to meet current structural requirements.


              Rigid Coastal Structures: Shoreline protection structures that are characterized by
              their solid or highly impermeable design or construction. Typically included within
              this category are groins, breakwaters, mound structures, jetties, weirs, seawalls,
              bulkheads, and revetments (Chapter 16B-41, Florida Administrative Code).


              Site-Coverage: Coverage of the shoreline in the shore-parallel and shore-width
              directions by structures.





                                                          7








             State Beach Management Plan Pursuant to Chapter 161-161, Florida Statutes, the
             Division of Beaches and Shores is to prepare a "comprehensive and long-term plan
             for the management and restoration of the state's critically eroding beaches." This is
             to be a strategic plan and serve as a blueprint of what Florida's beaches should look
             like in the future.



             Thirty-year Erosion Projection: The projection of long-term beach and coast
             recession occurring over a period of thirty years based on shoreline change rate
             information obtained from historical measurements.


















































                                                      8












                                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



                    Florida's 787 miles of sandy beaches and shorelines represent an unparalleled
             environmental and economic asset for the state. However, a significant portion of
             the state's beaches are experiencing critical erosion which threatens substantial
             development and recreational interests. The Beach and Shore Preservation Act
             directs the Division of Beaches and Shores (within the Department of
             Environmental Protection, or DEP) to prepare a comprehensive and long-term plan
             for the management and restoration of the state's critically eroding beaches.
             According to the statutes, the plan must identify "alternative management
             responses ... to prevent inappropriate development and redevelopment on
             migrating beaches, and consider beach restoration and renourishment, armoring,
             relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation restoration, and acquisition"
             (s.161.161(l)(j)).
                    This report represents the completion of the first phase of a three-year project
             to develop, test, and implement a post-storm redevelopment policy for Florida's
             beachfront areas. Sections 1 and 2 summarize the background and purpose of the
             first phase of this project. The three phases of the project include:


                    PHASE I:     Draft Policy and Guidelines for Implementation
                    PHASE 11: Test and Revise Policy and Guidelines
                    PHASE III: Policy Adoption and Implementation


             This report presents a proposed policy to guide redevelopment of the state's
             beachfront areas and guidelines for implementing this policy, both before and after a
             major storm. This policy is to be included as a preservation/ restoration component
             of the state's Beach Management Plan and targets areas seaward of state-established
             jurisdictional lines known as Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCLs).
                    While most post-storm redevelopment will be to pre-existing uses and
             densities pursuant to the siting and construction standards of Chapter 161, Florida
             Statutes, or local codes, other post-storm redevelopment options for specific sites
             may include elevation or setback of structures, reduction of site coverage, and in a
             few areas, acquisition of hazard-prone properties. The rebuilding period following a
             hurricane or major storm event presents an opportunity to implement these








            redevelopment options   However, unless a plan exists and preparations have been
            made prior to the storm, the implementation of any of these options will be
            unlikely due to the rush to restore normalcy after a destructive storm.


            A Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas
                   Section 3 explains the purpose for adopting and implementing a post-storm
            redevelopment policy for beachfront areas. Section 4 presents the objectives and
            specific policies of the overall policy. The four main objectives of the Post-storm
            Redevelopment Policy proposed in this report include:
                   (1) protection of the beach-dune system during redevelopment;
                   (2) mitigation of coastal hazards;
                   (3) maintenance or enhancement of economic value of beachfront areas; and
                   (4) coordination of policy and regulation among agencies responsible for
                   protection and management of coastal resources during the post-storm
                   redevelopment period.


                   The proposed policy and implementation guidelines are intended to enhance
            the existing coastal construction permitting program so that permitting decisions are
            consistent with long-term goals for beach management and redevelopment of
            beachfront areas. Given the shared responsibilities of the state and local
            governments to plan for post-storm redevelopment in coastal areas, the two
            agencies must work jointly to develop post-storm redevelopment plans that marry
            beach management objectives and siting and design standards with local land use,
            subdivision, and density policies and standards.


            Pre-storm Planning and Implementation
                   Implementation of any post-storm redevelopment policy must begin before
            the storm. Section 5 of this report describes a pre-storm process to determine the
            applicable standards for redevelopment and to identify appropriate post-storm beach
            management options to meet these s tandards. The process begins with the
            assessment of existing physical, environmental, economic, and policy /regulatory
            conditions of beachfront areas in order to answer two critical questions: (1) Can the
            beachfront area be redeveloped pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida
            Statutes? (2) If not, does another viable option exist that would allow
            redevelopment in' accordance with the Post-storm Redevelopment Policy?
            Following the determination of post-storm redevelopment standards and


                                                    10








            identification of options, a pre-storm strategy must be initiated if a redevelopment
            scenario different from existing development conditions is envisioned.
                  The Beach Management Plan should establish five categories of post-storm
            beach management options for planning purposes. These categories are indicated
            below.




                   CATEGORIES OF POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS



                  CATEGORY 1: Major structures may be rebuilt according to construction and
                  siting requirements and restrictions pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes,
                  and its implementing regulations.

                  CATEGORY 2: Major structures may be rebuilt according to construction and
                  siting requirements and restrictions pursuant to Chapter 161,' Florida Statutes,
                  and its implementing regulations, pending authorized beach restoration or
                  other beach enhancement program.

                  CATEGORY 3: Reduction of site coverage of beachfront area.

                  CATEGORY 4: Reduction of site coverage of beachfront area, pending
                  authorized beach restoration or other beach enhancement program.

                  CATEGORY 5: Relocation of structures landward of the active beach and
                  frontal dune.


                  Jointly, Categories 1 and 2 represent the continuation of current coastal
            planning and regulatory practices supported by the preservation/ restoration
            component of the state Beach Management Plan. Category 1 represents "business as
            usual" for most of Florida's beaches and it is expected that most beachfront areas
            will fall within this category. Category 2 also represents redevelopment to pre-
            existing uses, but also acknowledges that post-storm site conditions will- require
            some type of beach enhancement. This category will apply to areas that are already
            part of an existing beach restoration project and to areas that need some type of
            future nourishment.
                  Categories 3, 4, and 5 include far more extreme options and will apply only to
            beachfront segments where reasonable post-storm redevelopment by any standard









             cannot accommodate pre-storm uses or densities. Designation will be limited to
             sites:       where redevelopment cannot be economically justified;
                          which are highly vulnerable to hazards;
                          where supporting infrastructure cannot be reasonably provided;
                          where development would adversely impact the beach-dune system;
                          where structures would impede natural migratory processes.


             Employing these restrictive categories will require the full cooperation of local
             governments to designate supportive future land uses and densities and a variety of
             incentives to ensure voluntary participation of affected property owners. Appendix
             E of this report describes a pre-storm process to implement redevelopment options
             in Categories 3, 4, and 5. This process stresses the importance of thorough pre-storm
             preparation and the degree of cooperation needed among state and local officials and
             affected property owners.
                    Identification of post-storm beach management options will be based on
             minimum criteria which reinforce the proposed Post-storm Redevelopment Policy.
             Section 5.1.3 presents a matrix which depicts the minimum criteria for each category
             of post-storm options. These criteria are designed to guide the identification of
             environmentally and economically feasible post-.storm beach management options
             that are compatible as possible with upland characteristics and conditions. They do
             not preempt the current permitting criteria and standards for construction and
             excavation seaward of established CCCLs. Rather, they are minimum criteria for
             areawide redevelopment that complement existing criteria for granting permits for
             structures on single parcels.


             Post-storm Reassessment of Beach Management Options
                   Directly following a major storm, the actual degree and extent of storm
             damage to the beachfront area must be surveyed in order to determine if planned
             post-storm beach management options need to be modified. Storm impacts to the
             beach-dune system and structures may be more or less severe than projected. In
             these cases, post-storm beach management options may need to be reconfirmed or
             revised due to the actual extent of damage. Section 5.2 outlines steps for post-storm
             reassessment of beach management options. This process will be more fully
             developed during Phase 11. In addition, Appendices D -and F explore the
             implications of determining "substantial damage" to structures for post-storm


                                                      12








             permitting and the impacts of proposed changes to the National Flood Insurance
             Program on coastal hazard mitigation programs.


             Integrating the Beach Management Plan with Local Comprehensive Plans
                    Florida's inter-agency approach to coastal management represents one of the
             biggest challenges to implementing an effective post-storm redevelopment program
             for beachfront areas. Unless a mandatory linkage between a statewide post-storm
             redevelopment policy and the coastal management elements of local
             comprehensive plans (adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) can be
             established, the effectiveness of any redevelopment strategy will be severely limited.
             Local plans must provide for compatible-land uses and consistent densities in
             vulnerable beachfront areas to complement the planning, siting, and construction
             requirements of the state's beach management program pursuant to Chapter 161,
             Florida Statutes. Thorough implementation of the proposed Post-storm
             Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas will depend on the addition of
             supporting, policies to coastal management elements when local governments
             update and revise their plans beginning in 1995.
                   However, more work needs to be conducted to determine the'data, planning,
             and funding requirements of local governments to operationalize strategic
             redevelopment plans for coastal areas. Coastal counties and municipalities will
             need detailed policy guidance and technical assistance to develop coastal
             management plans that complement the state's Beach Management Plan. The
             second phase of this project (to be completed in December, 1994) will address the
             capacity at the local level to plan for coastal redevelopment as the process for
             identifying post-storm beach management options is applied and tested in three
             coastal counties. The policy and implementation guidelines proposed in this report
             then will be revised based on the outcome of these "test" applications.













                                                      13












             Section 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND


                    Florida's beaches constitute one of the state's most important natural
             resources, for both environmental and economic reasons. Environmentally, a
             stable beach and dune system provides the first line of defense against storms and
             therefore performs valuable protective functions for life and property. The storm
             protection afforded by a viable beach and dune system reduces loss of life, property
             damage,.impacts to the tax base, and storm recovery costs, a fact acknowledged in the
             state's Beach and Shore Preservation Act (Chapter 161, Florida Statutes).
             Economically, a stable beach and dune system serves as an unparalleled recreational
             resource and is critical to supporting the state's tourism industry. Fina Ily, a stable
             beach and dune system is the most economical and cost-effective form of upland
             protection from severe storm damage.
                    However, 232 miles, or 29 percent, of the state's shoreline are experiencing
             critical erosion which threatens substantial development and recreational interests.1
             These beachfront areas represent a critical focus for public policy and action to
             minimize the potential for property damage and loss of life. The Beach and Shore
             Preservation Act directs the Division of Beaches and Shores (within the Department
             of Environmental Protection, or DEP) to prepare a comprehensive and long-term
             plan for the management and restoration of the state's critically eroding beaches.
             According to the statutes, the plan must identify "alternative management
             responses ... to prevent inappropriate development and redevelopment on
             migrating beaches, and consider beach restoration and renourishment, armoring,
             relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation restoration, and acquisition"
             (s.161.161(l)(j)). The legislatively mandated statewide beach management plan will
             serve as a blueprint of what Florida's beaches should look like in the future.
                    Obviously, post-storm opportunities for redevelopment have the potential to
             greatly influence this future scenario. Any plan for strategically managing the
             state's beaches must include a preservation/ restoration component to guide post-
             storm redevelopment in order to accomplish the following: (1) consistency between
             beach management and state resource protection policies; and (2) direction to local
             governments in formulating supportive comprehensive plan goals and objectives
             for hazard mitigation, post-disaster redevelopment, and coastal management.


               Florida Department of Natural Resources, Beach Conditions in Florida, September 1992.


                                                       14









                   Until Hurricane. Andr(@w struck south Dade County in 1992, no hurricane had
             caused major property damage in Florida since 1964.2 Although the dynamics and
             direction of Hurricane Andrew did not result in much damage to the immediate
             coastal areas of south Dade County, the degree and extent of damage to inland
             structures illustrated that comparable damage could occur anywhere along the
             state's coast. Florida's beachfront areas need to be prepared for the next hurricane,
             or even major storm, and should envision how to redevelop the area, particularly
             in light of policies and regulations adopted over the past two decades to protect the
             beach and dune system.
                   The Florida Department of Natural Resources (now DEP) prepared in March,
             1993, a review of existing federal and state programs relating to post-disaster
             redevelopment. The authors of the final report in Beachfront Redevelopment
             concluded that in Florida "standards and criteria applying to beachfront
             redevelopment following major storm events are not clearly delineated."3 The
             absence of post-storm redevelopment standards and criteria practically guarantees
             that the urgency to restore normalcy will overcome the rationale to rebuild more
             appropriately if no plan for alternative beachfront redevelopment is ready to
             implement after the storm. A summary review of literature on post-disaster hazard
             mitigation and redevelopment revealed that in the past the common post-storm
             response in Florida and other coastal states has been "a continuation of past practices
             and sympathetic emergency disaster relief-'14 (See Appendix B for a bibliography.)
                   The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is in the process of developing
             a proposed comprehensive post-disaster redevelopment policy for the state. To the
             extent possible, the proposed post-storm redevelopment policy for beachfront areas
             was prepared taking into consideration the work underway by the DCA on the
             state's emerging comprehensive policy for post-disaster redevelopment. At a
             minimum, though, this policy is intended to be included as a
             preservation /restoration component of the state's Beach Management Plan and to
             further existing state policy and regulation as it applies to beachfront areas seaward


             2 "DCA Secretary Addresses State's Emergency Management Needs," Florida Planning, July
             1991, Vol. 11, No. 11, p. 6. Although Hurricanes Elena and Kate together caused an estimated
             $90.5 million in public and private damages in 1985, this figure seems minor in comparison
             to the over $30 billion in property damage as a result of Hurricane Andrew.
             3 Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, Beachfront
             Redevelopment,, March 1993, p. 1.
             4 Griggs, Gary B., and Rogers E. Johnson, "Impact of 1983 Storms on.the Coastline," California
             Geology, August 1983, p.172.


                                                      15








            of established Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCLs). Existing state policies
            and regulations applying to redevelopment of beachfront areas are summarized in
            Beachfront Redevelopment and Post Disaster Redevelopment Planning: Model
            Plans for Three Florida Scenarios, prepared for the state's Office of Coastal
            Management by the South Florida Regional Planning Council in 1990. These state
            policies and regulations are not repeated here. However, legal and administrative
            issues of concern to implementing the post-storm redevelopment policy proposed
            in this document are addressed below in Appendix C.





































                                                     16










             Section 2.  PURPOSE OF PROJECT (Phase 1)


                   The first phase of this project has two purposes. The first purpose is to
             develop a policy to guide redevelopment of the state's beachfront areas, particularly
             during a post-storm period when the opportunity exists to replace non-conforming
             uses, reconstruct or redesign structures to minimize impacts to the beach and dune
             system, reduce the intensity and amount of upland development, and in a few areas
             to acquire hazard-prone properties. For purposes of this report, "beachfront. areas"
             are defined as areas seaward of the established CCCLs in the state's 25 counties with
             sandy beaches. These counties are listed in Appendix A.
                   The second purpose of this project is to develop a process for implementing
             this policy both before and after a major storm. Specifically, a process is described for
             presenting as part of the state's Beach Management Plan economically and
             environmentally feasible post-storm management options so that preparations can
             be made in anticipation of a major hurricane or coastal storm and further
             deterioration of site conditions. This process will be tested during Phase II of this
             project and necessary revisions will be made. Since coastal storm events and
             hurricanes are the most frequent type of disaster experienced in beachfront areas,
             this policy framework and implementation guidelines focus on post "storm" rather
             than post "disaster" redevelopment.
                   This report is organized into Sections 1 through 7 which describe the need
             and basis for a post-storm redevelopment policy for beachfront areas; present a
             proposed Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas; outline a process
             for implementing this policy both pre- and post-storm; present a methodology for
             comparing the costs and benefits of alternative beach management options; and
             outline the objectives for Phase Il of this project. Appendices A through F support
             the main sections of this document and include a presentation of the legal context of
             a post-storm redevelopment program, standards for determining whether structures
             are subject to post-storm permitting requirements, an example of a pre-storm
             planning process, and a summary of proposed changes to the National Flood
             Insurance Program and potential impacts to a post-storm redevelopment program.







                                                      17









             Section 3. PURPOSE FOR PROPOSED POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICY
             AND BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS


                   The period following Hurricane Andrew's landfall in August, 1992,
             demonstrated quite painfully the need for preparation in anticipation of the "big
             one." Fortunately, structures within the immediate coastal areas received minor
             damage relative to structures in inland areas. However, rebuilding in non-coastal
             flood-prone areas was stalled until local and federal officials determined which
             standards for issuing permits to rebuild would be applied.5 Aside from the need to
             prepare detailed plans for immediate response and restoration of vital utilities and
             access routes, all beachfront communities must anticipate how they will respond to
             issues brought to light during the long-term rebuilding period.
                   As stated in Section 1, a number of beachfront areas are experiencing critical
             erosion and may need to be rebuilt differently after a major storm in order to protect
             the beach and dune system and upland structures from future hazards. Pre-storm
             planning actions must be undertaken to identify affected beachfront segments and
             develop post-storm beach management options and criteria for rebuilding so that
             public policy indecision and inter-agency conflicts do not delay the redevelopment
             process or prevent any desire to rebuild better. While most post-storm
             redevelopment will be to pre-existing uses and densities purs.uant to the siting and
             -construction standards of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, or local codes, other post-
             storm redevelopment options for specific sites may include elevation or set back of
             structures, reduction of site coverage, and acquisition of hazard-prone properties.
                   Planning for post-storm redevelopment and hazard mitigation currently is
             not practiced statewide in Florida. The Governor's Environmental Land
             Management Study Committee (ELMS III) issued its Final Report in December, 1992,
             and pointed out that in spite of existing provisions in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
             for post-disaster redevelopment plans, no local government has prepared one. 6
             The ELMS III committee recognized that the impacts of Hurricane Andrew
             emphasized the importance of post-disaster redevelopment planning and
             recommended that the Legislature provide fiscal incentives for joint planning

             5 See Appendix D for a description of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination
             of "substantially damaged" structures and requirements for reconstruction and for a brief
             discussion of how these standards were applied in Dade County after Hurricane Andrew.
             6 However', a recent investigation of the effectiveness of the state planning mandates indicated
             that of the eleven states with planning mandates, Florida devoted the most resources ($28,500
             per affected jurisdiction) toward the implementation of the hazards components of the mandate.


                                                      1 8








             efforts in preparing plans. This process represents an opportunity for the state to
             work with local governments to identify hazard-prone beachfront areas, develop
             alternative redevelopment options, and devise strategies for implementing plans to
             rebuild differently.
                    The Beach and Shore Preservation Act (Chapter 161, Florida Statutes), the
             State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187), the Florida Coastal Management Act
             (Chapter 380), and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
             Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163) constitute the public purpose for
             developing and implementing a state policy to guide the redevelopment of
             beachfront areas. These laws clearly indicate that the following objectives must be
             upheld during the post-storm redevelopment period and adequately addressed as
             part of a statewide comprehensive beach management plan: (1) protection of the
             beach and dune system during redevelopment; (2) mitigation of hazards due to
             hurricanes and coastal storm events; (3) maintenance or enhancement of economic
             development assets of beachfront areas; and (4) coordination of policy with other
             agencies responsible for protection and management of coastal resources during the
             post-storm redevelopment period.
                    Table 1, below, summarizes the public purpose for adoption and
             implementation of a policy to guide post-storm redevelopment in beachfront areas.























                                                        19













                                                             TABLE 1.


                                   Public Purpose of a Post-storm Redevelopment Policy
                                                     for Florida's Beachfront Areas




                        Beach and Dune System Protection
                                To protect, preserve, and restore beach and dune systems

                                To insure that the coastal environment is protected during the post-storm
                                recovery period

                        Hazard Mitigation
                                To discourage the redevelopment of critically eroding shorelines

                                To reduce vulnerability of life and property to coastal hazards

                        Economic Development
                                To maintain or enhance the economic and recreational assets of the state's
                                beach and dune systems

                        Intergovernmental Coordination
                                To further coordinate state policies for planning, management, and acquisition
                                of beachfront areas


                                To assist local governments in developing consistent and effective post-
                                disaster redevelopment policies for beachfront areas





                        In order for a post-storm redevelopment policy to be effective, the state (i.e.,
                Division of Beaches and Shores) must identify beach management options to be
                included as a component of the Beach Management Plan and to be implemented
                during the post-storm rebuilding period. Pre-storm planning for post-storm beach
                management is essential also to ensuring that local governments identify more
                specific post-storm redevelopment options for the upland areas that are consistent
                with the Beach Management Plan.
                        Furthermore, the state must identify beach management options prior to the
                storm so that local governments can plan accordingly, adopt supporting policies as
                part of the local comprehensive plans, and educate residents about the long-term
                impacts of these policies. Pre-storm planning is important particularly in those



                                                                  20








             beachfront areas where conditions might preclude rebuilding to the existing level
             and intensity of development. The details of any beach restoration projects, setback
             of structures, replatting of beachfront lots, or acquisition of parcels must be pre-
             arranged with local officials and affected property owners so that a public policy
             impasse about post-storm responses does not preempt the brief post-storm
             opportunity to rebuild better. The identification of post-storm beach management
             options can also streamline the post-storm permitting process in areas where the
             state has outlined the beach management conditions that will apply to the
             rebuilding of affected structures.


             3.1.  Intergovernmental Coordination of Post-storm Redevelopment Polices


                   Florida's inter-agency approach to coastal management represents one of the
             biggest challenges to developing and implementing an effective post-storm
             redevelopment policy for beachfront areas. Although the state concentrates the
             regulation of construction along the state's sandy beaches in the Division of Beaches
             and Shores (within DEP), it assigns to local governments and other state agencies
             the planning and regulation of other land use activities (such as subdividing,
             zoning and infrastructure development) within and adjacent to beachfront areas.
             More specifically, responsibilities for planning and managing post-disaster
             redevelopment in coastal areas are shared among several agencies with minimally
             effective intergovernmental coordination and no clear links between beach
             management, emergency management, coastal infrastructure provision, and local
             land development regulation. Most counties have developed detailed plans for
             post-storm response and recovery but few if any have developed plans for- the long-
             term redevelopment period.
                   The protection of coastal development and beach and dune systems requires a
             coordinated effort between the state (specifically, the Division of Beaches and
             Shores) and local governments. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning
             and Land Development Reguiation Act (Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) r   .equires local
             governments to prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans as part of their
             comprehensive plans. Furthermore, the implementing rule, Minimum Criteria for
             Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of





                                                      21








             Compliance7 requires that the coastal management element of the comprehensive
             plan provide an analysis of post-disaster redevelopment, which includes beach and
             dune conditions, land use in coastal high hazard areas, and shore protection
             structures, and identify measures to reduce exposure to hazards, such as relocation,
             structural modification, and acquisition.
                    The post-storm redevelopment policy for beachfront areas proposed herein is
             intended for inclusion in local post-disaster redevelopment plans and coastal
             management elements when local governments update and revise their plans
             beginning in 1995. A survey of local comprehensive plans requiring coastal.
             management elements revealed that roughly 40 percent have failed to address the
             repair or replacement of storm-damaged infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas
             and approximately 50 percent lacked provisions addressing post-disaster
             redevelopment and hazard mitigation.8 These serious inadequacies within the
             coastal management elements present a real challenge for effective post-disaster
             redevelopment planning. The local planning evaluation and appraisal report
             (EAR) process and attendant plan amendments is an opportunity to significantly
             improve these e.xisting weaknesses.
                    The first step is for the state to adopt a comprehensive policy for post-disaster
             redevelopment, which includes beachfront areas, so that local governments can
             adopt and apply more consistent beach management policies. Local plans must
             provide for compatible land uses and consistent densities in vulnerable beachfront
             areas to complement the planning, siting, and construction requirements of the
             state's beach management program pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. In
             fact, unless a statutory linkage between a state post-disaster redevelopment'policy for
             beachfront areas and the coastal management elements of local comprehensive
             plans can be established, the effectiveness of any redevelopment strategy will be
             severely limited.
                    In December 1990, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, through a
             grant from the state's Office of Coastal Management, prepared and recommended
             three model local post-disaster redevelopment plans and strategies for
             implementation. The SFRPC study pointed out that "without a (post-disaster
             redevelopment) process in place, inefficient and inconsistent decision making may



             7 Section 9J-5.012, Florida Administrative Code.
             8 Bob Nave, Director of Emergency Management, Florida Department of Community Affairs,
             Memorandum to Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary, July 15, 1992, p.8.


                                                       22








              result in poor land use decisions in the turmoil of post-disaster efforts."9 This point
              corresponds to conventional thinking that complex state mandates without
              adequate requirements and incentives for compliance will result in weak
              implementation. 10



              3.2.   Baseline Assumptions


                     This post-storm redevelopment policy is based on the following assumptions,
              which are in some cases reflected in current state statute and policy found in-the
              Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the Florida Coastal Management Act, the State
              Comprehensive Plan, and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
              Land Development Regulation Act. These assumptions, as well as the subsequent
              post-storm redevelopment policy and redevelopment options, fall under four
              general headings: (1) Beach and Dune System Protection, (2) Hazard Mitigation, (3)
              Economic Development, and (4) Intergovernmental Coordination.





















              9 South Florida Regional Planning Council, Post Disaster Redevelopment Planning: Model Plans
              for Three Florida Scenarios, December 1990, p. i.
              10 Burby, Raymond J., et al., "State Planning Mandates: How Well Are They Working?" Working
              Paper No. 18, September 1993 (New Orleans: University of New Orleans, College of Urban and
              Public Affairs).


                                                           23










                                                 TABLE2.


                                          Baseline Assumptions



            Beach  and Dune System Protection


                   1. Beach and dune protection is inseparable from hazard mitigation. Both objectives
                   are prerequisites for planning for effective post-storm redevelopment.

                   2. A well-established, stable beach-dune system is the most environmentally
                   compatible and recreationally beneficial form of upland protection from severe storm
                   damage.

                   3. Post-storm impacts to the beach and dune system are primarily the result of
                   inappropriate location of structures.

                   4. CCCLs adequately define the active beach and dune system. Planning and regulatory
                   decisions affecting post-storm redevelopment of the state's critically eroding shorelines
                   should focus upon areas seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCL) where
                   areas are low-lying, where erosion rates are high, or where existing development is
                   extensive.


                   5. "Removing coastal properties from the pool of developable acreage reduces the
                   adverse land use and environmental impacts the state coastal zone management
                   program is attempting to eliminate or diminish, while ... minimizing public
                   expenditures and reducing risk to life and property in storm-prone coastal areas"
                   (s.380.21(4), Florida Statutes). Acquisition of coastal properties should include both
                   undeveloped and developed properties.
























                                                    24










                                                              TABLE 2.


                                                 Baseline Assumptions (cont'd)



                Hazard Mitigation



                        1. The state and local governments will take all reasonable preventive measures in
                        order to reduce the consequences of natural disasters to life and property.

                        2. The beach and dunes provide the first line of defense against storms and therefore
                        perform valuable protective functions for life and property. The storm protection
                        afforded by a viable beach and dune system reduces loss of life, property damage,
                        impacts to the tax base, and storm recovery costs.

                        3. Inappropriate development impacting the active beach and dune system:
                                a. decreases the system's potential for mitigating storm hazards;
                                b. increases the risks to lives and property; and
                                c. increases costs to the public.

                        4. Existing structures along the state's critically eroding shorelines (231.9 miles, or 29
                        percent of the state's sandy beaches) that are not constructed to current standards are
                        highly susceptible to storm damage.

                        5. Older structures, particularly those structures permitted prior to adoption of state
                        coastal construction codes, generally will incur greater damage and destruction during
                        major storms.

                        6. State and local land acquisition programs, although usually established for other
                        purposes, can contribute toward the acquisition of hazard-prone coastal properties.






















                                                                   25










                                                          TABLE2.

                                              Baseline Assumptions (cont'd)



               Economic Development


                      1. Viable beach and dune systems are critical to the state's tourism industry and overall
                      economic well-being.

                      2. A well-established, stable beach-dune system is the most economical form of upland
                      protection from severe storm damage.

                      3. Inappropriate development impacting the active beach and dune system diminishes the
                      economic value of the resource for recreation.







              Intergovernmental Coordination



                      1. Planning for post-storm redevelopment will require consistency between state and local
                      policies for post-storm redevelopment, resource protection, and coastal management.

                      2. Redevelopment of beachfront areas after a major storm event or hurricane will require a
                      coordinated inter-agency response, including the Division of Beaches and Shores (DEP) and
                      affected local governments.






















                                                               26











             Section 4. POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR BEACHFRONT
             AREAS


                   A post-storm redevelopment policy for the state's beachfront areas should
             fulfill the objectives for Beach and Dune System Protection, Hazard Mitigation,
             Economic Development, and Intergovernmental Coordination. It is intended that
             the state will adopt this policy as a preservation/ restoration component of the
             comprehensive Beach Management Plan and implement the policy through the
             existing planning and permitting programs of the Division of Beaches and Shores
             (DEP). This policy should shape the pre-storm identification of post-storm beach
             management options for areas seaward of established CCCLs. In addition, as
             described above, the policy is intended to provide a framework for development of
             supportive post-disaster redevelopment policies by local governments, to be
             included in coastal management elements of local comprehensive plans.
                   The statutory basis and authority for this proposed policy is discussed in
             Appendix C.
                   An asterisk (*) at the end of a policy statement indicates that implementation
             will require coordination and cooperation between the Division of Beaches, other
             state agencies and local governments. These are policies which cannot be
             implemented entirely through the existing coastal permitting programs.




















                                                    27









                                      Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas


                Objective A. Beach and Dune System Protection
                In order to protect, preserve, and restore beach and dune systems and to insure that
                the coastal environment is protected during the post-storm rebuilding period, the
                state shall implement the following policies:

                        Policy A.I. All development, redevelopment and other activities which significantly alter
                        beach and dune systems shall be discouraged.

                        Policy A.2. All efforts shall be made to maintain and enhance existing dunes.

                        Policy A.3. All development and redevelopment, subject to state permitting requirements, shall
                        require a sufficient protective buffer between existing dunes and structures.

                        Policy A.4. Guided by parcel size and configuration, heavily storm-damaged structures shall be
                        rebuilt as far landward as possible, substantially behind the frontal dune.

                        Policy A.5. For critically eroding areas, beach renourishment, dune restoration and other beach
                        enhancement programs, rather than rigid structural stabilization, shall be the preferred
                        options for resource management and hazard mitigation. Where viable, restoration of natural
                        dunes shall be required as a condition for all coastal development and redevelopment subject to
                        state permitting requirements. Post-storm beach management options that include beach
                        restoration as a condition for rebuilding structures shall accommodate public access to the
                        beaches, if public funds are used for restoration.

                        Policy A.6. Storm-damaged rigid coastal structures shall be replaced only as a last resort to
                        protect eligible structures (as defined in Chapter 1613-33, Florida Administrative Code) and
                        only after all other alternatives are determined not to be feasible.

                        Policy A.7. Beachfront redevelopment shall provide for the protection of marine turtles and
                        other coastal species, native salt-resisterit vegetation, and endangered vegetative species.

                        Policy A.S. To the greatest extent possible, the state shall encourage that the subdivision of
                        lands containing primary dune systems provide lots of sufficient size to permit development and
                        redevelopment to be accommodated without degradation of the functions of the beach and dune
                        system.

                        Policy A.9. The state should consider granting less restrictive permit conditions and a
                        streamlined permitting process if redevelopment proposals include the acquisition and
                        replatting of lots that cannot be redeveloped without impacts to the primary dune system due
                        to their size or configuration.

                        Policy A.10. State and local acquisition programs should target hazard-prone beachfront
                        properties where development or redevelopment cannot occur sufficiently landward of the
                        frontal dune, would jeopardize the stability of the beach and dune system, and would
                        accelerate erosion. *

                        Policy A.11. The state shall consider the ability of private or public agencies to acquire and
                        replat parcels in beachfront areas where storm-damaged structures cannot be rebuilt without
                        impacts to the beach and dune system due to size or configuration of beachfront lots.*



                                                                    28










                                      Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas


                Objective B. Hazard Mitigation
                In order to discourage the redevelopment of critically eroding shorelines and to
                reduce vulnerability of life and property to coastal hazards, the state shall
                implement the following policies:

                        Policy B.I. The state shall encourage and participate in the maintenance, restoration and
                        enhancement of Florida's beaches and dunes in order to minimize the impacts of natural
                        disasters to life and property.

                        Policy B.2. All development and redevelopment in hazardous coastal areas shall be limited in
                        order to protect lives and property from coastal storms and hazards and to maintain the
                        viability of the beach and dune system. Post-storm redevelopment shall avoid extensive
                        rebuilding and intensification of land uses in critically eroding areas and encourage reductions
                        in the amount and intensity of development in order to reduce exposure of lives and property to
                        coastal hazards.

                        Policy B.3. Proposed redevelopment options shall attempt to minimize public expenditure and
                        reduce risk to public infrastructure and facilities along critically eroding beaches. *

                        Policy B.4. The state shall encourage relocation of structures landward of critically eroding
                        areas and prevent intensification of land uses in hazardous coastal areas. State policies,
                        expenditures, and programs shall encourage reductions in the amount and intensity of
                        development and redevelopment in hazardous coastal areas.

                        Policy B.5. The state shall require in beachfront areas replacement of non-conforn-ting uses and
                        eliminate unsafe conditions and inappropriate uses as opportunities Arise.

                        Policy B,6. The state shall identify those beachfront areas that shall be subject to post-storm
                        regulations and acquisition in order to reduce loss of life and damage to property.





















                                                                   29









                                      Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas


                Objective C. Economic Development
                In order to maintain or enhance the economic and recreational assets of the beach
                and dune systems during post-storm redevelopment, the state shall implement the
                following policies:

                        Policy C.I. All decisions to regulate post-storm redevelopment shall consider the economic costs
                        and benefits of redeveloping the property and the feasibility of restoring the beach-dune
                        system.

                        Policy C.2. Value of the beachfront area to the local and regional economy based on its uses and
                        structures shall be considered in determining post-storm redevelopment options.

                        Policy C-3. Costs to repair or replace infrastructure serving beachfront areas shall be considered
                        before proposing redevelopment options that allow replacement of infrastructure to pre-storm
                        conditions.

                        Policy C-4. The state shall consider the long-term benefits of alternative uses of the target
                        beachfront area when identifying post-storm beach management options.

                        Policy C.5. Incentives, such as taxation strategies, subsidies, and transfers of development
                        rights, shall be provided to encourage voluntary relocation of structures from and public
                        acquisition of critically eroding and otherwise hazardous beachfront areas.

                        Policy C.6. Post-storm beach management options that include acquisition of beachfront
                        properties after a storm shall consider the econon-tic costs and benefits of acquisition, including
                        recreational opportunities, compatibility with adjacent public uses, and hazard mitigation.

                        Policy C.7. Post-storm beach management options that include acquisi  tion of hazard-prone
                        beachfront areas should identify available sources of funding, such as state programs and trust
                        funds, federal grants, local land acquisition programs, and non-profit organizations.

                        Policy C.8. Alternatives for land acquisition other than fee simple should be considered, such as
                        less-than-fee simple, conservation easements, and purchase of development rights.

















                                                                  30









                                      Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Are


                Objective D. Intergovernmental Coordination
                In order to further coordinate state policies for resource protection, coastal
                management, and post-disaster redevelopment and to assist local governments in
                developing consistent and effective post-disaster red            evelopment policies for
                beachfront areas, the state shall implement the following policies:


                        Policy D.I. Post-storm beach management options for beachfront areas shall be consistent, to
                        the extent possible, with use, density and other land use policies and standards contained in
                        local government comprehensive plans.

                        Policy D.2. Post-storm beach management options should be consistent, to the extent possible,
                        with local policies to relocate or reduce the capacity of infrastructure serving beachfront areas.

                        Policy D.3. Post-storm beach management options shall consider local priorities for acquiring
                        coastal properties to promote hazard mitigation, public recreation, and resource management
                        objectives.

                        Policy D.5. All post-storm redevelopment options shall be consistent with an approved
                        management plan for an inlet project that affects the coastal processes of the target beachfront
                        area.


                        Policy D.6. Post-storm redevelopment options should consider impacts to local evacuation
                        routes, as determined by emergency management officials.

                        Policy D.7. The state shall encourage local governments to adopt minimum parcel size and
                        configuration requirements on the subdivision of lands containing beach and dune systems.

                        Policy D.8. The state shall discourage platting of beachfront properties and -encourage
                        replatting to accommodate post-storm relocation of structures landward of the active beach and
                        frontal dune.




























                                                                   31










            Section 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF A POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICY
            FOR BEACHFRONT AREAS


                  Although this policy applies to the post-storm redevelopment period, its
            implementation must occur primarily through pre-storm planning actions.
            However, since predicting the impacts of a hurricane is not always accurate, a
            streamlined, post-storm process is also necessary to reconfirm or revise pre-storm
            plans depending on the actual extent of storm damage. Two processes to implement
            the Post-storm Redevelopment Policy are outlined below. The first process, Pre-
            storm Identification of Post-storm Beach Management Options, assesses existing
            conditions and identifies post-storm beach management options for beachfront
            segments prior to a storm event and, if necessary, appropriate implementing
            actions. The second process, Post-storm Assessment of Beach Management Options
            assesses the actual degree and extent of storm damage to the beachfront area to
            determine if options identified prior to the storm need to be reassessed and
            modified as necessary.


            5.1. Pre-storm Identification of Post-storm Beach Management Options


                  5.1.1. Purpose
                  The Pre-storm Identification process is intended to evaluate the conditions of
            an entire beachfront area and address the following questions: What kind of upland
            redevelopment can the beach and dune system sustain? How can the beach-dune
            system be managed to mitigate the impacts of future hazards? Will it be
            economically feasible to repair or replace damaged infrastructure after a storm?
            Will beach management be consistent with other long-range plans for local
            redevelopment, inlet maintenance, and coastal lands acquisition?
                  The Pre-storm Identification process resembles the Division of Beaches and
            Shores' process for evaluating requests for permits for construction seaward of the
            CCCL. Both processes rely on generally the same data sources and address the same
            issue -- impacts of the siting of structures on the beach and dune system. However,
            the Pre-storm Identification process is intended for planning, not permitting,
            purposes and applies to segments of beachfront areas rather than single parcels of
            property. More importantly, though, this process addresses the broader dimensions
                                              r
            of resource management and comprehensive planning-that transcend the
            increments dictated by the framework of the existing CCCL permitting process.


                                                    32








                   The outcome of this process will be the identification of a category of
             redevelopment options for segments of beachfront. These categories will be used for
             planning purposes as part of the state's Comprehensive Beach Management Plan
             and should be used by local governments to guide review and revision of coastal
             management elements contained in their comprehensive plans. These revisions to
             the coastal management elements could be made at the time each local government
             prepares its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the corollary plan
             amendments beginning in 1995.


                   5.1.2. Categories of Post-storm Beach Management Options and
                   Minimum Criteria
                   In general, five categories of options exist for post-storm beach management.
             (See Table 3, below.) These categories are strategic planning tools that outline
             areawide conditions for post-storm beach management and guide permitting
             requirements for rebuilding structures. These categories are intended to be broad
             enough to allow local governments to develop a variety of more site-specific
             options for redevelopment
                   For example, redevelopment of a beachfront area identified as a "Category 3"
             area may require an overall reduction in site coverage, but the degree of reduction
             will depend on particular physical conditions of the site and may be accomplished
             through a variety of options (e.g., reassembly or replatting of lots, cluster
             development, and modification of footprint of structure(s)). Other factors, such as
             local land use and site development requirements, infrastructure replacement
             policies, and the real estate market, will determine the most viable redevelopment
             option for the beachfront area. In other words, the state's post-storm beachfront
             redevelopment policy and criteria will serve as the backdrop for more detailed,
             locally determined redevelopment plans and regulations.












                                                     33













                                                   TABLE 3.


                          Categories of Post-storm Beach Management Options




                    CATEGORYI
                    Major structures may be rebuilt according to construction and siting requirements and
                    restrictions pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and its implementing
                    regulations.

                    CATEGORY 2
                    Major structures may be rebuilt according to construction and siting requirements and
                    restrictions pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and its implementing
                    regulations, pending authorized beach restoration or other state-recognized beach
                    nourishment program.

                    CATEGORY 3
                    Reduction of site coverage of beachfront area

                    CATEGORY 4
                    Reduction of site coverage of beachfront area, pending authorized beach restoration or
                    other state-recognized beach nourishment program.

                    CATEGORY 5
                    Relocation of structures landward of the active beach and frontal dune.





                    The state coastal construction permitting program, established in the early
             1970s, ensures the reasonable use of private property coupled with prudent building
             standards which promote public safety and enhance beach and dune preservation.
             This post-storm beach management option, depicted as Category 1, represents
             "business as usual"for most of Florida's beaches -- good coastal development as part
             of an existing, developed urban beachfront.
                    Category 2, like Category 1, represents redevelopment to pre-existing uses, but
             also acknowledges that, based on historical erosion trends and current shoreline
             conditions, post-storm site conditions will require some type of beach enhancement
             activity -- most likely beach restoration or renourishment of a previously restored
             beach. This category includes areas that are already part of an existing beach
             restoration project as well as beachfront segments where property owners, local



                                                       34








            governments, and the state recognize the need for some type of future nourishment
            activity.
             I     Jointly, Category 1 and Category 2 represent the continuation of current
            coastal planning and regulatory practices supported by the preservation /restoration
            component of a statewide beach management plan.
                   Category 3 (Reduce site coverage), Category 4 (Reduce site coverage pending
            authorized beach restoration or other enhancement project), and Category 5
            (Relocate structures landward of active beach and frontal dune) include far more
            extreme post-storm beach management options. Even before this proposed post-
            storm redevelopment policy and minimum criteria are field-tested during this
            project's second phase, it is anticipated that these options will have minimal
            applications. Designation of these three categories will be limited to situations
            which cannot be economically justified and sites which are highly vulnerable to
            hazards, where supporting infrastructure cannot be reasonably provided, where
            development would adversely impact the active beach-dune system, and where
            structures would impede natural migratory processes.
                   In short, Categories 3, 4, and 5 will apply only to beachfront segments where
            reasonable post-storm beach management by any standard cannot accommodate pre-
            storm uses or densities. To employ these restrictive categories as part of an overall
            redevelopment strategy will require the full cooperation of local governments to
            designate supportive future land uses and densities and must include an array of
            pre-storm incentives to ensure voluntary participation of affected property owners.
            (See Appendix E for description of a generic process for voluntary pre-storm
            implementation of Categories 3, 4, and 5.)



                   5.1.3. Minimum Criteria for Identifying Post-storm Beach
                   Management Options
                   In order to ensure that the overall objectives of the Post-storm
            Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas (i.e., Beach and Dune Protection,
            Hazard Mitigation, Economic Development, and Intergovernmental Coordination)
            guide the identification of post-storm beach management options, minimum
            criteria for each cAtegory of options were developed. (See Table 4, below.) For the
            most part these criteria apply to e-ach of the five categories, except for certain criteria
            which apply only* to options requiring the repair of rigid coastal structures, beach
            restoration /enhancement projects, or a reducti on in site coverage. The extent to


                                                     35








            which these minimum criteria can be met pursuant to the existing coastal
            permitting program or under alternative beach management options will
            determine which category applies to the particular beachfront segment.
                  These Minimum Criteria do not preempt the current permitting criteria and
            standards for construction and excavation seaward of the established CCCLs. Rather,
            these criteria are intended to complement current permitting criteria and to ensure
            that the cumulative impacts of permits for rebuilding structures do not undermine
            more comprehensive beach management objectives.






































                                                    36











                                                                             TABLE 4. MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS




                                                                                                                                                                                           CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3                                       CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5
                                                                                       MINIMUM CRITERIA



                                                                                                                                                                          .... . . .....
                                                                                                                                                                                  ...........
                                                                                                                                                                          ........ ........
                                                                                                                                                                                  ............
                 1.  Structures can be rebuilt sufficiently landward of primary dune.                                                                                                               x                    x                       x                          x
                 2.  Sufficient buffer can be provided between rebuilt structures and primary dune.                                                                                                 x                    x                       x                          x
                 3.  Site coverage of beachfront area allows for sufficient dune migration.                                                                                                         x                    x                       x                          x
                 4.  Site coverage of beachfront area                   can be reduced & footprint of structure(s) modified.                                                                                                                     x                          x
                 5.  Beach & dune system can be stabilized with salt-resistant vegetation.                                                                                                          x                    x                       x                          x
                 6.  Beachfront lots have sufficient depth to accommodate functions of beach-dune system.                                                                                           x                    X                       x                          x
                 7.  Redevelopment does not require new construction of rigid coastal structures.                                                                                                   x                    x                       x                          x
                 8.  Repair of existing rigid coastal structures does not justify increased shore-parallel coverage                                                                                 x
                       or seaward relocation of major structures.
                 9.  Rigid coastal structures can be repaired to provide sufficient upland protection and                                                                                           x
                     to cause no damage to beach and dune system.
                 10. Beach restoration or other enhancement program is authorized.                                                                                                                                       x                                                  x
                 11. All construction & siting standards are consistent with Ch. 161, F.S., and its implementing regulations.                                                                       x                    x                       x                          x
                                                                                                                                                                         .......................

                 1.  Major structures             n be rebuilt to minimize impacts of storms to life and property.                                                                                  x                    x                       x                          x
                 2.  Major structures seaward of 30-yr erosion projection can be relocated landward.                                                                                                x                    x                       x                          x
                                                                                                                                                                       ... ........
                                                                                                                                                          . . . .........................
                 1.  Redevelopment does not require                     major expenditures to replace infrastructure and                           is economically justified.                       x                    x                       x                          x
                 2.  Beach restor0on program satisfies economic criteria.                                                                                                                                                x                                                  x
                 3.  Funding source for beach restoration and maintenance program is available.                                                                                                                          x                                                  x
                 4.  Funding source is available for acquisition or compensation to property owner.                                                                                                                                                                                               x
                         ------ -- ---                           ...... .. ...                                                                                                      . ......
                 W                       190-ffl?     --------------*.......... .
                                                                   ... .....
                 1. Redevelopment is consistent with local comprehensive plans                                         policies for post-disaster redevelopment.                                    x                    x                       x                          x
                 2. Redevelopment is consistent with authorized inlet management plan.                                                                                                              x                    x                       x                          x
                 3.  Public access to the site can be accommodated, if public funding is used for beach restoration.                                                                                                     x                                                  x
                 4.  Beach restoration project is scheduled and no permit obstacles are anticipated.                                                                                                                                                                        x


                 Category 1 = Rebuild structures pursuant to Chapter161, F.S., and its implementing regulations.
                 Category 2 = Rebuild structures pending. authorized beach restoration or other authorized enhancement program.
                 Category 3 = Reduce site coverage of beachfront area.
                 Category 4 = Reduce site coverage of beachfront area pending authorized beach restoration program.
                 Category 5 = Relocate structures landward of the active beach and frontal dune.



                                                                                                                                                               37










                   5.1.4. Pre-storm Identification of Beach Management Options and
             Implementation Guidelines
                   The following steps will be followed during the second phase of this project
             in order to identify post-storm beach management options in three "test" coastal
             counties and refine the criteria and guidelines for identifying options. The outcome
             of this testing phase will be the development of more specific criteria and
             implementation guidelines for the Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront
             Areas.


                   Step 1. Determine Boundaries of Beachfront Segments


                         The determination of boundaries of beachfront segments will be based
                   in part on the location of established CCCLs and the Division of Beaches and
                   Shores reference monuments, with the CCCL marking the landward extent of
                   the beachfront segment and the reference monuments marking either end of
                   the segment in the shore-parallel direction. Division of Beaches and Shores
                   depicts these boundaries on the CCCL maps developed for each county with
                   an established CCCL. In addition, physical features of the shoreline and the
                   separations between land uses will guide the determination of boundaries.


                   Step 2. Inventory and Assess Beachfront Conditions within the Beachfront
                   Segment.


                         Using field data and the sources of information listed in Table 5, below,
                   the following conditions will be evaluated in order to determine if the
                   Minimum Criteria for post-storm redevelopment can be met under the
                   existing coastal permitting requirements or can be met under an alternative
                   beach management option. Additional sources of information needed to
                   determine post-storm beach management options will be identified during
                   Phase II.











                                                     38










                   Beach and Dune System Conditions:
                   o Can structures be rebuilt sufficiently landward of primary dune?
                   o Can a sufficient buffer be provided between rebuilt structures and the
                   frontal dune?
                   o Will site coverage of the beachfront area allow for sufficient dune
                   migration?
                   o Will lots have sufficient depth to accommodate functions of the beach and
                   dune system?'
                   o Can beach and dune system be stabilized with salt-resistent vegetation?
                   o Are rigid coastal structures adequate to provide sufficient upland protection
                   and to cause no damage to beach and dune system?
                   o Is a beach restoration project required? If so, is it authorized?


                   Hazardous Conditions:
                   o Are major structures threatened (i.e., susceptible to damage from 5, 10, or
                   25-year storm event)?
                   o Are major structures located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection?


                   Economic Conditions:
                   o Will redevelopment require major expenditures to repair or replace
                   infrastructure?
                   o Is beach restoration required? If so, is a source of funds available for a
                   restoration/ enhancement project?
                   o Will the state need to acquire property(ies)? If so, is a source of funds
                   available for acquisition?


                   Policy and Regulatory Conditions (to meet Minimum Criteria for
                   Intergovernmental Coordination):
                   o Will redevelopment conflict with local plans and policies for post-disaster
                   redevelopment?
                   o Will redevelopment conflict with objectives of an authorized inlet
                   management plan?
                   o Is beach restoration required? If so, is a restoration project scheduled?
                   o, Will public funds be used for beach restoration? If so, can public access be
                   accommodated?



                                                     39











                                                                  TABLE 5.


                                                 Inventory of Beachfront Conditions


                   Boundaries of Beachfront Segment:                    ------------------------

                   I. Inventory and Assessment of Beach and Dune Conditions and Redevelopment
                   Impacts



                                                               POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
                                                   AtEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5
                   BEACH & DUNE CONDITIONS
                   [
                   re structures sufficiently                                                                   N/A,
                   andward of frontal dune?
                   s there a sufficient buffer                                                                  N/A
                   etween structures & frontal
                   une?
                   Is site coverage sufficient for                                                              N/A
                   dune migration?
                   Are/should dunes be
                   stabilized with salt-resistant'
                   vegetation?
                   Are lot depths sufficieQt?
                   Consistency with Chapter
                   161, F.S., construction &
                   iting standards?
                   s a beach restoration project
                   or other enhancement           N/A                            N/A                            N/A
                   roject) authorized?
                   Rigid Coastal Structures
                   existing and potential
                   armoring length                                N/A            N/A             N/A            N/A
                    negative impacts to
                   each/clune system?
                     sufficient protection to
                   piand structures?

                   Sources:        Video Survey of Shoreline Conditions
                                   DBS aerial photos
                                   Coastal Armoring in Florida inventory
                                   Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan
                   a
















































                                                                       40











                                                     TABLE 5.


                                   Inventory of Beachfront Conditions (cont'd)




              II. Inventory and Assessment of Hazardous Conditions and Redevelopment Impacts





                                                  POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

                                        CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5

              HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

              Are major structures
              threatened by erosion?

              Are major structures

              seaward of a 30-yr erosion
              Brojection?




              Sources:     Beach Conditions in Florida
                           Coastal Armoring in Florida inventory
                           CCCL Permit Data Base
                           Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study


















                                                         41












                                                   TABLE S.


                                 Inventory of Beachfront Conditions (cont'd)




             III. Inventory and Assessment of Economic Conditions and Redevelopment
             Impacts





                                                 POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

                                      CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5

             ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

             Will redevelopment require
             major public expenditures to

             replace infrastructure?

             Will a beach restoration N/A                     N/A                     N/A

             project satisfy economic

             criteria?

             Is funding source available N/A                  N/A                     N/A

             for beach restoration or

             other enhancement

             program?

             Is funding source available N/A      N/A         N/A         N/A
             for acquisition or
                pensation to property

             owner?
             com



             Sources:     assessed property values
                          market values of upland properties and structures
                          recreational value of beach/dune system
                          Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan






                                                      42











                                                            TABLE5.


                                       Inventory of Beachfront Conditions (cont'd)




               IV. Inventory and Assessment of Existing Policy and Regulation and Impacts of
               Redevelopment




                                                         POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

                                             CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5

               POLICY AND REGULATIONS

               Consistency with local
               policies for redevelopment,
               repair/replacement of

               infrastructure?

               Consistency with inlet

               manaqement?

               Consistency with slate and

               local acquisition plans?

               Is beach restoration              N/A                         N/A                         N/A

               scheduled?

               If public funds are used for      N/A                         N/A                         N/A
               restoration, can public access
               be accommodated?             I             I             I             I             I             I



               Sources:        Relevant local government comprehensive plan(s)
                               Authorized inlet management plan
                               Undeveloped COastal Beach Resource Inventory
                               local land acquisition plans









                                                                43









                    Step 3. Determine Category of Post-storm Beach, Management Options


                          This step is constructed as a flow chart and begins with consideration of
                    Category I ("Rebuild Structures"). If the Minimum Criteria for Beach and
                    Dune Protection and Hazard Mitigation can be met under this category of
                    beach management options, then the Economic Development criteria are
                    assessed. If the Minimum Criteria for Beach and Dune Protection and Hazard
                    Mitigation cannot be met, then the other categories of beach management
                    options are considered, beginning with the less compromising options (i.e.,
                    beach restoration, dune enhancement) and moving to the more radically
                    different options (i.e., reduction of site coverage, combination of reduction of
                    site coverage and beach restoration, landward relocation of structures) until
                    the Beach and Dune Protection and Hazard Mitigation criteria can be met.
                          Once these criteria are satisfied, then the Economic Development
                    criteria must be considered to determine if the post-storm option is also
                    economically feasible. A description of the methodology to determine which
                    post-sitorm beach management options meet the Minimum Criteria for
                    Economic Development (i.e., which options are economically feasible) is
                    included in Section 6.
                          A flow chart.depicting the determination of appropriate post-storm
                    beach management options follows this page. The flow chart is designed to
                    maximize beach management options that allow the rebuilding of structures
                    in compliance with Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and its implementing
                    regulations.

















                                                       44










                                                                                  FIGURE 1.

                                                  DETERMINATION OF POST-STORM BEACH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS



                                                              Given existing conditions or projected impacts of a major storm,
                                                                  can minimum criteria for Beach and Dune Protection and
                                                                     Hazard Miligation be met if structures are rebuilt?




                                                                                  yes            No




                                                              Can minimum Economic         Can miminum criteria for Beach & Dune
                                                              Development criter           Protection and Hazard Mitigation be met with
                                                                                            beach restorationlenhancemen, program?




                                                              Yes            No                       Yes             No





                                                        AT
                                                    Re-Cil                     Can minimum Economic Development criteria
                                                                                be met with beach restoration program?




                                                                                       Yes                No




                                                              CATEGORY 2:                                 Can minimum Beach & Dune and Hazard Mitigation
                                                   Rebuild structures pending authorized                       criteria be met with less site coverage?
                                                 beach restoration/enhancement program.                                  I
                                                                                                                Yes            No



                                                              Can minimum Economic Development criteria
                                                              be met with less site coverage?
                                                                                  I
                                                                        Yes             No



                                                                                                   Can minimum Beach & Dune and Hazard Mitigaiian
                                                                                                        criteria be met with less site coverage
                                                       CATEGORY 3:                                     & beach restoration/enhancement program?
                                                        Reduce site
                                                        coverage.


                                                                                                                Yes            No


                                                                            Can minimum Economic Development crheda
                                                                            be met with less site coverage
                                                                               beach restoration/enhancement program?



                                                                                  Yes            No


                                                              CATEGORY 4:
                                                           Reduce site coverage
                                                         pending authorized beach                                        CATEGORY 5:
                                                    restorationtenhancement program.                                   Relocate structures
                                                                                                                     landward of active beach.
                                                                                              45









                   Step 4. Identification of strategies for implementation of beach management
                   options.


                         As emphasized in previous sections, the effective implementation of
                   some post-storm beach management options will depend on appropriate pre-
                   storm planning actions. An important but complicated step in the Pre-storm
                   Identification process is to design strategies for implementing post-storm
                   options identified in the Beach Management Plan. In many cases, the local
                   government will need to serve as the lead agency in implementing post-
                   storm redevelopment options due to their jurisdiction of land use and
                   zoning regulations. The state also plays an important role in facilitating
                   implementation through provision of technical assistance and funding
                         Some generic implementation strategies for each category of options
                   are listed in the table below. The Beachfront Redevelopment report already
                   describes many of these strategies. However, determining an appropriate
                   strategy for implementation will be contingent on characteristics of the
                   affected beachfront segment and the surrounding community. In some cases,
                   a combination of two or more of these strategies may be necessary. During
                   Phase II of this project, more detailed implementation strategies will be
                   presented based on characteristics found in the beachfront areas under study.
                         Appendix E describes one approach for implementing the more
                   extreme options within Categories 3, 4, and 5. This approach implies a shared
                   responsibility between the state and local governments in carrying out the
                   various steps of the approach.
















                                                     46











                                       TABLE 6.


                            General Implementation Strategies for
                            Post-storm Beach Management Options



         CATEGORY1          Chapter 161, F.S., and implementing regulations
         CATEGORY 2         1. Chapter 161, F.S., and implementing regulations
                            2. Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan
         CATEGORY 3         1. Replatting program (See Appendix E)
                            2. Cluster development
                            3. Downzoning coupled with property tax incentives
         CATEGORY 4         Same options as Category 3, plus Comprehensive Beach
                            Restoration Plan
         CATEGORY 5         1. Property tax incentives. and reductions for voluntary
                            relocation
                            2. Identification of beachfront parcels in county-based
                            priority lists for acquisition"
                            3. Acquisition by the state12
                            4. Acquisition by a local land trust
                            5. FEMA hazard mitigation grants for. acquisition
                            6. Florida's Communities Trust funds
                           17. Replatting program (See Appendix E)




           The 1993 legislature amended the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act to require
         that each coastal county establish a "county-based process for identifying and prioritizing
         coastal properties" to be acquired through the state's land acquisition programs
         (s.1 63.3178(8), Florida Statutes). This process must establish criteria which recognize
         hazard mitigation and beach management, among other things. This'process, coupled with state
         land acquisition programs, has potential to assist in the implementation of post-storm beach
         management options if it includes properties identified in the state Beach Management Plan as
         "Category 5" areas.
         12 Several state land acquisition programs exist to acquire properties for public purposes,
         namely preservatioR and outdoor recreation. The 1993 legislature amended the Florida Coastal
         Management Act to provide additional criteria for acquisition of coastal lands. These criteria
         include the value 9f acquiring hazardous parcels, consistent with hazard mitigation and post-
         disaster redevelopment, and the value of providing public access and recreation in highly
         developed areas, and the value of acquiring properties to remove them from the pool of
         developable acreage (s.380.22(5)(a), (b), (c), Florida Statutes).


                                       47










                    5.1.5. Resources for Inventory of Beachfront Conditions.
                    As part of its comprehensive beach management and planning process, the
             Division of Beaches and Shores has assembled a number of resources for assessing
             the physical and environmental conditions of all the sandy shoreline areas in the
             state. The Pre-storm Identification process is designed to use these resources in
             order to determine the appropriate conditions for post-storm beach management
             based on physical, environmental, and economic conditions. However, additional
             sources of information needed to determine post-storm options and develop pre-
             storm implementation str  ategies will be identified during Phase II.
                    These resources include:


                    (1) Video Survey of Shoreline Conditions (updated, November 1993)
                          These videos are shot at low altitudes and are used currently to
                    monitor shoreline development and erosion conditions for permitting and
                    beach restoration planning. The Division of Beaches and Shores anticipates
                    that these films will continue to be updated on an annual basis.


                    (2) Beach Conditions in Florida: A Statewide Inventory and Identification of
                    the Beach Erosion Problem Areas  in Florida (4th Edition, September 1992)
                          This document provides a county by county inventory of erosion
                    problem areas, the length of the affected beach segment, and the numbers of
                    the DNR reference monuments marking either end of the affected beach
                    segment.


                    (3) Coastal Armoring in Florida (December 1990)
                          This report documents coastal armoring and storm vulnerability. It
                    includes a county by county inventory of existing and potential (i.e., new or
                    upgraded) armoring lengths and threatened structures, including. public
                    structures, such as roads.


                    (4) Undeveloped Coastal Beach Resource Inventory (1991)
                          This inventory identifies privately-owned undeveloped coastal
                    properties with shoreline lengths of 500 feet or more and describes property
                    characteristics s'uch as acreage, shoreline length, assessed value, zoning,



                                                       48








                         adjacent land uses, and legal description. The results will be digitized and
                         mapped on CCCL photomaps.


                         (5) Inlet Management Plans (in progress)
                                  These plans will include corrective measures to mitigate the erosive
                         impacts of improved coastal beach inlets. Twenty-three inlet management
                         plans are currently being prepared and pending state authorization, and 35 are
                         proposed for development from 1994 to 1997.


                         (6) Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study (in progress)
                                  The purpose of this study is to identify regional coastal processes and
                         problems. According to Division of Beaches and Shores, this study "will
                         amass the largest volume of coastal processes data yet assimilated in the
                         United States for use by coastal engineers and planners" to evaluate options
                         that address erosion, storm damage, and coastal flooding problems.13



                 5.2.    Post-storm Reassessment of Beach Management Options


                         5.2.1. Purpos
                         In spite of Liven the most sophisticated and detailed pre-storm planning, the,
                 actual impacts of a major hurricane or coastal storm to beachfront areas can never be
                 predicted with accuracy. The state should be prepared immediately after a major
                 storm to reassess beachfront conditions and determine if the planned beach
                 management option is still appropriate due to the magnitude or degree of damage to
                 the beachfront area. Below are procedures that the Division of Beaches and Shores
                 should undertake after the storm in order to implement the Post-storm
                 Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas.









                 13 Status of Comprehensive Beach Management Planning, September 1993, p. 76.


                                                                       49









                  5.2-2. Implementation of Post-storm Reassessment Process
                  A two-step process is proposed.


                  Step 1: Conduct areawide damage assessment.


                         The Division of Beaches and Shores must conduct an areawide damage
                  assessment to determine the extent of storm damage to the beach and dune
                  system and to structures. This macro-level assessment will allow the
                  Division to determine if the planned Post-storm Beach Management Option
                  can be implemented based on actual post-storm conditions. For example, if a
                  beachfront area was identified as a "Category 1" area (i.e., Rebuild structures)
                  in the comprehensive Beach Management Plan and sustained major storm
                  damage to the beach and dune system, the Division of Beaches and Shores
                  may elect to declare a shoreline emergency and delay issuance of permits to
                  rebuild structures until the system is repaired and the shoreline protected.
                  On the other hand, damage to the beach and dune system may be less
                  extensive than projected and the shoreline length of a "Category 2" area (i.e.,
                  Rebuild structures pending authorized beach restoration) may be decreased.
                  A number of post-storm scenarios are possible and could require
                  reconsideration of areawide permit conditions for rebuilding structures.
                         Another purpose for the areawide reassessment is to separate heavily
                  damaged areas from areas exhibiting only minor damage so that permitting
                  for minor repairs can proceed while a more in-depth re-evaluation can take
                  place in the severely damaged areas.
                         Ideally, the Post-storm Reassessment should be conducted as soon as
                  possible after passage of the storm and must be consistent temporally and
                  procedurally with other local, state, and federal response and recovery
                  operations. As recommended in Beachfront Redevelopment, the post-storm
                  reassessment should occur in cooperation with the Damage Assessment
                  Team coordinated by county officials. Aerial photography and videography
                  can provide the most expedient means of surveying areawide damage,
                  particularly if storm damage and debris restrict roadway access to the affected
                  beachfront area. The Division of Beaches and Shores used aerial photography
                  and videography when assessing beachfront damage after Hurricane Andrew
                  and found it effective for getting a macro view of entire segments of
                  beachfront and determining which areas required closer inspection.


                                                    50








                          The Post-storm Reassessment process resembles the Inventory of
                   Beachfront Conditions process and considers generally the same conditions--
                   Beach and Dune Conditions, Hazardous Conditions, and Economic
                   Conditions. Policy /Regulatory Conditions do not need to be reassessed since
                   they are not directly affected by a major storm. If officials determine after the
                   areawide damage assessment that the minimum criteria for the planned
                   beach management option cannot be met due to actual post-storm conditions,
                   then the Division should request that the area be declared a "severe hazard
                   area" or "major storm damage area" and that permits to rebuild structures
                   seaward of the CCCL be temporarily withheld in order to allow for a closer
                   reassessment of beach management options. This should not however affect
                   the issuance of temporary permits to secure structures.
                          The Division of Beaches and Shores will need to set a threshold based
                   on the degree of damage which triggers the. temporary withholding of CCCL
                   permits. This threshold could be based on degree of structural damage (e.g.,
                   over 50 percent of the major structures, including armoring and erosion
                   control structures, are heavily damaged or infrastructure serving the
                   beachfront area is heavily damaged) or based on degree of damage to beach
                   and dune system.



                   Step 2: Conduct parcel-by-parcel damage assessment of structures.


                          Once the areawide damage assessment is completed and the planned
                   beach management option is either reconfirmed or revised, a closer parcel-by-.
                   parcel assessment of damage to individual structures must be conducted to
                   determine which structures sea ward of the CCCL will require a permit for
                   rebuilding.
                        . Currently, any reconstruction or repair to the foundation of a structure
                   or outside of the footprint of the original structure requires a permit pursuant
                   to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. However, these statutory provisions should
                   be amended to include that "substantially improved" structures must also
                   receive permits to be rebuilt, regardless of damage to the foundation. This
                   amendment should apply to all structures seaward of established CCCLs.
                          The Federal Emergency Management Agency's guidelines for damage
                   assessment recommend that "substantially damaged" be defined as value of


                                                     51








                    the damage to the strui:ture that exceeds 50 percent of its market value-14
                    Applying this guideline also could broaden the opportunity for rectifying any
                    imprudent siting and construction decisions made prior to the legislation of
                    the 1970s and 1980s. In any case, the post-storm damage assessment and
                    determination of which structures will require CCCL permits to rebuild
                    should be applied consistently throughout the areas seaward of the CCCL.
                          In Phase II of this project, local damage assessment guidelines and
                    procedures will be evaluated in order to determine the impact of these
                    proposals for post-storm parcel-by-parcel damage assessment. More detailed
                    damage assessment guidelines for areas seaward of established CCCLs will
                    then be prepared.





























             14 Details and examples of methods for determining substantial damage and implications for
             reconstruction in hazardous coastal areas are discussed in Appendix D.


                                                       52










             Section 6. COMPARING COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE BEACH
             MANAGEMENT OPTIONS


                    Actions by property owners to redevelop their properties in the wake of storm
             damage can impose costs on the general public and can result in benefits, not only to
             the property owners themselves, but the community at large. It is for this reason
             that the Economic Development Policies under Objective C. of the proposed Post-
             storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas (Section 4, above) require a
             consideration of the economic costs and benefits of redeveloping storm damaged
             beachfront segments and the economic feasibility of restoring the beach and dune
             system.
                    The policies require that costs for the repair and restoration of public
             infrastructure be included in the cost benefit analysis. This includes an economic
             evaluation of a beach restoration, where indicated.
                    Public benefits to be considered include the economic and fiscal impact of the
             upland properties on the local community, benefits from alternative uses such.as
             public recreation, and reduced public costs if a reduction in shore parallel coverage is
             indicated by the identified post-storm beach management option.
                    The costs and benefits of alternative beach management options will be
             evaluated when:


                    o minimum criteria for beach and dune protection and hazard mitigation
                    cannot be met if redevelopment restores the status quo;


                    0 costs to repair or replace infrastructure exceed the benefits; or


                    o long term benefits of other uses of the target beachfront area, such as
                    recreational uses, exceed the benefits of redevelopment.


                    The minimum criteria for beach and dune protection and for hazard
             mitigation are outlined in TABLE 4, above, and include the availability of a
             sufficient buffer between rebuilt structures and the frontal dune, the requirement
             that redevelopment does not require the new construction of rigid coastal
             structures, that major structures can be rebuilt so as to minimize the impact of
             storms to life and property, and that any necessary beach restoration can be
             authorized and funded.



                                                        53








                    The following redevelopment options will be considered:


                    o Rebuild Structure Pending Beach Restoration or Enhancement;
                    o Reduce Site Coverage of Beachfront Area;
                    o Reduce Site Coverage of Beachfront Area Pending Beach Restoration or
                    Enhancement; and
                    o Relocate Structures Landward of the Active Beach and Frontal Dune


                    The methodology for evaluating the alternative redevelopment options is
              being developed in two phases. The initial methodology outlined below will be
              applied to segments of the state's beachfront areas in Phase II of this project with the
              objective of developing a methodology for classifying segments prior to a storm into
              Categories 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. During Phase II of the project, the initial methodology will
              be refined on the basis of experience.
                    After storm damage occurs, there will be a reassessment of the categorization
              of the affected beachfront segments. At such a time, the scope of the cost benefit
              analysis wift be reduced to the affected area and a more in-depth analysis will be
              carried out.
                    It is envisaged that the determination of post-storm beach management
              optionswill follow the flow chart approach (depicted in Figure 1) and beachfront
              segments will funnel their way down through Categories 1 to 5. Segments that meet.
              the criteria for Category I will be so classified and further economic analysis will be
              unnecessary. Segments that can be redeveloped to the pre-storm level, provided a
              beach restoration is feasible will be classified into Category 2. Segments that fail to be
              placed in Categories 1 or 2 will then be analyzed to determine whether they belong
              in Categories 3 or 4, and properties that fail to meet those criteria will be placed in
              Category 5.
                    The principal economic criterion governing the eligibility for Category 1
              designation is that redevelopment does not require major expenditures to replace
              economic infrastructure, and that such replacement be economically justified.
                    On a pre-storm basis, the methodology will require an inventory of the public
              infrastructure along the beachfront segment and estimates of its replacement cost.
              Criteria will be developed during Phase II of this project on the basis of experience to
              determine when cost thresholds are reached that trigger a need to evaluate the
              economic justification of infrastructure replacement. The criteria will include



                                                        54








              amount of cost, potential eligibility for FEMA funding, and ability of the local
              community to cover likely debt service costs.
                    The methodology for the economic justification of infrastructure is applied
              routinely at the federal, state and local levels, and this standard methodology will be
              followed.
                    Classification of properties into Categories 2 and 4 requires an evaluation of
              the economic feasibility of a beach restoration. In the section below, an outline of
              the methodology to evaluate the economic feasibility of a beach restoration is
              presented for the Pre-storm Identification of Beach Management Options process.
                    A post-storm analysis would require a detailed engineering analysis and more
              detailed information on recreational and other community benefits.


              6.1.  Costs and Benefits from a Beach Restoration


                    The costs and benefits of restoration of the beachfront status quo coupled with
              a beach restoration project (Category 2) primarily involve the conventional analysis
              of a beach restoration. This option is only available if the beach restoration is part of
              the State Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan or the project can receive other
              appropriate state approvals. A local source of funds must also be readily identifiable
              to fund the non-federal, non-state funded share.
                    The costs of this beach management option involve the initial construction
              and future maintenance of the beach restoration, together with the initial
              construction and maintenance of any other public infrastructure.
                    For projects in the State Comprehensive Beach Restoration Plan construction
              costs are available. For projects without available cost data, approximate costs per
              cubic yard of fill can be obtained based on distance from the likely borrow area, and
              the usual engineering and administration and contingency costs can be estimated a.s
              a percent of fill placement costs. Maintenance costs are usually about 50'percent of
              the initial project costs in constant dollars, and they must be discounted to present
              values using an interest rate. The interest rate used by the Army Corps of Engineers
              can be employed for this purpose.
                    The benefits of a beach restoration include recreational benefits received by
              residents, day visitors and tourists who use the beach. Estimates of increased beach
              usage and/or recreational values can be derived from the experience of similar
              beach restorations. Some limited surveys of beach users may be necessary in some



                                                         55








             cases. Future recreation benefits must also be discounted to present values using an
             interest rate.
                    Storm damage prevention benefits are a second part of the benefits of a beach
             restoration. These benefits are calculated based on an analysis of the recessions
             induced by storms of different probabilities. The expected losses from storm damage
             with the project are compared to the expected losses without the project. Future
             losses are discounted to present values using an interest rate.
                    Storm damage prevention benefits are also realized by public properties such
             as roads -and utility lines. The storm damage prevention benefits to these properties
             are evaluated by comparing the benefits of the beach protection to equivalent
             alternative proitection using erosion control structures or relocation.
                    Other community benefits from a beach restoration include income and
             employment generated by commercial properties whose clientele use the beach, and
             the contribution of the structures to the tax base. Income and employment data by
             industry are used to estimate income and employment benefits. These may be
             obtained by survey, or from secondary government sources.
                    Fiscal benefits from a beach restoration can be developed from the impact of
             such a restoration on property tax values, using methodologies that have been
             applied to Captiva Island in southwestern Florida and other restored beaches in the
             state. Basically, the storm damage prevention and local recreational benefits will
             directly increase property values as markets internalize them. The resulting
             increase in values generates increased taxes. Other tax revenues may also rise if
             increased tourism is induced by the expanded beach.
                    Finally, other reconstructed infrastructure also yields benefits. For example, a
             reconstructed road link may provide reductions in traffic delays, or accommodate
             hurricane evacuation. Conventional techniques for analyzing the benefits from
             such infrastructure can be employed.


             6.2.   Costs and Benefits of Reduced Site Coverage


                    In the event that a beach restoration is not permittable or economically
             feasible, the option of reduced shore parallel coverage must be evaluated. In many
             respects, such reduced coverage can be viewed as an alternative means of restoring a
             beach and much of the same methodology applies for analyzing economic
             feasibility.



                                                       56








                         The reduced shore parallel coverage option may, in fact, encompass a number
                 of sub-options. Reduction of shore parallel coverage might be accomplished by the
                 transfer of redevelopment rights. This will permit increased densities in lots where
                 such density does not negatively impact the beach and dune system while
                 eliminating densities in other lots.
                         There may be several alternatives to be considered, involving different costs,
                 but equivalent benefits. . It might be necessary for the state or local government to
                 purchase the parcels that will be involved in the transfer of the rights on a
                 temporary basis and different configurations will involve different costs.
                         There might also be differences in benefits from alternative methods of
                 reducing shore parallel coverage. Storm damage prevention benefits will arise
                 when structures are reconstructed in a parcel less vulnerable to storms.
                         There will also be storm damage prevention benefits to properties protected
                 by the protected beach and dune system. Protection of the beach and dune system
                 will also protect the recreational benefits of its users. Finally, there may be benefits
                 from the use of the land vacated by structures.
                         These benefits from reduced parallel coverage will be evaluated using the
                 same techniques discussed under beach restoration in the previous section.
                 Protecting a beach and dune system is simply a different method of placing sand on
                 a beach - keep the sand there, rather than replacing it.


                 6.3.    Costs and Benefits of Reduced Site Coverage Coupled with a Beach
                 Restoration


                         A third option involves reduced shore parallel coverage coupled with a beach
                 restoration project. This option         will be evaluated when reduced shore parallel
                 coverage alone will not eliminate adverse impacts to the beach and dune system.
                 The costs and benefits under this option will essentially involve adding the other
                 costs and benefits of the preceding two options, adjusted for. the precise
                 configuration of the option selected.










                                                                     57











                                         J




                 6.4.     Costs and Benefits of Relocation Landward


                          If reduced shore parallel coverage, even in tandem with a beach restoration
                 project, cannot protect the beach and dune system, the costs of relocation landward
                 should be compared to the benefits of the beach and dune system. The benefits will
                 be of the same type as the reduced coverage benefits discussed above. The costs will
                 include the purchase price of properties landward of the shoreline.


                 6.5.     Post-Storm Analysis of Beach Management Options


                          A post-storm analysis will be more comprehensive than a pre-storm analysis.
                 A detailed engineering analysis Will be required to provide a basis for the economic
                 analysis. Although more comprehensive, the post-storm analysis will be more
                 limited in geographical coverage and the number of alternatives to be considered
                 may be less.
                          The Property Appraiser's file will be a major source of economic information
                 for the post-storm analysis. This will be supplemented by local data on economic
                 and fiscal impact, including employment, payrolls, tax revenues generated by the
                 coastal segment under the different alternatives, as well as some surveys of
                 businesses and households.




























                                                                       58








             Section 7. OBJECTIVES OF PHASE 11: Testing and Revision of Proposed Minimum
             Criteria for Post-storm Redevelopment and Beach Management Options


                    A second phase of this project will begin in February, 1994, in order to apply
             the proposed minimum criteria and to assess the impacts that the implementation
             of the Post-storm Redevelopment Policy may have on selected beachfront areas.
             Phase 11 includes several objectives:


                           (1) To select three coastal counties in the state in order to apply.the
                    minimum criteria and identify appropriate post-storm beach management
                    options for segments of beachfront. The selection will be based on counties
                    with shorelines which exhibit a variety of coastal development,
                    physiographical, environmental, and economic characteristics to make sure
                    that the proposed criteria and options are not biased toward particular
                    beachfront conditions.
                           (2) To assess existing conditions in the beachfront areas of these
                    count'ies and implement the steps outlined and proposed in the Pre-storm
                    Identification of Categories of Beach Management Options process. The
                    purpose is to identify any problems in implementing this process and revise
                    the process accordingly.
                           (3) To identify appropriate strategies for implementing the proposed
                    Post-storm Redevelopment Policy for Beachfront Areas based on the
                    following:
                           (a) existing beach and dune conditions and on-going or planned beach
                           restoration /enhancement programs;
                           (b) review of relevant comprehensive plans and policies, including
                           future land use maps;
                           (c) existing local capacity to implement strategies for more extreme
                           categories of beach management options, if applicable; and
                           (d) available funding sources for implementing particular options.
                           (4) To review county disaster response and recovery plans, including
                    damage assessment procedures, in order to discern any inconsistencies among
                    local processes and to identify any related problems in implementing a
                    uniform damage assessment guidelines for areas seaward of the CCCL.




                                                        59





  I
  I
                                     APPE.NDICES
  I


  i
  I
  I
  i
  I                                                                    . .
  I
  II
  I
  i
  i
  i


                                         60
  I










                                              APPENDIX A.


                             Counties with Coastal Construction Control Lines






                                Bay                        Manatee
                                Brevard                    Martin
                                Broward                    Nassau
                                Charlotte                  Okaloosa
                                Collier                    Palm Beach
                                Dade                       Pinellas
                                Duval                      Santa Rosa
                                Escambia                   St. Johns
                                Flagler                    St. Lucie
                                Franklin                   Sarasota
                                Gulf                       Volusia
                                Indian River               Walton
                                Lee































                                                   61











                                             APPENDIX B.


                      Bibliography of Post-Disaster and Hazard Mitigation Literature



            Brower, David J., Timothy Beatley, and David J.L. Blatt. Reducing Hurricane and
                  Coastal Hazards through Growth Management: A Guidebook for North
                  Carolina Coastal Localities. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at
                  Chapel Hill, Center for Urban and Regional Studies. FEMA Contract EMA-K-
                  0078. July 1987.


            Burby, Raymond J., et al., State Planning Mandates: How Well Are They Working?
                  (Working Paper No. 18). New Orleans: University of New Orleans, College of
                  Urban and Public Affairs, September 1993.


            Bush, David M., Orrin H. Pilkey, Jr., et al. Principles of Property Damage Mitigation
                  from Coastal Storms and Hurricanes, Southeast United States Atlantic Barrier
                  Coastline (draft final report). Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Department
                  of Geology, Program for Study of Developed Shoreline, March 1991.


            Clark, John R. "Natural Science and Coastal Planning: The Cali fornia Experience,"
                 -in Protecting the Golden Shore: Lessons from the California Coastal
                  Commission, ed. Robert J. Healy. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
                  Foundation, pp. 177-207.


            Coastal Resources Interagency Management Committee, Office of Coastal
                  Management. Hurricane Post-disaster Case Studies for Franklin County,
                  Cedar Key, and Indian Rocks Beach: Report to the Governor, Tallahassee, FL:
                  Office of Coastal Management, March 24,1986.


            "DCA Secretary Addresses State's Emergency Management Needs," Florida
                  Planning, July 1991, Vol. II, No. 11, pp. 1, 6, 14-15.


            Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management.
                  Post-disas'ter Hazard Mitigation Plan for the State of Florida. FEMA-743-DR-
                  Fl, and FE MA 756-DR-FL. June 1986.


                                                  62










             Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores,
                   Office of Beach Management.     Status of Comprehensive Beach Management
                   Planning. Tallahassee, FL, September 1993.


             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning. Beachfront
                   Redevelopment. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Coastal Management. Grant #321.
                   March 1993.


             Griggs, Gary B., and Rogers E. Johnson. "Impact of 1983 Storms on the Coastline,"
                   California Geology, August 1983, pp. 163-174.


             McElyea, William D., David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk. Before the Storm:
                   Managing Development    to Reduce Hurricane Damages. Chapel Hill, NC:
                   University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Urban and Regional
                   Planning, Ocean and Coastal Policy Program. FEMA State Assistance Project
                   EMW-K-0201. 1984 Ord Printing).


             South Florida Regional Planning Council. South Florida Hurricane Contingency
                   Planning Study. June 1987.


             South Florida Regional Planning  Council. Post Disaster Redevelopment Planning:
                   Model Plans for Three Florida Scenarios. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department
                   of Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management, December 1990.

             State of Florida, Environmental Land Management Study Committee (ELM's III).
                   Building Successful Communities: A Final Report to Governor Lawton
                   Chiles. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Community Affairs, December
                   1990.















                                                     63











                                                         APPENDIX C.


                              Legal Context of Proposed Post-storm Redevelopment Policy
                                                     for Beachfront Areas




                C.1.   Introduction


                       The purpose of this appendix is to identify and evaluate legal issues that are
                likely to arise in the establishment and implementation of the policies identified in
                this report. The appendix will attempt to identify areas in which implementation
                will require new or amended rules or statutory amendments. It also will identify
                areas where the proposed policies have been written to accommodate concerns over
                the constitutionality of potential decisions and the relative powers granted the
                Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores, and local
                governments over decisions that affect the beach and dune system.


                C.2.   Existing Statutory Framework


                       Primary authority for regulating development activities in Florida lies with
                local governments. Local governments have authority through home rule to
                develop comprehensive plans and adopt zoning and other land regulatory
                measures. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes requires local governments to use those
                powers and provides a framework for ensuring that plans are adopted and that local
                land development activities are consistent with those plans. Under this framework,
                local governments decide how much and what kind of development is to be
                allowed, including the development of beachfront areas.
                       Chapter 161, Part III, Florida Statutes, the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985,
                provides additional requirements for local governments. Under the provisions of
                that part, local governments that are required to adopt building codes and that have
                lands in the coastal high hazard area must adopt additional building standards for
                structures in the "coastal building zone." Those controls apply to new structures
                and also require that structures built before the standards were adopted to be
                reconstructed "to code" if additions or repairs to the structure total fifty percent of its
                value over a five year period.



                                                                64








                       The primary source of state agency regulatory over activities along the
               shoreline is Chapter 161, Part I, Florida Statutes, the Beach and Shore Preservation
               Act. This statute gives the Department of Natural Resources (now the Department
               of Environmental Protection), Division of Beaches and Shores, the authority to
               regulate building activities in several areas. First, the chapter authorizes the
               Division to establish a "coastal construction control line" (CCCL) that delineates the
               area expected to be inundated or affected by wave action in a 100 year storm event.
               Seaward of this line the Division may regulate building activities to ensure that the
               beach and dune system is protected. A second provision puts more restrictive
               requirements on construction within fifty feet of the mean high water line; -
               development within this area is generally prohibited, though the Division may
               grant variances in limited cases. Finally, the Act regulates construction seaward of a
               "30 year erosion projection." Seaward of this line, the only construction permitted
               is single family homes, and then only in limited circumstances and with significant
               restrictions on their location on the parcel.
                       The Act also provides a significant grandfathering clause applicable to the
               CCCL and 30 year erosion projection permit requirements. This provision exempts
               structures  that existed prior to, or were under construction at the time of, the
               adoption of the Act or the setting of control lines. Repairs, additions, or
               modifications to those structures are also exempted within the confines of the
               existing foundation; however, the exemption is lost if the foundation is repaired,
               modified or added to. In that case, the construction activity will be subject to current
               permit requirements and the Division may require the structure to be relocated.


               C.3.    Department Authority to Adopt the Proposed Pre- and Post-Storm Policy
               Framework


                       Major storm events have the capacity to alter severely not only the beach and
               dune system but also structures located in the coastal area in or near the beach and
               dune system. Many or all of the structures in a given area may need to be
               reconstructed and/or relocated after such an event in order to provide            a stable beach
               and dune system and for public safety. The framework proposed in this project is
               intended to guide permitting decisions under these conditions.
                       The baseline assumptions and statewide. policies described in Sections 3 and 4
               of the main body of this report represent existing state policies toward activities in
               coastal areas or logical extensions from such policies. This policy framework,


                                                               65








              however, includes considerations o    utside the Department's authority under
              Chapter 161, F.S. For example, Policy A.8 involves the subdividing of lands, a
              concern left to local governments under current law. While later phases of this
              project will consider means to implement these policies, the focus in this phase is
              on guiding the Division of Beaches and Shore's planning and permitting activities.
              In that context, the "Minimum Criteria for Post-Storm Beach Management Options"
              for various categories of property were developed. These criteria are based on
              current provisions of Chapter 161, as is demonstrated by Table C.1, below.





                                                      TABLE C.1.


                                     Statutory Authority for Minimum Criteria
                                     for Post-storm Beach Management Options



              MINIMUM CRITERIA                              Statutory Authority
                                                            (all cites to Chapter 161, Fla. Stat.)
              BEACH AND DUNE PROTECTION
              1. Structures can be rebuilt sufficiently     161.053(13)(c); 161.053(5)(a)(l)&(3).
              landward of primary dune.
              2. Sufficient buffer can be provided          161.053(5)(a)(3)
              between rebuilt structures and primary
              dune.
              3. Site coverage of beachfront areas          161.053(5)(a)(1);161.053(13)
              allows for sufficient dune migration
              4. Site coverage of beachfront area can be    161.053(13)(a); 161.053(5)(c)
              reduced & footprint of structure(s)
              modified.
              5. Beach & dune system can be stabilized      161.053(13)(a);161.053(5)(a)(3);161.053(5)(c)
              with salt-resistant vegetation.






                                                           66









                                                  TABLE C.1 (cont'd)


              MINIMUM CRITERIA.                              Statutory Authority
                                                             (all cites to Chapter 161, Fla. Stat.)
              BEACH AND DUNE PROTECTION
              6. Beachfront lots have sufficient depth       161.053(13)(a)&(c); 161.053(5)(a)(I)&(3)
              to accommodate functions of beach-
              dune system.
              7. Redevelopment does not require new          161.053(13)(a)&(c); 161.053(5)(a)(1)
              construction of rigid coastal structures.
              8. Repair of existing rigid coastal            161.053(13)(a); 161.053(5)(a)(1)
              structures does not justify increased site
              coverage or seaward relocation of major
              structures.
              9. Rigid coastal structures can be repaired 161.053(13)(a); 161.053(5)(a)(1)
              to provide sufficient upland protection
              and to cause no damage to beach and
              dune system.
              10. Beach restoration or other                 161.053(13)(c); 161.053(5)(a)(1); 161.161(j)
              enhancement program is authorized.
              11. All construction & siting standards        161.053(13)
              are consistent with Ch. 161, F.S., and its
              implementing regulations.
              HAZARD MITIGATION
              1. Major structures can be rebuilt to          161.053(13)(a)&(c); 161.053(5)(a)(3)
              minimize impacts of storms to life and
              property.
              2. Major structures seaward of 30-yr           161.053(6)(a)-(c);161.053(12)
              erosion projection can be relocated
              landward.











                                                           67










                                              TABLE C.1. (cont'd)


             MINIMUM CRITERIA                            Statutory Authority
                                                         (all cites to Chapter 161, Fla. Stat.)
             ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
             I. Redevelopment does not require           161.053(13)(a)&(c);
             major expenditures to replace
             infrastructure and is economically
             justified.
             2. Beach restoration program satisfies      161-161(l)(j)&(2)
             economic criteria.
             3. Funding source for beach restoration     161.053(13)(a)&(c); 161.053(5)(a)(1)
             and maintenance program is available.
             4. Funding source is available for          161.212
             acquisition or compensation to property

             owner.

             INTERGOVERNMENTAL
             COORDINATION
             1. Redevelopment is consistent with         161-053(5)(b)
             local comprehensive plans & policies for
             post-disaster redevel opment.
             2. Redevelopment is consistent with         161.053(13)(a); 161.053(5)(a)(1);
             authorized inlet management plan.           161.053(5)(a)(3)
             3. Public access to the site can be         161-053(5)(e)
             accommodated, if public funding is used
             for beach restoration.
             4. Beach restoration project is scheduled 161.053(13)(c); 161.053(5)(a)(1)
             and no permit obstacles are anticipated.











                                                       68








                    The inclusion of economic and intergovernmental coordination criteria
              represent important aspects of likely post-storm conditions. In effect, they control
              the likelihood and timing of beach restoration projects that might be undertaken to
              address erosion or other damage to the beach and dune system. Indeed, under the
              provisions of Chapter 161, Part 11, Florida Statutes, that govern beach management
              plans and the priorities of beach restoration projects, these economic and
              intergovernmental coordination issues must be considered. These beach
              management activities, in turn, are a significant component of the stability and
              topography of the shoreline, consideration of which is required under the CCCL
              permit. In addition, the final topography and condition of the beach after
              maintenance or repair activities must be considered in determining the impacts of
              the location of the reconstructed or relocated structures, again necessary
              considerations for the control line permit. Finally, the status of beach restoration or
              erosion control programs is a key consideration in determining the location of the
              30 year erosion projection and therefore the determination of the permissibility of
              construction in an area that has been badly storm damaged.
                    Thu5 the economic and intergovernmental coordination considerations
              described here are necessary considerations in a post-storm situation under the
              permitting standards in Chapter 161, Part I. These considerations, along with the
              need to consider the stability and topography of beach segments that have been
              heavily damaged rather than examining just the conditions surrounding a
              particular parcel, justify the imposition of a "moratorium" on permit approvals by
              the Division, as proposed in Section 5.2 of the main body of this report. This
              temporary delay in permit issuance would last until the conditions of the entire
              beach segment have been evaluated and a recovery plan, which may or may not
              include a beach restoration program, put into place.
                    The same considerations support the adoption and application of these
              policies to pre-storm conditions. In many areas of the state, erosion conditions and
              the topography of the land seaward of the CCCL provide indicators that extensive
              damage to the beach and dune system and any structures within it will result from a
              significant storm event. Where these conditions can be identified before a storm,
              strategies for dealing with the likely results of a storm should be developed under
              both the statutory requirements for beach management plans and the necessity to
              consider shoreline stability and topography in determining the permit conditions
              that are appropriate under the CCCL program in a post-storm situation, These pre-
              storm planning determinations will allow property owners to properly adjust their


                                                        69








             expectations and plans and provide appropriate and necessary information for local
             governments to consider in the preparation of the coastal management elements of
             their comprehensive plans.


             C.4.  The Grandfather Provisions and Post-Storm jurisdiction over Structures


                   As noted above, the repair, modification or reconstruction of a structure
             within the confines of its existing foundation footprint is exempt from CCCL permit
             requirements unless the foundation is repaired, altered or added to, whether or not
             the structure was built under a previous CCCL permit. On its face, this would
             indicate that even heavily wind-damaged structures might be exempt from post-
             storm CCCL permitting by the Division. In a post-storm situation where a section
             of shoreline had a mix of destroyed, heavily damaged and moderately damaged
             structures as well as heavy erosion of the beach and dune system, any structure
             whose, foundation was damaged or destroyed would require a new permit. The
             status of structures without foundation damage is less clear. While the "existing
             foundation" exemption would grandfather those structures from the direct
             application of CCCL permit requirements, other provisions of the law may require
             them to be permitted by the state.
                   The provisions of Chapter 161, Part III, the Coastal Zone Protection Act,
             include two definitions that alter the situation. First, "construction" that must be in
             compliance with the code is defined to include "substantial improvements" to an
             existing structure. "Substantial improvements" are defined to include repairs that
             exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure before it was damaged. Repairs are
             cumulative over a five year period, so if a structure worth $100,000 had a $20,000
             roof put on two years ago, repairs that exceeded $30,000 would count as substantial
             improvements. Thus if a building requires repairs constituting substantial
             improvement, it must be brought "up to code," that is, the building must meet the
             requirements of the coastal building zone requirements. This approach is the
             traditional way to bring "non-conforming uses" up to current standards, whether
             those standards are in a zoning ordinance or a building code, and similar techniques
             have been upheld frequently in court.
                   The requirements of the coastal bulding zone include a requirement that the
             foundation of a building be designed to withstand the loading of a 100 year storm
             event from wave and water action. In addition, structures seaward of the CCCL
             must take into account erosion forces. In addition, the properties must meet the


                                                       70










              floor elevation and construction standards of the National Flood Insurance
              Program. The practical effect of these provisions is that coastal properties must be
              elevated above the wave and surge action and properties along the shoreline
              generally must be constructed on pilings, rather than on "fill."
                     Structures that receive heavy storm damage -- enough to require "substantial
              improvement"-- therefore should be required by the local government to be rebuilt
              in compliance with the foundation standards of the Flood Insurance and Coastal
              Building Zone programs. For structures that were built prior to the establishment of
              the original control lines or the coastal building zone, this means that incurring
              significant storm damage should require modifications to the foundation of the
              structure, which in turn will bring them outside the grandfather provisions of the
              CCCL permit. The Division therefore should obtain permit jurisdiction over many
              of the storm damaged properties.
                     Under the permit requirements of the CCCL program, the Division can
              require property owners to relocate structures landward to protect the beach and
              dune system as well as apply site coverage, vegetative restoration and maintenance,
              and dune restoration and maintenance requirements. Seaward of the 30 year
              erosion projection, the Division must limit structures to single family dwellings.
              Additionally, in order to ensure that the shoreline is stable and of the proper
              topography to both maintain a healthy beach and dune system and protect, property,
              the Division can require, if appropriate, that abeach restoration project be completed
              prior to either issuing or activating a permit to rebuild a structure.


                     C.4-1. Possible Problems and Solutions
                     Insofar as the Division chooses to use its permit authority to ensure that
              construction in the coastal area is consistent with public safety and the protection of
              the beach and dune system, post-storm conditions offer an opportunity to modify
              appropriately the development patterns that occurred prior to the establishment of
              the CCCL program. Where structures have been damaged to the point that
              11 significant improvement" will be required, proper application of existing law will
              allow the Division to require those structures to be rebuilt consistent with this goal
              and its current rules. Where such damage has occurred along a segment of beach,
              the requirement that coastal permits be based on studies of the beach stability and
              topography and the impacts of the structures on the beach and dune system clearly
              justify basing permit decisions on the evaluation of the existing conditions of the
              entire beach segment and plans, if any, for its repair or restoration.


                                                         71








                    A major problem with the requirements for construction within the Coastal
              Building Zone is that they are currently enforced by local governments, not the
              Division. In a post-storm situation the local government may be tempted to either
              waive the requirements of the Coastal Zone Protection Act or to grant variances or
              exemptions in violation of it. An additional complication is that FEMA, which has
              a similar rule that "substantially damaged" structures be "brought to code" to qualify
              for flood insurance, also grants variances from the strict application of its
              requirements.
                    The Division has two tools that it can use under the current law to address
              this problem. First, local governments must transmit to the Division all permit
              applications that involve construction and excavation activities seaward of an
              established CCCL within five days of the receipt of  the application; the Division
              then has five days to notify the applicant of the need for state permits. If the local
              government does not recognize the repair of structures as "substantial
              improvements, " the Division could request additional information to determine
              whether it has (or should have) jurisdiction and notify the applicant that the
              applicant will be at risk of violating the Beach and Shore Protection Act if the
              applicant proceeds with the work before the Division has the necessary information
              and potentially subject to the penalties provided.15 The other tool would be a suit
              against the local government to enjoin it from issuing permits if the local
              government attempts to grant blanket permits, or exceptions from permit
              requirements as a violation of that provision and of -the Coastal Zone Protection
              Act.  These tools are relatively heavy handed and reflect the potential for conflict
              that will arise after a major storm as the interests of FEMA, the state, the local
              government and local property owners collide. The key elements of this conflict
              will be the desire of property owners to rebuild as rapidly as possible, and the
              probable sympathy of local government officials with that goal, and the goals of the
              state and FEMA to address the problems posed by improper beachfront -
              development. A more constructive appr      oach would be the pre-storm establishment
              of a coordination mechanism through which FEMA and local government


              15Under Chapter 161, Part 1, Florida Statutes, a person who engages in construction in the
              coastal area without permits can be required to remove the structure and return the beach to its
              prior state, and also maybe subject to administrative fines or penalties. The threat of such an
              action ought to be sufficient to deter most property owners from proceeding with construction
              activities.



                                                         72








              representatives will establish which structures have been damaged to at least 50% of
              their value and therefore rebuilt to code; this determination will then guide the
              Division in determining whether a CCCL permit will be required and what
              conditions should apply. This type of coordination could be established under
              existing law; in effect the Division would be helping by avoiding the necessity of
              two five-day delays before the property owner would know the status of the
              property.
                    This process could be simplified by amending Chapter 161 to provide that
              substantially improved properties are not grandfathered from the requirements of
              the CCCL program. This would allow the Division to promulgate a single rule for
              determining whether properties were substantially damaged that would take into
              account the relevant local and FEMA damage assessment guidelines and that would
              apply consistently throughout areas seaward of established CCCLs. Having a single
              rule would make it much easier to develop a program for coordinated damage
              assessments and permit conditions after a storm by the Division, FEMA and the
              local government to be operating from a single source of criteria for rebuilding.


              C.5. Beach Restoration as a Permit Condition
                    In areas where significant shoreline erosion occurs during or before a major
              storm, the Division may want to include the completion of a beach* restoration
              project as a permit condition. Such a condition is justified by Chapter 161's
              requirement that the stability and topography of the beach be considered, as well as
              the impact of construction activities on the ability of the native dune vegetation to
              re-establish itself. However, the legal implications of such a requirement may vary
              widely depending on whether economic or environmental considerations justify a
              subsequent beach restoration project. Those considerations also may affect the
              property owners' perception of the fairness of the condition. For this reason,
              requiring beach restoration as a permit condition may be controversial.


                    C-5.1. Where Beach Restoration Is Feasible
                    Where beach restoration is economically and environmentally feasible under
              the criteria set forth in Chapter 161, Part II, and under the analysis performed by the
              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the issues created by including either the funding or
              completion of the project as a prior condition for rebuilding are largely issues of
              timing and convenience for the property owners. Forcing them to wait places a
              time and delay cost on their use of their property, but a cost that is balanced by safety


                                                         73








             and environmental concerns that are legitimate under the Act. The primary issue
             for a property owner wishing to rebuild will be how quickly the beach restoration
             project can be started. This will depend on the status of the beach segment on the
             Beach Management Plan and the availability of funding from local, state and federal
             sources. Alternatively, the Governor could declare a beach erosion emergency, an
             action which would probably be justified if a storm did enough damage to justify not
             allowing reconstruction until the beach was renourished. If a beach erosion
             emergency is declared, the Department would be authorized to expend whatever
             funds were available to alleviate the problem. This action could speed up the
             reconstruction process significantly.


                    C.5.2. Where Beach Restoration is Not Feasible
                    A much more difficult situation arises if the beach and dune system become
             damaged or eroded sufficiently to justify the imposition of a beach restoration
             project as a permit condition, but where the economic or environmental analysis
             indicates that beach restoration is not feasible. In such a circumstance, the property
             owner will befaced with either funding a beach restoration with other similarly
             affected property owners (if environmental conditions permit), or forgoing the
             reconstruction of a major structure. The property owner then has the option to
             either appeal these requirements or sue the Division.
                    Appeals and suits against the Division in these circumstances could take
             several forms. First, the owner could challenge the permit condition under the
             Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, on the basis that it was arbitrary or
             beyond the Division's authority.. The Division would have to defend the
             reasonableness of the condition, but the decision would be upheld if there were in
             fact valid issues regarding the stability and topography of the beach/dunes system
             and its vegetative communities. A second form of attack would be to use section
             161.212, Florida Statutes, which allows property owners to contest a permit action or
             decision on the basis that it is an unreasonable exercise of the police power resulting
             in a taking without just compensation. If a circuit court finds the decision
             unreasonable and therefore a taking, the agency is given the option to issue or
             modify the permit or to pay compensation. The most reasonable construction of the
             statute is that the agency action must be both unreasonable and a taking for the court
             to order those option; if the action was unreasonable but also a taking, the court
             would have to use other authority to resolve the dispute. Finally, the property



                                                        74








             owner could sue in inverse condemnation (possible in conjunction with the 161.212
             suit) claiming that the permit condition was a taking.
                   It is difficult or impossible to predict how a takings challenge would turn out
             under these circumstances. Many of the issues would be similar to those in cases
             where all construction has been denied under the 30-foot erosion projection, but a
             court might take into account the legal ability of the landowner to meet the permit
             requirements. Several other factors might lead the court to deny that a taking had
             occurred. In cases where the damage to the beach and dune system was substantial,
             the court might find that construction without a restoration project would
             constitute a nuisance. It is also conceivable that the court would not find a taking
             based on alternative uses that could be available such as use as a beach club or beach
             parking area. Finally, the court might find that the permit condition was not a
             taking in and of itself; the property owner would have to wait until a beach
             restoration project was denied to sue. Even then,,the court could take the position
             that so long as each of the decisions (to apply the condition and not to fund the
             restoration) was reasonable and not a taking in and of itself, the combination was
             not a taking even though the property owner was denied the ability to build a house
             on the property. Even if a taking were found, the court might well value the
             property at a very low level if the damage to the beach and dune system significantly
             constrained construction opportunities even without the CCCL permit conditions.
                   Notwithstanding the likelihood that conditioning a permit on an
             economically infeasible public beach restoration project would be found not to be a
             taking, several approaches can and should be taken to minimize the negative
             impact of such a situation on the individual property owners. The se concepts are
             further explored in Appendix E. Transfers of development rights could be applied
             to allow the beachfront property owners to sell their development rights to property
             owners not so badly affected. This would allow them to recover some value from
             the property. Programs to purchase development rights or conservation easements
             would likewise compensate the property owner for the loss of development rights
             while leaving the title and use of the land with the property owner. A more
             ambitious approach would be the establishment of a land reassembly program that
             would combine beachfront and off-beach parcels in a manner that would allow
             development to be accommodated while protecting the beach and dune system.
             These approaches are similar in that they leave as much of the development and
             land in private ownership as possible. Where these programs are not viable,
             another alternative would be outright acquisition of the parcel.


                                                     75








                    The problem with these programs is that the authority to carry them out is
             almost entirely in the hands of local governments rather than the Department.
             This means that, unless the Department is given additional authority and funding
             the best that can be done is to develop model programs and assist local governments
             in implementing them.
                    The problem in implementing post-storm solutions to resolve the problem of
             lots that are rendered functionally unbuildable by a storm highlights a further
             problem with the division of responsibility between the Department and local
             governments under current law. Because the designation of land uses, densities
             and intensities, even seaward of the CCCL, is in the hands of local governments,
             many decisions that greatly affect the beach and dune system are out of the
             Department's hands. This is demonstrated acutely by the fact that nothing in
             current law prevents local governments from platting beachfront lots that have too
             little area landward of the CCCL to allow development of the densities or land uses
             allowed under the local plan or zoning code. This puts the Department in the
             position of determining land uses or intensities through its permitting process.
             Local governments can even plat and designate for commercial use lots that are
             within areas that will be affected by the 30 year erosion projection and that cannot be
             used for those purposes.
                    These problems point to a need to amend the current law to provide much
             greater coordination between local land use decision and the issues relevant to
             beach and dune protection. While the problems created by past development
             practices will still need to be faced, the state should be taking greater strides toward
             preventing future problems in beachfront areas.


             C-6. Permitting vs. Planning: Beach Management Issues and Local
             Comprehensive Plans


                    The Division of Beaches and Shores, in addition to its permitting duties
             under the CCCL program, has the responsibility for developing a beach
             management program under section 161.161, Florida Statutes. The primary purpose
             of this plan is to establish funding priorities for beach restoration projects. The
             Division thus hag the authority to permit development activities and to plan certain
             projects that may be necessary to accommodate development activities. However,
             under current law, the Division does not have sufficient authority to protect the
             beach and dune system adequately.


                                                        76








                    The reason is that local government planning and regulatory decisions
             determine the density, intensity and timing of growth that affects the beach and
             dune system. And while impacts to the beach and dune system are to be considered
             as part of the local comprehensive plan, those considerations have been insufficient
             to prevent them from making land use decisions that are inconsistent with the
             permit considerations of the CCCL program, or the erosion and other beach
             condition considerations that guide the beach management plan.
                    This results in a situation where inappropriate development spurs additional
             demand for beach restoration activities, which places the Division in the position of
             potentially having to deny a beach restoration activity that is necessary for the safety
             of particular structures. These problems point to a need to amend Chapter 163, Part
             II, the Growth Management Act, to explictly require that the land use designations
             and regulations adopted by local government that include lands containing and
             seaward of coastal construction control lines are appropriate given the permit
             requirements of the CCCL program and are consistent with the Division's beach
             management plans. These changes should be made in time to be implemented
             when local governments begin reviewing their plans in 1996.


             C.7. Conclusions


                    The policies and minimum criteria for post-storm redevelopment options
             proposed in this report are justified by current law and require no amendment to
             Chapter 161. It is desirable to amend Rule 16B-33, F.A.C., which implements
             Chapter 161, to provide explicitly for the consideration of the feasibility of beach
             restoration and of the condition of beach segments as part of the criteria for
             evaluating CCCL permits. Additional rule amendments will probably be necessary
             to implement special post-storm permit processing procedures and for establishing
             the criteria for when consideration of the beach segment conditions and other
             minimum criteria will be applied.
                    The Division may wish to consider proposing amendments to current
             statutes in several areas. First, the grandfather provisions of Chapter 161, Part I,
             should be amended to include direct consideration of whether damage to a structure
             will require significant improvement in determining whether the reconstruction of
             a property will be subject to CCCL permit requirements. It would also be useful to
             amend Chapter 161, Part III,,to make it clear that local governments may not give
             variances or exemptions to the requirements of the coastal building zone in post-


                                                         77








             storm situations. Additionally, the Division should consider whether to seek
             statutory authority and funding to establish purchase of development, land
             reassembly or similar programs to address the need to alter land ownership patterns
             after a storm to avoid unnecessarily harsh regulatory consequences. Finally, the
             Division should consider proposing amendments to Chapter 163, Part !I, that would
             require local governments to ensure that their comprehensive plans and land
             development regulations treat coastal lands more appropriately.




































                                                     78











                                                          APPENDIX D.


                                     Defining and Determining "Substantial Damage"



                D.1. Introduction


                        There is no one standard definition for the term "substantial damage."
                Substantial damage can be determined in a number of different ways. Each state or
                agency may have a different definition or method for determining substantial
                damage. Some states use a different term altogether. The following section briefly
                summarizes how substantial damage is defined and used by the National Flood
                Insurance Program, by FEMA in the case of Metro-Dade after Hurricane Andrew,
                and by the coastal states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware, and Texas.


                D.2. National Flood Insurance Program: Substantial Damage Rule


                        FEMA defines "substantial improvement" in 44 Code of Federal Regulations
                59.1 as:


                        any structure, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure,
                        the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 p       ercent of the market value of the.
                        structure before the (start of construction) of the improvement. This term
                        includes structures which have incurred 'substantial damage', regardless of
                        the value of or actual cost of repair work performed. The term does not,
                        however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to
                        correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code
                        specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement
                        official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living
                        conditions or (2) any alteration of a 'historic      structure', provided that the
                        alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a
                        'historic - structure'.


                        Substantial damage is further defined in 59.1 of the NFIP regulations as:




                                                                 79








                    damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring
                    the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50
                    percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.


                    In the event of a storm, if the structure is determined to be substantially
             damaged it must be rebuilt in accordance with NFIP regulations and any other state
             or local requirements for new construction. This means that residential structures
             must be elevated above the level of a 100-year or base flood, and meet other
             applicable requirements. Substantially damaged non-residential structures must be
             flood-proofed. Failure to comply with community floodplain management
             regulations designates a substantially improved structure as a Post-FIRM building
             and requires that it be actuarially rated based on its risk of flooding.
                    In the event the structure is completely destroyed with only the original
             foundation and slab existing, any rebuilding would be considered a substantial
             improvement and termed a "reconstruction." The structure must be rebuilt
             according to NFIP elevation requirements and all other applicable program
             requirements.
                    In coastal high hazard areas (V-Zones), substantially damaged structures not
             only must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation, but must also comply
             with additional requirements for piling and column supports to resist flotation,
             collapse and lateral movement due to the combined effects of wind and water
             loading forces associated with a 100-year mean recurrence interval storm.
                    It is the ultimate responsibility of the local government to determine whether
             a structure has been substantially damaged and to assure that market value
             estimates are reasonably accurate and that the cost estimate reasonably reflects the
             actual costs to fully repair the structure to its before damage condition. However,
             the local government can require the   permit applicant or the building owner to
             supply the necessary information, such as appraisals, to make the substantial
             damage determination.
                    Depending on the magnitude of the disaster, there will likely be many
             permits for repair that must be processed in a relatively short time period. Taking
             this into consideration, FEMA will accept I'cost of repair" estimates from the
             following sources:


                    1. Itemized estimates including labor and materials from a licensed
                    contractor or other professional estimator.


                                                       80








                      2. For structures insuted through the NFIP, the monetary damage estimated
                      by the NFIP claims adjustor can be used as a screening method to determine if
                      a structure has been substantially damaged.
                      3. Damage estimates and cost of repairs can be determined by the local
                      building permit department.
                      4. Building code valuation tables may be used if the type of structure in
                      question is listed in these tables.
                      5. Estimates of the monetary damage sustained to the structure can be
                      determined by field surveys conducted by building inspection departments,
                      emergency management or tax assessment agencies, or other professional
                      state or local officials.


              The market value of the structure only pertains to the actual structure in question.
              It does not include the land, landscaping or detached accessory structures on the
              property. For the purposes of determining substantial improvement the value of
              the land must always be subtracted. FEMA accepts estimates of market value from
              the following five sources:


                      1. Independent appraisals by a professional appraiser.
                      2. Detailed estimates of the structure's actual cash value, used as a substitute
                      for market value based on the preference of the community.
                      3. Property appraisals used for tax assessment purposes.
                      4. The value of buildings taken from NFIP claims data.
                      5. "Qualified estimates" based on sound professional judgement made by
                      staff of the local building department or local or state tax assessor's office.


              D-3.    Dade County and FEMA after Andrew


                      In response to the great amount of destruction caused by Hurricane Andrew
              in Dade County in 1992, some standard post-disaster redevelopment procedures had
              to be changed. In particular FEMA authorized exemptions for substantially
              damaged structures because of the vast amount of structures damaged. FEMA
              concluded that the flood hazard mitigation benefits derived from requiring Dade
              County and its communities to require that substantially damaged buildings be
              elevated to or above the base flood elevation were outweighed by the high costs to
              elevate in the county, the inability of most property owners to pay for such


                                                            81








            elevation, and the lack of insurance coverage or disaster relief grants to help victims
            meet these elevation costs. Further, FEMA determined that the scale of damage and
            threats to public health and safety would contribute to the inability of communities
            to recover. Not permitting variances would impose a severe hardship and gross
            inequity upon the communities.
                   FEMA guideline 44 Code of Federal Regulations 60.6, Variances and
            Exceptions, Section 60.6(b)(1) provides the following:


                   Certain exceptions from the standards contained in this subpart may be
                   permitted where . . . , because of extraordinary circumstances, local conditions
                   may render the application of certain standards the cause for severe hardship
                   and gross inequity for a particular community.


                   For these reasons FEMA justified granting limited variances, without causing
            the communities to be declared not in compliance with NFIP Floodplain
            Management standards. FEMA allowed communities within Dade County, which
            participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to amend or interpret
            their existing floodplain management ordinances to authorize limited variances
            permitting owners of substantially damaged buildings to repair those buildings.
            However, the current lowest floor of the building can be no more than two feet
            below the 100-year or base flood elevation (BFE). Although allowed to rebuild
            structures not conforming to National Flood Insurance elevation requirements,
            owners will be subject to higher premiums due to their greater risk.
                   National Flood Insurance Program standards require using a 50 percent
            threshold for the "market value" of the structure previous to damage, in
            determining whether a structure has been substantially damaged. If so, local code
            requirements for the rebuilding process must then be applied, namely, that the
            lowest floor must be elevated to or above the BFE. To mitigate the burden on the
            numbers of structures found substantially damaged after Hurricane Andrew, Dade
            County asked that NFIP reguiations be amended to allow municipalities to use
            fireplacement cost" in lieu of market value for calculating the 50 percent damage
            threshold. FEMA uses the definition of replacement cost as found in the American
            Institute of Real Estate's book The Appraisal of Real Estate 1983:






                                                     82








                   ... the cost of construction at current prices of a building having utility
                   equivalent to the building being appraised but built with modern materials
                   and according to current standards, design, and layout.


                   In response to this request, FEMA replied by interpreting current regulations
             as allowing the use of replacement value, rather than making a formal amendment.
             FEMA required that this interpretation only affect marginal structures that were
             badly damaged but repairable, and that careful documentation of the use of
             replacement cost be maintained. Further, FEMA required that estimates of
             replacement costs be determined by using Marshall & Swift's Residential Cost
             Handbook or similarly recognized cost handbooks. FEMA recognized that the post-
             disaster economy of Dade County had driven construction costs up dramatically.
             FEMA allowed for the use of non-inflated (pre-Andrew) material and labor costs for
             determining the cost of repair to buildings.
                   To further lessen the burden on property owners whose structures would
             normally be categorized as substantially damaged, FEMA allowed several itemized
             costs to be exempted from the substantially damaged calculation. These include:
             structural fill, demolition costs, carpets covering finished floors, non- built-in
             appliances, and other items incidental to the reconstruction of a building.
                   In the event of a storm or flood with widespread damage such as that left by
             Hurricane Andrew, the governing body or presiding political authority of the
             community, upon advisement of the local permit official, may chose to impose a
             moratorium for issuing permits immediately after the storm or flood event until
             information can be gathered on the locations of substantially damaged structures.


             DA. North Carolina


                   Under the North Carolina Administrative Code, if a structure's storm
             damage amounts to more than 50 percent of the pre-storm physical value, a new
             permit is needed to rebuild and the structure must conform to current setback and
             building codes.16 Physical value is based on the appraised value determined by the
             local building inspection office.



             16North Carolina Administrative Code, Section T15A: 07M.0500, Post Disaster Policies,
             02/16/90.



                                                     83








                   In some areas rebuilding may be prohibited. Although approximately 50
             variance requests have gone before the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) since
             1979, the code has been upheld. Approximately 90 percent of these cases were
             denied variances. There have been no legal challenges contesting the state's 50
             percent damage rule-17
                   Although two hurricanes, Hugo (1989) and Emily (1993), recently have
             affected the North Carolina coast, most cases that have gone before the CRC are cases
             involving chronic erosion, not hurricane damage. Hurricane damage is usually
             temporary or repairable.18
                   Brunswick County was the only county in North Carolina significantly
             impacted by Hurricane Hugo. Approximately 300 property owners within the zone
             of imminent collapse considered federal insurance payments to relocate or
             demolish their structures under the Upton-Jones amendment. However, most did
             not pursue their claims after the area began reconstructing the dunes with assistance
             of FEMA relief funding. Most damage from Hugo was minor damage. There were
             no substantially damaged structures as a result of Hugo.19
                   Two recent examples of variances that were approved concerned motels in
             Buxton in Dare County after Hurricane Emily in August 1993. In both cases, several
             units were substantially damaged by rising water from the Pamlico Sound, not from
             the ocean. Also, in both cases the annual erosion rate was decreasing, and a new
             long term (30 year) erosion setback line, located further seaward than the previous
             line, was under consideration by the Commission. Both plans called for the
             improved design of the new units by setting them on pilings, locating them further
             landward than the original structures, and by not increasing the size or number of
             units. Because of these factors, it was determined that the variances would be given
             because they fulfilled the intent of the rule even though a few of the new structures
             would still be located seaward of the current and new erosion setback lines.20







             171bid.
             181bid.
             191bid.
             20North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), "In the matter of: Petition for variance
             by John Hooper, Katherine Hooper, and Edgar Hooper, Final Order," and "in the Matter of:
             Petition for variance by Carol White Dillon," November 18, 1993.


                                                       84












              D.5. South Carolina


                    The definition of "destroyed beyond repair" is used by South Carolina. For a
              habitable structure, "destroyed beyond repair" means that more than 66 2/3 percent
              (two-thirds) of the replacement value of the habitable structure has been
              destroyed.21
                    A structure that is less than two thirds damaged may be rebuilt on the same
              footprint on which it previously stood, but federal guidelines must still be followed.
              If a structure is destroyed beyond repair, it must follow the procedures of a new
              habitable structure for the most part.22
                    The Coastal Council determines whether a structure is destroyed beyond
              repair upon request of the owner of a structure or local government, of its own
              volition, or in response to an emergency situation.23
                    Following a natural disaster, the Coastal Council coordinates a post-storm
              damage appraisal with the affected local government. Council staff makes the
              initial damage appraisal. The Council may use the property owner's insurance
              adjustor's figures to determine damage when appropriate. If an owner disagrees
              with the Council's appraisal, he may get a second appraisal. If the two appraisals
              differ, then the two appraisers select a third appraiser. If they cannot agree on an
              appraiser, the Clerk of the County selects the third. appraiser., The third appr aisal is
              final.24
                    According to Christopher Brooks, Deputy Director of the South Carolina
              Coastal Council, an owner of a structure with damage exceeding two-thirds of the
              replacement value must apply for a new permit and must adhere to current codes
              and setback requirements, as mandated in section 48-39-280 of the South Carolina
              Code. A point system is used for damage assessment. Different parts of the
              structure are weighted as to their percentage of total structure and assessed



              21 South Carolina Coastal Council, Rules and Regulations for Permitting in the Critical Areas of
              the Coastal Zone, July 1993, p. 5.
              22Telephone interview with Christopher Brooks, Deputy Director of the South Carolina Coastal
              Council, September 9,1993.
              23SOuth Carolina Coastal Council, Rules and Reaulations for Permittina in the Critical Areas of
              the Co@stal Zone, July 1993, p. 39.
              241bid.


                                                         85








              separately. The separate asse'ssments are then added to ma       ke a final judgment of the
              overall structure.25


              D.6. Texas


                      In Texas public ownership of the beach extends landward to the upland
              vegetation line. If the vegetation line migrates landward, so does the public right to
              access.26 The vegetation line is defined as the extreme seaward boundary of natural
              vegetation which spreads continously inland. In areas with no clearly identifiable
              line of vegetation the "line of vegetation" for the purpose of regulation shall be
              determined by the nearest clearly marked line of vegetation on each side of the
              unmarked area.
                      Texas legislation mandates that no new structures, including all habitable and
              coastal armoring structures, can be built seaward of the vegetation line. In addition,
              in the event of a storm, any structures damaged beyond 50 percent of their previous
              value must be relocated landward of the line. This is mandated in the Texas Coastal
              Management Bill (S.B. 1053).27
                      After Hurricane Alicia struck in 1983, there were several legal challenges to
              the restrictions on construction seaward of the vegetation line. In Seinman v. State
              of Texas, 75 property owners unsuccessfully challenged the migration of the public
              beach which results in the resetting of the vegetation line. Many cases were litigated
              to the State's supreme court. However, the law prevailed in all cases.28
                      Another noteworthy case, Matcha v. Mattox (Attorney General of Texas)
              challenged the public's right to free access of the beach after Hurricane Alicia caused
              the beach to migrate 125 to 150 feet landward. The Matcha's home was severely
              damaged during the storm and the attorney general posted notice on the structure
              that its repair might be in violation of law. Despite the warning the Matchas
              continued to repair their house and added fill and plants around the structure.
              According to Texas law, whatever right the Matchas had to the area was subordinate


              25Telephone interview with Christopher Brooks, Deputy Director of the South Carolina Coastal
              Council, September 9,1993.
              26Florida Departmen't of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, Beach
              Redevelopment, March 1993, p. 111-9.
              27Telephone interview with Kim McKe'nna, Geologist, Texas Coastal Division of the Resource
              Management Office, September 10, 1993.
              281bid.


                                                            86








               to the right of lawful use of and access to the area by the general public. The district
               court ruled in favor of the State.
                       The 50 percent substantial damage rule has held up well for the state. No
               substantially damaged structures have been allowed to rebuild seaward of the
               vegetation line. There have been some borderline ca           ses in which rebuild   ing was
               allowed.29
                       There is no strict criteria for determining percent damage. Following a storm
               a visual assessment is conducted, if the visual assessment does not provide enough
               to make a determination the state requires that all damage assessments made by the
               county and insurance adjusters be provided to the State. Texas is currently
               discussing which agency will take the lead in post-disaster redevelopment.30


               D.7. Delaware


                       Construction and reconstruction are prohibited seaward of the building line
               established by the State's Beach Preservation Act of 1972. Any construction seaward
               of the line, including the restoration or reconstruction of a structure, requires a new
               permit.31 Construction landward of the line requires only' notification and a letter
               of approval from the state.32
                       If.an existing structure's foundation, which stands seaward. of the line, needs
               any repairs that require elevating the structure, the structure must be set back
               behind the line.33 If the space available entirely landward of the building line is
               determined to be inadequate for construction or reconstruction of a structure, the
               structure must be located as far landward on the parcel as possible.34
                       "Completely destroyed" is defined as having 75 percent of the original
               structure or 50 percent of the foundation pilings unsuitable for incorporat            ion into


               29Telephone interview with Ken Cross, Texas State Attorney's Office, Environmental Protection
               Office, December 10, 1993.
               301bid.
               31 Florida Department of Natural Aesources, Office of Policy and Planning, Beach
               Redevelopment, March 1993, p. 111-7-8.
               32Telephone interview with Maria Sadler, Environmental Scientist, Delaware Department of
               Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
               September 27, 1993.
               331bid.
               34Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and
               Water Conservation, Regulations Governing Beach Protection and the Use of Beaches, Revised
               and Effective December 27, 1983.


                                                               87








              the rebuilding of the structure.35 Presently there is support to lower the completely
              destroyed threshold for foundation damage from 50 percent to 25 percent.36
                      Assessing a structure's damage is done at the discretion of state assessors.
              Only one completely destroyed structure has not been allowed to be rebuilt upon its
              lot.37  In determining whether a structure's dimensions or location should be
              modified to meet the purpose of the Beach Preservation Act, the state shall balance
              the actual and potential hardships or benefits that may be experienced by the
              structure's owner against any actual or potential hardships or benefits that may be
              incurred by the state, the public, or adjacent landowners. Factors to be considered in
              carrying out the balancing test include: the purposes of the Act and its regulations;
              the potential for federal or state expenditures to the property prior to or after
              construction, or after a natural disaster; the protection of the state, public, and
              adjacent landowners from actual and potential financial and property loss; actual
              and potential financial and personal loss to the structure's owner; the possibility of
              modification or redesign by the state; or any design alternatives or amendments
              submitted by the owner.38
                      The "balancing test" as described in the Beach Protection Act provides a
              framework for assessment of impact of redevelopment in coastal areas. There are
              no written guidelines to perform this test. The balancing test is designed to insure
              that assessors will consider all relevant issues in making their determination.39
                      There were many challenges to the Beach Protection Act in the early 1970s,
              with one case going to the Delaware Supreme Court. Today, however, legal
              challenges are rare because the legislative restrictions placed on coastal development
              are expected and understood.40



              35F[orida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, Beach
              Redevelopment, March 1993, p. 111-8.
              36Telephone interview with Maria Sadler, Environmental Scientist, Delaware Department of
              Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
              September 27, 1993.
              371bid.
              38Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and
              Water Conservation, Reaulations Governina Beach Protection and the Use of Beaches, Revised
              and Effective December 27, 1983.
              39Tony Pratt, Project Administrator, Delaware Coastal Program, November 24, 1993.
              401bid.


                                                            88











             D.8. Conclusion


                    Florida currently has a substantial improvement law in Chapter 161, F.S. that
             applies to the coastal building zone that states:


                    any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which
                    equals or exceeds a cumulative total of 50 percent of the market value: (a)
                    Before the improvement or repair is started; or (b) If the structure has been
                    damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred.


             In order to implement an effective post-storm redevelopment policy the substantial
             improvement law would have to apply to private structures within the 30-year
             erosion projection area. Therefore, any structure substantially damaged, regardless
             of foundation damage, would be required to meet standards and criteria of new
             CCCL applications. In addition to private structures, the 50 percent substantial
             improvement rule should also apply to the State's Coastal Armoring Policy so that
             rebuilt structures can be brought into compliance with current standards and
             criteria. If not, the structures should be removed by the upland property owners.
























                                                      89











                                                   APPENDIX E.


                                 Pre-storm Application of a Replatting Program
                                          for Post-storm Redevelopment



              E.I.   Introduction


                     This appendix addresses one option for implementing pre-storm planning,
              the cooperative local government/ landowner approach to redesign of a-subdivision
              for post-storm redevelopment.
                     This approach applies state policies for post-disaster redevelopment,
              recognizing that when it comes to regulation of land use and development, it is the
              local government that has primary responsibility. It also assumes that in some
              beachfront areas the post-storm redevelopment options will be restricted because of
              federal, state and local regulations on development in hazardous coastal areas. This
              approach is presented as one possible strategy for the state and local governments to
              carry out their shared responsibility of managing beachfront redevelopment.
                     The discussion relates to specific categories outlined in Section 5.1, Pre-storm
              Identification of Post-storm Beach Management Options.. These are:


                    Category 3    Reduce Site Coverage of BeachfrontAreas;


                    Category 4    Reduce Site Coverage of Beachfront Area and Implement Beach
                    Restoration/ Enhancement Program;


                    Category 5    Relocate Structures Landward of Active Beach and Frontal
                    Dune.


              E-2.   The Concept


                     The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
              Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) requires local governments to prepare
              post-disaster redevelopment plans as part of their comprehensive plans. Pursuant
              to Chapter 163, these plans should adopt long-range policies to relocate structures
              from hazardous coastal areas, and should be coordinated with other local policies


                                                         90








             and regulations. Although not currently required by statute, these plans should also
             adopt policies consistent with the state Beach Management Plan which also includes
             policies to relocate structures.. The key aspects of implementing a relocation
             approach include:


                    o Subdivision Regulations;
                    o Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Provision;
                    o Land Use Plan/Zoning Ordinance; and
                    o Incentives for Voluntary Relocation.


                    The hazard prone areas were once bulk acreage, and were platted into
             development parcels. Further subdivision may have occurred to the point where
             there are many small-lot subdivisions within hazardous areas. There are three
             main scenarios defining the level of development in these areas:


                    (1) Highly Urbanized;
                    (2) Urbanizing; and
                    (3) Low Density and Undeveloped.


                    Regardless of the scenario, the approach presented here is a local government
             initiated effort to cooperate with the landowners during the pre-storm planning for
             post-disaster redevelopment to actually determine the type and location of post-
             disaster redevelopment. What is discussed is an approach which includes the
             following steps:


                    o identifying the areas where rebuilding will be allowed and where it will not
                    be allowed;
                    o determining what type of building will be allowed;
                    o establishing the management concept for the redevelopment activity;
                    o allocating development density to individual owners;
                    o determining necessary subsidies and identifying incentives to be used; and
                    o calculating the financial requirements of the entire effort.


                    In simple. terms, what is discussed is a type of multi-owner clustering of
             density. The different landowners pool their density, and shift location to one
             which is acceptable given current policy and regulatory approaches. The concept


                                                       91








                includes both clustering density on-site, clustering density off-site to pre-identified
                parcels, and a mixture of both approaches. It also includes the idea of
                redevelopment of the same uses, or redevelopment with a mixture of uses pursuant
                to the pre-storm plan for post-storm redevelopment.


                E.3.    Planning for Cooperative Replatting


                        E.3.1. Initial Stel2s
                        The process of a cooperative replatting for post-storm redevelopment begins
                with a description of the reasons for selection of the area from the framework of
                federal, state and local regulations. Included in the description should be the need
                for implementation of the replatting, and its effect           on the community and on the
                individual landowners.
                        Then, through preparation of a concept plan, a master plan and an
                implementation plan for the project, explanations are made to land owners and
                local residents and public hearings are held, while coordination with other public
                organizations related to the project are made simultaneously. Based upon repeated
                feedback, a project takes shape, after obtaining consent to the details.
                        The state plays a critical role in this effort. In addition to preparing the set of
                criteria that local government may use in identifying candidate sites, the state must
                create the training program and the training materials that will enable local
                government personnel to undertake this type. of pre-storm redevelopment
                planning.


                        E.3.2. Implementation System
                        To begin a project, it is necessary to establish an administrative entity to
                implement the project. If a public body will be in charge, an organization of local
                government can carry out the project. In most cases, however, an organization of
                land owners and long term leaseholders should be established to promote
                preparation of the plan.            I
                        At this stage, it is important that a manual exists which explains the
                administrative options possible, and gives examples of how they should function.
                Again, this document can be provided by the state to help ensure that the trained
                professionals coordinating this process have the best information possible.




                                                                   92









                   E.3.3. Surveys and Studies
                   In the beginning, land owners and the administrative agency closely
             coordinate to determine the contents of the plan. At this point, government must
             cover the expense of necessary surveys and studies.
                   This is not a question of extensive original research. For example, the state's
             Division of Beaches and Shores can provide information concerning historical
             erosion rates, dune profiles, etc. There are also other state and regional sources of
             data which can be used in putting together the plan.
                   This work includes identifying where development will be permitted.after
             the storm, and where it will not be permitted.- It will also determine the appropriate
             development pattern for the area, and identify the extent, if any, of additional land
             that will be needed to accommodate the redevelopment density of the site. Each
             landowner's entitlement under the post-storm plan must be determined in relation
             to their pre-storm entitlement, and comparative charts prepared showing these
             elements for each land owner.
                   The concept plan prepared for the site, or for an alternate site, or a
             combination' of both, is then taken to th e community for review and comment, and
             then a detailed plan is prepared.


                   E3.4. Legal Procedures and Administrative Approvals
                   The detailed plan is similar to a subdivision and development plan, and the
             appropriate agencies must review and comment on the proposal, making sure that
             it does not conflict with any policies or regulations. Clarification of the roles of
             different agencies need to be made, fiscal responsibilities need to be determined, and
             fiscal commitments need to be made.


                   E-3.5. Reaching Consensus with the Landowners
                   Coordination with the landowners is critical for this effort. Education and
             information dissemination efforts are important, but direct one-on-one
             communication between land owner and government staff is critical to the success,
             of this stage of the process.
                   Landowners must understand that what is being planned is what will happen
             when disaster strikes. It is contingent planning for a future risk, it is based upon
             what policy and law require, and it is what will get the area rebuilt the quickest in
             the event disaster does occur.




                                                      93








                    Initial land owner reaction may be rejection or strong anxiety about the plan.
             The plan can be complex, include many land owners, and involve great changes in
             property of individuals and corporations. For these reasons, it may be difficult to
             reach consensus with the land owners unless they fully understand the framework
             and contents of the plan.
                    If there is not enough coordination with the landowners at the initial stage,
             they may feel as if they are victims of a plan being forced upon them. In order to
             promote a replatting concept as smoothly as possible, it is necessary to hold
             explanatory meetings at each step of the project until a vast majority of the land
             owners understand and approve the plan. Suggested procedures for coordination
             with landowners include:


                    explanation of the need for the plan;
                    getting their input for a concept plan;
                    combining land owner and government input for a revised plan;
                    getting their input for the final plan; and
                    getting their approval of the implementation plan to be put in place in the
                    event of a disaster.


                    Smooth coordination with landowners requires a landowner organization to
             deal with the governmental administrative agency. Many times a condominium
             association or home owners' association can be used, and for larger sites, a
             combination of existing organizations and individual land owners can be brought
             together in a new entity. It is often helpful to have a third party involved in
             coordinating this effort--such as a local land trust. A land trust can provide a
             detached, yet interested approach that can help foster cooperation among the
             landowners themselves, and between the landowners and the local government.
                    Surveys can be used to gather opinions. Pamphlets and drawings describing
             the plan can be distributed. An office for the organization can be established, and a
             newsletter reporting on progress can be published by either the association or the
             government agency.









                                                        94









                EA.     The Implementation Organization and System


                        To achieve approval of a post-storm replatting plan and provide for its
                implementation, the governmental administrative agencies and the landowner
                body should establish a system for implementation. Elements of this system
                include:


                        Role of the State--to advise local government on policies to encourage post-
                        storm replatting, to coordinate with other agencies related to the planning,
                        regulatory, or fiscal aspects of replatting, to provide technical information and
                        technical assistance, and to provide assistance in securing funds.for
                        implementation of the plan;


                        Role of Florida's Communities Trust--to inform local land trusts about the
                        benefits of pre-storm redevelopment planning, to assist a local land trust's
                        work with local governments and landowners in preparing post-storm
                        redevelopment plans, and to provide funding for implementing the plan;


                        Role of Local Government--to provide technical guidance to individual
                        projects and to approve projects;


                        Role of the Implementing Body--to plan and manage the process, and
                        negotiate with land owners;41


                        Role of Local Land Trusts--to work with landowners and local government to.
                        educate and inform interested parties about the planning process, and to assist
                        in consensus-building in the redevelopment planning process.


                E.5.    Funding Strategies


                        This type of redevelopment planning is very labor-intensive. Numerous
                meetings must be held to introduce the concept, and numerous meetings must be
                held to educate the interested parties about the options available. Then, once the



                41This body can be either the local government agency or the land owners' organization.


                                                                  95








                organizational effort has bee*
                                                   n accomplished, the process of consensus-building to
                determine an acceptable post-storm plan will require many more meetings.
                        In addition, substantial technical information must be collected, and once the
                plan is determined, technical planning must be undertaken similar to the effort
                necessary to get a development project ready for the approval process.
                        This is expensive in terms of both staff and consultant services.
                        Federal and state financial support will be necessary to fund initial efforts to
                implement this type of redevelopment planning. As the technique becomes more
                understood, it can become a part of the planning process used by coastal
                communities.


                E.6.    Selected Experience to Date


                        Research has not yielded any specific cases of pre-disaster planning for post-
                disaster redevelopment in hazardous coastal areas.. However, there has been
                substantial experience with redevelopment pursuant to a replatting plan following a
                disaster, and even redevelopment before a disaster using a replatting plan to lessen
                the risk of future disaster.


                        E.6.1. Europe
                        Property reorganization schemes were implemented in London after the
                Great Fire of 1666, in Posen, Poland after a fire in 1803, and in Hamburg, Germany
                after the Great Fire of 1842.
                        German statutory "Land Regroupment" legislation, designed for urban
                redevelopment and passed in 1903, was used in East Prussia as a means to
                reconstruct areas devastated by World War I. The massive destruction of World
                War II made it imperative to reorganize property in Germany as soon as possible,
                and all reconstruction legislation had."Land Regroupment" clauses.


                        E.6.2. Tal2an
                        The redevelopment of the area struck by the Great Kanto Earthquake in
                Tokyo, Japan in September 1923 was assisted by the replatting of land ownership
                through a proces@ known as "Land Readjustment." Almost 9,000 acres were
                replatted using @his technique.




                                                                   96









                   Examining the devastation from the winds and flooding of Typhoon Muroto
            in Osaka and Kobe in September 1934, special ordinances for disaster restoration-
            related Land Readjustment projects were formulated.
                   Following World War H, special legislation was enacted which ultimately led
            to 70,000 acres in 102 cities being redeveloped using "Land Readjustment." In
            Nagoya, 23 per cent of the city, including the central area, was destroyed during the
            War. The city initiated a War Recovery Land Readjustment Project for an 8,500 acre
            area. This area was divided into 48 districts and a replatting plan was formulated for
            each district.
                   More than 70,000 land owners cooperated in the Nagoya project, and more
            than 44,000 buildings were removed or relocated, since the project area included
            adjacent areas where there were no destroyed buildings.
                   And, in Tokyo, the current Urban Redevelopment Master Plan takes into
            account numerous risks of natural disasters, and requires redevelopment projects to
            use Land Readjustment as   necessary to promote the redevelopment in such a way as
            to mitigate against such possible disasters.


                   E.6.3. United States
                   In the United States, several jurisdictions have had experience with replatting
            subdivisions. This experience ranges from consolidation for environmental
            reasons to consolidation for urban and suburban development and redevelopment.
                   One of the more relevant examples is the case of Ormond Beach in Oxnard,
            California. The original plat for Ormond Beach was recorded in 1906 and it created
            beachfront lots that were 30 feet by 133 feet. California's Coastal Zone Management
            Act, adopted in 1972, made development of Ormond Beach difficult, if not
            impossible. As a consequence, a lot owners' association was formed and a plan was
            eventually approved to:


                   allow development rights of individual lot owners to be consolidated into a
                   single entity with authority to negotiate on behalf of the owners;


                   allow consolidated development rights to be transferred to a receiver site
                   owned by the city and having a value comparable to the Ormond Beach
                   properties; and




                                                     97








                 provide a receiver site to accommodate a proposed hotel/ commercial mixed
                 use zoning that differed drastically from the high density single family
                 development for which Ormond Beach had been platted.


                 A key player in the Ormond Beach example was the California State Coastal
            Conservancy. The City staff had recommended that the project be reviewed by the
            Conservancy when it was initially proposed. The Conservancy recommended an
            alternative use based upon its knowledge of State Coastal Commission policies and
            past decisions on similar projects. A process was initiated which included the City
            of Oxnard Planning Department, the Redevelopment Agency, the Coastal
            Conservancy an'd the association of property owners. The end result of this process
            was the mixed use concept.


            E.7. Concluding Comment


                 Though no direct United States experience has been identified with pre-storm
            application'of a.replatting program for post-storm redevelopment, the relevant
            experience both abroad and in the United States justifies the further examination of
            this technique as a possible efficient and effective way to meet the state's desire to:


                 ... take advantage of the opportunity to rebuild in a manner which will
                 minimize future losses of life and property.42














            42FIorida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy Planning,
            Beachfront Redevelopment, March 1993, p-1.


                                                98











                                                  APPENDIX F


                        Impacts of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 on
                              Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line Program



             F.1-   Introduction


                    Flood insurance reform has been under consideration by Congress since 1989.
             In 1989 National Academy of Sciences convened a panel of experts to address the
             problems of coastal erosion rates and the appropriate actions necessary to stabilize
             these rates. A final report was issued in 1990. This process has become the basis of
             the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, sponsored by U.S. Senator John F.
             Kerry (Mass achusetts).43
                    The reforms called for in this legislation may have some positive impacts in
             relation to the implementation of Florida's CCCL (CCCL) program.


             F.2.   Establishment of a 30-year Erosion Line


                    One of the major reforms called for in the National Flood Insurance Reform
             'Act of 1993 is the establishment of a 30-year erosion line. This line would serve to
             indicate the 30-year erosion hazard area wherein the Act prohibits flood insurance
             for new construction. Additions to existing structures that make them not readily
             movable would also be prohibited. The Act would also limit the availability of
             flood insurance to new readily movable residential structures within 60-year
             erosion hazard areas.44 A "readily movable structure" as defined in the Act is "a
             small permanent structure of less than 5,000 square feet that is designed, sited, and
             built to accomplish relocation at a reasonable cost relative to other structures of the
             same size and construction and that has access of sufficient width and acceptable
             grade to permit such relocation."45


             43The National FI ood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, Senator John F. Kerry, "Answers to
             Commonly Asked Questions," August 5, 1993.
             44S. 1405, The National Flood Insurance Reform Act. of 1993, Senator John F. Kerry,
             "Summary of Major Provisions."
             45S. 1405, National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, sponsored by Senator John F. Kerry,
             P. 11.


                                                        99








                   The 30-year erosion line as used by the 1993 Reform Act would determine the
             types of construction that will be eligible for federally backed insurance. The Act
             would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to update flood
             insurance maps every five years and to distribute revised maps free of charge to
             states and communities, and to publish changes. FEMA would be required to map
             the 30- and 60-year erosion lines and hazard areas using erosion rate data and
             baseline reference features. This process would be performed by using existing state
             erosion data and reference features. Local mitigation activities, such as beach
             renourishment, must also be considered in the mapping process. A technical
             mapping advisory council would be created to provide guidance and
             recommendations to improve the flood insurance rate maps.46
                    Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through the CCCL
             program, will not issue a permit for any structure, other than a coastal or shore
             protection structure, minor structure, or pier, proposed for a location projected to be
             seaward of the mean seasonal high water line within 30 years after the date of
             application for such permit (known as the 30-year erosion projection line and
             determined by DEP's erosion projections for the area), except for construction of a
             single-family dwelling on a parcel platted or subdivided before October 1, 1985.47
             The Department will also not permit repairs or rebuilding that expand the capacity
             of the original structure seaward of the 30-year erosion projection.48
                    Presently DEP determines the 30-year erosion line on a.pArcel by parcel basis.
             If the reforms called for in the 1993 Act are enacted, 30-year and 60-year erosion lines
             may be determined and continually updated for the entire state.












             46The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, "Section -by-Section Summary," August 5,
             1993, SEC. 604-605.
             4716B-3*3.006(3) Florida Administrative Code.
             4816B-33.006(4) Florida Administrative Code.


                                                      100









              F.3.   Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program


                     The 1993 Act reforms many of the policies set by the original National Flood
              Insurance Program (NFIP). Some of these reforms have relevance to Florida's
              coastal zone management program and implementation of a post-storm
              redevelopment policy for beachfront areas.
                     The purpose of the original NFIP, created in 1968, was to make flood
              insurance available to residents of communities that qualify for the program.
              Community participation requires public adoption and enforcement of specified
              construction and land development regulations designed to minimize the risks
              inherent to flood prone areas. Many communities participate because insurance in
              coastal high hazard areas is not often available from the private sector.49
                     Virtually all Florida communities participate in NFIP. A community's
              eligibility for federally insured mortgage loans depends on participation in the flood
              insurance program.50       Florida also requires participation in the program for
              inclusion in the state's hazard mitigation plan under Chapter 252, F.S. Construction
              within the state's Coastal Building Zone must meet NFIP standards, regardless of
              whether or not the community is a program member.51


                     F.3.1. The State and Communi!y Mitigation Assistance Program
                     The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 would         create the State and
              Community Mitigation Assistance Program to replace the Upton-fones
              Amendment and Section 1362, the Repetitive Loss Buyouts section, of the original
              NFIP.52 The Upton-Jones Amendment gave advance insurance payouts to eligible
              structures in danger of imminent collapse from erosion to relocate or demolish
              their structure.
                     Relocation and demolition activities, previously handled under the Upton-
              Jones Amendment, would be included        'under the State and Community Mitigation
              Assistance Program established by the new act. This program, carried out and


              49FIorida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, Beach
              Redevelopment, March 1993, p. 1-9.
              50FIorida State University (FSU), Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, State Post-Storm
              Redevelopment and Coastal Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy: Preliminary Partial Draft, August
              9, 1993.
              51 Ibid. -
              52The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, "Section-by-Section Summary," August 5,
              1993.



                                                          101








              coordinated by the Federal Insurance Administrator (FIA), would finance mitigation
              through building acquisition, elevation, relocation, demolition or floodproofing,
              and technical assistance. States and communities with federally approved
              mitigation plans would be eligible for the program. Planning grants, available
              through the program, would be capped at $150,000 for states and $50,000 for
              communities, with a limit of $300,000 total for any one state per year. Mitigation
              grants would be capped at $10 million per state, and $3.3 million per community
              over a five-year period, with a limit of $20 million per state in any five-year period.
              All grants would require a non-federal matching fund of 75/25. Funding for the
              program would come from the NFIP and be phased in at $10, $15, and $20 million
              over the three fiscal years after enactment, and would not exceed $20 million per
              year thereafter.53
                     The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 would remove the Upton-
              Jones Amendment one year after date of enactment. One reason for this deletion is
              that, over the years, most people eligible for this program opted for the 110 percent
              demolition payment rather than the 40 percent relocation payment, creating a deficit.
              for the program.54
                     Section 1362, the Repetitive Loss Buyouts section of the NFIP, allows FIA to
              purchase properties that are located in a floodplain and have been flooded three
              times inthe previous five years or substantially damaged in a recent flood event.
              This program has been limited by a number of conditions, including an insufficient
              budget, preference for contiguous and high-priced parcels, and demolition costs and
              tax losses to local communities. Florida's coastal construction permit process
              incorporates this program by stating that if a permit cannot be approved the state
              will recommend that the property be purchased under the program. This option
              has never been exercised.55 This section would also be repealed by the National
              Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 and its functions absorbed under the State and
              Community Mitigation Assistance Program.






              531bid.
              54The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of  1993, Senator John F. Kerry, "Answers to
              Commonly Asked Questions," August 5, 1993, p. 8.
              55FSU, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, State Post-Storm Redevelopment and Coastal
              Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy: Preliminary Partial Draft, August 9, 1993.


                                                           102









                   F.3.2. Expansion of the Community Rating System
                   The Community Rating System (CRS) established under NFIP rewards
             communities with, reduced flood insurance rates in return for providing floodplain
             management beyond NFIP minimum standards. The National Flood Insurance
             Reform Act of 1993 would expand this program to make it more pro-active. It
             would authorize premium rate credits for communities that implement land use
             and loss control measures that exceed minimum criteria, promote flood insurance
             awareness, and provide incentives for management of natural and beneficial
             floodplain functions and erosion hazards. It also authorizes funds from the.NFIP to
             carry out this program.56


                   F.3.3. Changes Regarding Regulated Lending Institutions
                   While it is possible to build a permitted structure in a coastal area without
             having it insured, in most cases insurance is required by federally backed lending
             institutions. This is why the regulation of federally backed lending institutions
             would have a substantial influence over the type and location of structures built in
             coastal areas.
                   The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 would extend mandatory
             flood insurance purchase requirements to federal agency lenders and to Fannie Mae
             and Freddie Mac home mortgage programs. The Act would also require regulated
             lending institutions and federal agency lenders to escrow for flood insurance
             payments if they escrow for other taxes, insurance premiums and fees. It would
             authorize regulated lending institutions and federal agency lenders to purchase
             flood insurance on behalf of the borrower within 60 days if property is in a flood
             hazard area and not insured. It would also require regulated lending institutions
             and federal agency lenders to notify borrowers of flood hazards.57
                   The Act calls for a system of penalties and corrective actions for failure of
             regulated lending institutions to meet certain requirements. Fines could be
             imposed upon regulated lending institutions for failing to require flood insurance,
             escrow for flood insurance payments, or notify affected property owners of flood
             insurance purchase requirements.58


             56The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, "Section-by-Section Summary," August 5,
             1993.
            .571bid, SEC. 201-204.
             581bid, SEC. 207.


                                                     103












                   F.3.4. Other Features of the Act
                   There are several other features of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act
             of 1993 that may or may not be relevant to Florida's implementation of its coastal
             zone management program. These include:


                   o Standardizing flood hazard determination forms;


                   o Requiring on-site examinations to determine whether an institution is
                   complying with NFIP requirements and reporting such findings to Congress;


                   o Establishing a flood insurance interagency task force;


                   o Increasing maximum coverage amounts for single-family residents from
                   $100,000 to $250,000 and for non-residential properties from $250,000 to $2.4
                   million.


                   0 Authorizing funding for increased administrative and operational costs;


                   o Authorizing the Director of FEMA and any other appropriate federal agency
                   head to issue regulations necessary to implement the provisions of the
                   amendments; and


                   o Requiring FEMA to consult with National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
                   Administration (NOAA) to promote coordination regarding coastal erosion
                   management. Approved state coastal zone management programs are used
                   in designing regulations and guidelines, A jointly filed coordination report
                   would be required one year after date of enactment.59


             FA.   Conclusion


                   The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 supports the regulatory
             provisions of Florida's CCCL program and may even strengthen the objectives and
             implementation of a post-storm redevelopment. policy. The establishment of a 30-


             591bid.


                                                     104








             year erosion line and restrictions on the type of structures that can be federally
             insured seaward of this line would correspond to Florida's restrictions on
             permitting structures seaward the 30-year erosion projection line.
                   However, the Act does not prohibit non-federally regulated lenders from
             making loans in 30-year erosion hazard areas. So like the CCCL program, the Act is
             not completely prohibitive. The two programs do not prohibit construction or
             insurance in the 30-year erosion zone, but they do reinforce each other in protecting
             the beachfront area from imprudent construction.





































                                                     105






                                                                                                                           OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                            111922 4