[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
APALACI-IEE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL HURRICANE MITIGATION PLANNING STUDY (5- 14 Tw 11W, AnmWed n Red Crosis HV Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, 635.5 Leon, Liberty and Wakulla Counties A63 1987 APALACHEE REGION HURRICANE MITIGATION STUDY December 1987 The Apalachee Regional Planning Council in conjunction with the nine counties in the region produced this document for the Division of Emergency Management, Department of Community Affairs. This publication was funded by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management, 2600 Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 through a grant from the United States Office of Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1982, as amended. APALACHEE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL BOARD MEMBERS E. L. Hires Calhoun County Carlton Smith Calhoun County Lee R. P. Rivers Franklin County Kenneth Cope Franklin County Uillie Speed Franklin County Edward Kubicki Franklin County Earl Lodge Gadsden County Lenwood Herron Gadsden County Millie Ann Forehand Gadsden County Kesley Colbert Gulf County Durelle Johnson Jackson County Robert Ringer Jackson County Issac Pittman Jackson County Mordaunt Bishop Jefferson County Claude G. Carroll Jefferson County Gayle Nelson Leon County Betty Harley Leon County Herbert Chandler Leon County Greg Soloman Liberty County Murray McLaughlin Wakulla County Jo Anne Strickland Uakulla County ARPC STAFF Charles D. Blume ARPC Executive Director Don Henningsen Planning Program Coordinator Curtis A. Uaite Research Associate Angel Cardec Regional Planner Greg S. Dawkins Regional Planner Mike Donovan Regional Planner Marsha Harpool Regional Planner Diane Hatcher TRC/DRI Secretary Orma Jean Jeppson Executive Secretary Dollie Reed Bookkeeper Eva C. Hayes Uord Processor 71 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Contents ............................................ i List of Tables ...................................... v List of Maps ........................................ vii List of Graphs ...................................... viii Introduction ........................................ 1 Objective ......................... #.*.#* ............ 2 Study Purpose ....................................... 2 Region of Study ..................................... 3 Section I: Response Recovery Plan .............................. 5 Disaster Relief Programs ....... 0 ................. 7 A. Federal Programs ............ I ................. 7 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency ........ 8 2. Small Business Administration .............. 10 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............... 10 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture ............. 11 a. Farmers Home Administration ............. 11 b. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services ................... 12 c. Food and Nutrition Services ............. 12 5. Department of Education .................... 12 6. Appropriate Bar Associations ............... 12 7. Internal Revenue Service ................... 13 8. Federal Highway Administration ............. 13 9. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development ..... 13 10. Federal Insurance Administration ........... 14 a. Definition of Base Flood Map Zones ...... 15 b. Requirements for Areas in the Regular Phase .................... 17 c. Requirements for Areas Tha H ve Identified a Flood-way .................. 21 d. Requirements for Areas that Have Identified V Zones ...................... 21 e. Base Flood Elevation and Flood-way Map Sources ............................. 22 11. Emergency Conservation Program ............. 23 12. Department of Labor ........................ 23 13. Individual Family Grants ............ 0 ...... 24 14. Charitable Relief Programs ................. 24 B. State Programs ...... 0-0 ........ *............. 26 1. Florida National Guard ..................... 26 2. Department of Natural Resources ............ 27 3. Department of Environmental Regulations .... 27 4. Department of Transportation ............... 27 5. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ................................... 28 6. Department of Labor and Employment Security ................................... 28 7. Disaster Relief Act ........................ 28 8. Citizens Assistance Centers ................ 29 C. Local Programs ................................ 29 Field Assistance ................................. 31 A. Disaster Field Offices ........................ 31 B. Disaster Application Centers .................. 31 C. Civil Defense ................................. 32 D. Site Determination ............................ 32 Post Disaster Assistance ...................... 35 Temporary Housing ................................ 37 A. Application Assistance ......................... 37 B. Provisions to Eligible Applicants ............. 38 C. Methodology ................................... 39 D. Interpretation of Table's 4 through 19 ........ 50 E. Limitations ................................... 52 F. Sources ................ 52 County 53 G. Individual sis ..... ..... 0 1 Individual Assistance ............................ 61 A. Individual and Family Grants .................. 61 B. Low Interest Disaster Loans ................... 61 C. Interpretation of Tables 20-23 ...... e ......... 68 Public Assistance ................................ 71 A. Replacement Costs ............................. 71 B. Methodology ................................... 72 C. Water Facilities .............................. 72 D. Waste Water Facilities ........................ 76 E. Public Utilities .............................. 79 F. Transportation Facilities ..................... 82 G. Nursing Homes ................................. 85 H. Hospitals ..................................... 88 I. Government Owned Facilities ................... 91 Section II: Prevention of Future Losses ......................... 95 Future Development ............................... 97 A. Procedure ..................................... 98 B. Assessment of Evacuation Time and Routes ...... 98 C. Assessment of Shelter Adequacy ................ 106 D. Recommendations ................................ 107 Relocation Sites ................................. 109 A. Damaged Housing ............................... 110 B. Water Facilities .............................. 113 C. Waste Water Treatment Facilities .............. 115 D. Health Care Facilities ........................ 115 E. Electrical Facilities ......................... 117 F. Educational Facilities ........................ 119 G. Custodial Care Facilities ..................... 119 H. Transportation Facilities ..................... 119 Future Development Sites ......................... 121 A. Inland Counties ..................... 0........ 0 121 B. Coastal Counties .............................. 121 Public Acquisition ..................... 0 ......... 123 A. High Hazard Regions ........................... 123 1. Barrier Islands ............................ 123 2. Shoreline ..... 124 3. River Flood Plain .......................... 124 4. Low Lying Areas ............................ 125 B. Public Acquisition Programs ................... 125 1. Federal Programs ........................... 126 2. State Acquistion Programs ........ * ......... 127 a. Conservation and Recreational Lands ..... 127 b. Land Acquisition Trust Fund ............. 128 c. Save our Coasts ......................... 128 d. Save our Rivers ......................... 129 e. Private Non Profit Programs ............. 129 3. Local Government Land Acquistion .......... 129 C. Methods of Land Acquisition ................... 133 1. Fee Simple Acquisition ..................... 134 2. Leasebacks .......... 135 3. Partial Lot Acquisition .................... 135 D. Financing Public Land Acquisition ............. 135 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund ........... 135 2. Resource Conservation and Development Program .................................... 136 3. Water Resource Development Funds ........... 136 4. Florida's Water Management Trust Fund ...... 137 5. Conservation and Recreational Lands Trust Fund ................................. 137 6. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Losses .......................... 137 E. Coastal Land Inventory ........................ 138 Growth Management Techniques .................... 141 A. Police Power Regulations ...................... 141 1. Flood Hazard Zoning ........................ 142 2. Subdivision Regulations .................... 142 3. Overlay Zones .............................. 142 4. Mixed Use Zoning ........................... 143 B6 Compensation Programs ......................... 143 C. Financial Incentives and Disincentives ........ 143 1. Incentive Zoning ........................... 144 D. Taxing Policies ............................... 145 1. Abatements ................................. 145 2. Exemptions ................................. 145 3. Tax by Hazard Assessment ................... 146 4. Tax Increment Financing .................... 146 5. Parcel Development Agreement ......... 0 ..... 146 E. Building Codes ................................ 146 F. Other Techniques .............................. 148 1. Impact Fees ................................ 148 2. Transfer of Development Rights ............. 148 3. Public Facilities Location ................. 149 4. Special Development Districts .............. 149 5. Hurricane Redevelopment District ........... 149 6. Sand Dune Regulations ...................... 150 7. Septic Tank Regulations .................... 150 G. Implementation Legislation .................... 150 1. Coastal Management Element ................. 151 2. Coastal Construction Program ............... 152 a. Coastal Construction Control Line ....... 152 3. Developments of Regional Impact ............ 153 4. Areas of Critical State Concern ............ 154 County Mitigation Measures ...................... 155 A. Calhoun ....................................... 155 B. Franklin ...................................... 155 C. Gadsden ....................................... 158 D. Gulf .......................................... 159 E. Jackson ....................................... 160 F. Jefferson ..................................... 160 G. Leon 162 H. 162 I. Wakulla .............. o ........................ 164 Policy ......................................... oo 169 A. New Development ............................... 170 B. Hurricane Reconstruction., .................... 170 C. Local Governments ........... o ................. 171 D. Development on Barrier Islands ................ 173 E. Individual Homeowners ......................... 174 F. Developers .................................... 174 G. Mobile Homes ...o .............................. 174 Final Conclusion ................................. 177 APPENDICES Appendix A: The Three Periods of Post Hurricane Recovery .............. 179 Appendix B: Population by County in the Apalachee Region ................ 183 Appendix C: Vulnerable Housing Units in the Apalachee Region ....o....... 185 Appendix D: The Saffir Simpson Scale .... o ... 187 Bibliography ....................................... 191 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Civil Defense Directors in the Apalachee Region ....................... 33 2. Location of Potential Disaster Field Offices and Disaster Application Centers in the Apalachee Region ...............0 ...... 34 3. Storm Scenarios Used in Individual Assistance and Temporary Housing Determinations ..... ...... 40 4. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Calhoun County ............... 42 5. Projected Temporary Housing N;;;S*,;;s*;d**o*n"** Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Calhoun County .... ...... .... 42 6. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Base 0n Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Franklin County ...................... 43 Projected Temporary Housing Needs bas*;*o Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Franklin County............. ... 00 ............ 43 8. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Gulf County, ........................ o.o ...... 44 9. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based On Damage greater Than 50 Percent: Gulf County ......................o ........... 44 10. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Gadsden County ............4 ..............0 ... 45 11. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Gadsden County .... * .......................... 45 12. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Jackson County .............. 46 13. Projected Temporary Housing ;;;d,;,;;;;;,On,*** Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Jackson County ............................... 46 14. Projected temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Leon County .......... 47 15. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Leon County .................................. 47 16. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Liberty County ............................... 48 17. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 50 Percent: Liberty County .........*...... 48 V 18. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 25 Percent: Wakulla County ................................ 49 19. Projected Temporary Housing Needs Based on Damage Greater Than 50 percent: Wakulla.County .................. 0 ............. 49 20. National Flood Insurance Program Coverage forthe Counties of the Apalachee Region ...... 62 21. Percent of Structures Insured Under the National Flood Insurance Program for the Counties of the Apalachee Region .............. 64 22. Estimated Structural Loss by Storm Scenario for the Counties of the Apalachee Region ...... 65 23. Total Individual Assistance Needed by Storm Scenario by County: Apalachee Region .......... 66 24. Water Facility Replacement Costs by County .... 73 25. Waste-Water Facility Replacement.Costs by County ........................................ 76 26. Public Utility Replacement Costs by County .... 79 27. Transportation Facility Replacement Costs by County ............................. 0...... 82 28. Nursing Home Replacement Costs by County ...... 85 29. Hospital Replacement Costs by County .......... 88 30. Government Facility Replacement Cost by County ................................ 0....... 91 31. Estimated Clearance Time by County ............ 101 32. Identification of Public Water Facilities Located in High Risk Zones in the Apalachee Region ........................................ 114 33. Identification of Waste Water Treatment Facilities Located in High Risk Zones in the Apalachee Region... .... ...... *..to ...... 116 34. Identification of Hospitals and Nursing Homes Located in High Risk Zones in the Apalachee Region... .......... 6..... to ......... 118 35. Identification of Electrical Facilities Located in High risk Zones in the Apalachee 118 Region ............ 0 ........................... 36. Coastal Land Inventory In the Apalachee Region 139 Vi LIST OF MAPS MAP PAGE 1. Hurricane Scenario Paths ...................... 41 2. Identification of High Risk Zones: Franklin County ................................ 102 3. Identification of High Risk Zones: Gulf County .................................... 103 4. Identification of High Risk Zones: Jefferson County ............................... 104 5. Identification of High Risk Zones: Wakulla County ................................. 105 vii LIST OF GRAPHS GRAPH PAGE 1. Total NFIP Coverage: Apalachee Region .............................. 63 2. Population Projections: Apalachee Region ... ........ ... 184 3. Vulnerable Housing Units: Apalachee Region ................. 0 0.0e. 186 Viii INTRODUCTION Technological advancements in hurricane tracking and warning systems have enabled us to safely evacuate greater numbers of people in decreasing amounts of time. As evacuation procedures become more efficient, coastal populations can intensify without the worry of storm related fatalities. Unfortunately, sharp increases in coastal populations have been accompanied by intense shore-front development, which is vulnerable to hurricane induced damage. Coastal property recovery costs are far too burdensome for a community to ignore growth in high risk areas. Mitigation guidelines must be enacted and enforced by each municipality vulnerable to hurricane induced flooding. This document is a continuation of The Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study, which estimated the monetary damage that would occur to property in the region based on 23 different hurricane scenarios. The vulnerability of private property and public facilities was exposed in the initial loss study. This report utilizes the damage estimates contained in the first study to determine the amount of assistance that may be required based on tho.se scenarios, and suggests mitigation techniques to prevent damage in the future. OBJECTIVE The first section of this study analyzes various state and federal assistance programs available to local governments and individ'uals in the event of a hurricane. This section profiles the location of Disaster Application Centers,(DACS) and Disaster Field Offices, (DFOS) within the counties of the Apalachee Region as well as the need for temporary housing, public assistance and individual assistance is also analyzed in section one. Part two of this report examines a methodology for future development review, sites for relocation, future development and public acquiry, ongoing hazard mitigation policies in each county and growth management tools that may be directed toward hazard mitigation. Finally hazard mitigation policies that each municipality in the region should consider, if they wish to avoid hurricane related losses are recommended. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to formulate geographically specifi.c and quantitatively based long range response and recovery strategies as well as hazard mitigation policies based on estimated property losses that would occur from probable hurricane scenarios. The response and recovery and mitigation plan development involves the formulation of hurricane mitigation strategies for use by federal, state and local relief agencies and the formulation of hazard mitigation policies for both future development and post-hurricane redevelopment. REGION OF STUDY The Apalachee region consists of nine counties, which include Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla County. County populations range from urbanized Leon County with over one hundred thousand people to Liberty County with approximately 5,000 people. Three of these counties, Franklin, Gulf, and Wakulla, have a high percentage of their population living in high risk regions. Coastal development in the Apalachee region should continue at a relatively slow pace, however, the occurrence of a major storm may be catastrophic due to limited financial resources of the coastal communities, and their non-diversified economic system that relies on delicate aquatic ecosystems that a hurricane can destroy. 3 I I I I I I I SECTION 1. RESPONSE/RECOVERY PLAN: I ALLOCATION OF POST-HURRICANE RESOURCE ASSISTANCE I I I I I I I I . I I 1 5 Disaster Relief Programs Disaster recovery funds may be provided by any combination of local, state and federal programs. The type of assistance available depends on the severity of the damage. Local governments are responsible for the immediate post- storm damage assessments. These assessments are channeled to designated state and federal agencies who furnish the bulk of the relief funds through various programs and grants. This section of the report examines the federal, state and local recovery programs available to hurricane damaged areas, who qualifies, and how to obtain the assistance. A. Federal Programs Most communities in the Apalachee region lack the financial resources to independently recover from a major hurricane. Disadvantaged localities rely on the extensive funding Federal assistance programs may provide. These finances aid in the emergency relief period immediately after the storm, the short range restoration period and the long range reconstruction period, which continues until the region has completely recovered. (See Appendix A) In the past, Federal assistance funds were distributed in an unconditioned manner. Property owners could use the funds to rebuild without taking into account hazard mitigation, leaving their structures vulnerable to recurring damage. Federal 7 programs now condition their funding upon the meeting of minimum building requirements by communities and property owners. Federal disaster relief begins once an area is under the President's disaster declaration. The following section details the various Federal Agencies and the functions they perform under post storm disaster conditions. 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Federal Program Administration) Created under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, FEMA is designated as the coordinating agency of the various Federal assistance programs. If a storm damaged region is under disaster declaration by the President, FEMA is responsible for processing damage reports and assigning the appropriate federal agency to administer to the specific needs of each locality. The following list categorizes the basic assistance needs that may be provided by one of FEMA's disaster relief programs. I. Emergency Assistance: A. Emergency mass care (medical care, shelter, food, water); B. Clearance of debris; C. Emergency protective measures (search and rescue, demolition of unsafe structures); D. Emergency r e p a i r sto essential u t i 11 t i e sa n d facilities; E. Emergency communications; F. Administrative support. II. Major Disaster Assistance A. Individual Assistance: 1. Temporary housing (accommodations for up to one year, minimal repairs, mortgage or rent payments for up to one year); 2. Unemployment insurance for up to one year (if individual is not covered by state insurance); 3. Individual family grants (up to $5,000 for essential needs); 4. Food coupons; 5. Legal services; 6. Crisis counseling; 7. Small Business Administration (SBA) loans; 8. Tax deductions; 9. Farm loans; 10. V.A. and F.H.A. loan refinancing. B. Community Assistance: 1. Repair and restoration of public facilities; 2. Debris removal; 3. Community disaster loans to cover lost revenues; 4. Emergency communications; 5. Emergency public transportation; 6. Fire suppression grants, timber removal. 9 2. Small Business Administration TSmall Business Assistance) (Economic Injury Disaster Loan & Home Disaster Loan) Small businesses can apply for loans of up to $500,000 from the Small Businesses Administration (SBA) to return them to pre disaster conditions. The interest rate charged on these loans depends upon the applicant's ability to obtain credit elsewhere. Those businesses unable to obtain credit elsewhere are charged 4%, those able are charged 8% or the going market rate, whichever is less. If in a flood hazard area, the business must have flood insurance to qualify. SBA also offers Home Disaster Loans and Economic Injury Loans. Home Disaster Loans are alloc ated to homeowners or renters to replace destroyed personal property. Economic Injury Disaster loans are working capital loans distributed to small businesses and agricultural cooperatives to assist them through the post disaster recovery period. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (Structural Assi@-tance) The Corps of Engineers will generally perform structural modification tasks which include; flood fighting and rescue operations; emergency repair and restoration of flood control works threatened, damaged, or destroyed by flood waters; emergency work including repair and restoration of any completed federally authorized hurricane, flood or shore protection project threatened or damaged by storm activity; 10 construction projects to remove debris, and clear channels in the interest of flood control and emergency bank protection works to prevent flood damage to highways, bridges and public works. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) (Agricultural Assistance Administration) The Department of Agriculture provides several post-disaster assistance programs through its various branches. The following section matches the programs available through DOA with the appropriate branch. a. Farmers Home Administration (Agricultural Loans) This branch of DOA provides insured loans to farmers, ranchers and aquaculture operators to return them to near pre-disaster conditions. Loans are allocated to: restore farm supplies; enable the farmer to return to their conventional credit by allocating up to three years worth of operating expenses;and refinance disaster debts and finance adjustments in the applicant's operation. The Farmers Home Administration also provides Community Facility Loans to Indian tribes, rural residents and rural communities to improve services to victims cut off as a result of a major storm. b. Agricultural Stabiliz,ation and Conservation Services (Livestock and Farmland Rehabilitation) This program, administered through DOA, assists in the maintenance of the applicant's livestock through purchases of livestock feed. Funds are limited to 50% of the purchased feed. This program also assists farmers in performing emergency conservation measu res to control wind erosion on crop areas, and to rehabilitate storm damaged farmlands. a. Food and Nutrition Service (Food and Food Stamps) DOA will supply emergency food and food stamps for those applicants who have had their primary means by which to obtain food severed as a result of a storm. 5. Department of Education TRepai-r -and-op,eration of Public Schools) DOE is responsible for allocating funds for the reconstruction, restoration and operation of public school facilities, in the event of an emergency. 6. Appropriate Bar Associations (Legal Assistance) Different federal and state agencies through the Young 12 Lawyers Division and the American Bar Association will provide low income disaster victims with free legal assistance. Provisions include the replacement of legal documents, title transfers, contract disputes, will probates and insurance problems. Internal Revenue Service (Tax Assistance) The Internal Revenue Service will provide tax information and education to any tax paying disaster victim. Services include tax advice and guidance, rule notification and tax return assistance. Federal Highway Administration (Highway Repair) The Federal Highway Administration allocates funds to repair highways on the federal system, forest highways, forest development roads and trails, parkways, public land highways, public land development roads and trails and indian reservation roads. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Communi-ty @i-sslstance & Mobile Home Loans) Through this agency's office of Community Planning and Development, a region can apply for a Community Development Block Grant. A block grant can assist in certain 13 construction of public works facilities, clearance, housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, relocation payments and assistance, administrative expenses, economic development and completion of urban renewal projects. Also, through this agency any prospective mobile home buyer may be allocated an insured loan. This loan makes it easier for those who are homeless as a result of a hurricane to finance a permanent manufactured residence. 10. Federal Insurance Administration Tsubsidized Flood Insurance) The Federal Insurance Administration provides low cost flood insurance in return for community participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The goals of the NFIP are accomplished in two stages. First is the emergency phase, a temporary step toward the regular intents of the program. During this phase a flood hazard boundary map(FHBM) is drafted, delineating the basic flood hazard regions of a city or county. Local governments are required to enforce building restrictions based upon the flood risk of the proposed project as depicted by the FHBM's. During this phase subsidized insurance offers $35,000 for single family homes and $100,000 for all other types of structures. When a community enter.s the final, or regular stage of the program, the requirements become specific. Engineers sketch 14 a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which details the threat each area has of being inundated during the calculated 100- year flood. Minimum building requirements are now enacted based on the localities relation to the 100-year flood plain. If the region abides by the program's minimum requirements, total recompensation, or relocation may be available in the event of a hurricane related flood. Unlike the flood hazard boundary map which details only special risk zones, the flood insurance rate map has several designations that a community's authorities must familiarize themselves with. The following list includes FIRM zone classifications with attached definitions. ZONE DEFINITION A Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevation and flood hazard factors not yet determined AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet, average depths are shown, but no flood hazard factors are determined AH Areas of 100-year shallow flooding between one and three feet; base flood elevations are shown but no flood hazard factors are determined Al-A30 Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined A99 A r e a s o f 1 0 0 - y e a r f lood to be protected -by flood protection system under construction; base flood elevation and flood hazard factors not yet determined B Areas between limits of 100-year flood and 500-year f 1 o o d or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot or where contributing drainage area is less than one square mile or areas protected by levees from the base flood C Areas of minimal flooding D Areas of undetermined, but possible flood hazards V Areas of 100-year coastal flooding with velocity w a v e a c t i o n b a s e f 1 oo d e 1 e v a t i o n s and flood hazard determining factors not determined V1-V30 Areas of 1 0 0 - y e a r coastal f lood with wave action; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. Community participation in the NFIP is not mandatory. Federal funds, however, are usually conditioned on an area's involvement in the program. Local leaders must develop strategies and techniques to encourage their region's residents to support the program. Participation not only assures community post-disaster assistance, but in abiding 16 by FIA's minimum standards a community can effectively reduce damage in the event of a storm related flood. In order for communities in the Apalachee region who are in the program to continue to qualify for assistance, NFIP REGULATIONS section 60.3(b) must be met. This section lists requirements for participating municipalities based on their location in relation to flood hazards. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITIES IN REGULAR PROGRAM BUT NO FLOODWAY OR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD IDENTIFIED A. Require development permit: 1. For all new construction, or substantial improvement including placement of prefabricated buildings and mobile homes in the floodplain; 2. For f ill, excavation, paving, dredging, grading, mining or drilling operations that could affect the flood plain or stream channel. B. Review permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If in a flood plain require: 1. All proposed construct ion/development (including placement of prefabricated buildings and mobile homes) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. 17 2. Use flood resistant materials and utility equipment. 3. Use construction methods which minimize flood damage. C. Review subdivision proposals and other proposed new development to determine whether the proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If in a f lood plain require: 1. All proposals minimize flood damage; 2. All public utilities and facilities are constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; 3. Adequate drainage is provided; 4. Base Flood elevation data for all proposals greater than 50 lots or five acres. D. Review construction /development proposals to determine whether new and replacement water supply systems, sanitary sewage systems or on site disposal systems will be reasonably safe from flooding. If in a flood plain require: 1. All systems be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters; 2. Sewage and disposal systems be designed to minimize or eliminate discharges or contamination from systems into flood waters; 3. Disposal systems are located to avoid impairment to them. E. Review construction /development proposals to assure other State/Federal permits have been obtained. F. Elevation requirements: 1. In Al_A30 Zones and AH Zones: a. Residential - New and substantial improvement- elevate lowest floor to or above BFE unless an exception on basements is granted to a community by FIA. b. Non-residential - New and substantial improvements - elevate to or above base flood elevation(BFE). Floodproofing is an alternative for these structures. However, for insurance purposes, the structure should be floodproofed a minimum of one foot above the BFE. The insurance agent is required to subtract one foot to determine the elevation to be used in computing premiums. Also, a registered professional engineer or architect must certify that floodproofing methods are adequate. 2. In AO zones: a. Residential - Elevate lowest floor to or above the highest adjacent grade plus the indicated depth of flooding or to or above the highest adjacent grade plus two feet if no depth is indicated. b. Non-Residential - elevate or floodproof to or above the highest adjacent grade plus the indicated depth of flooding or to the highest adjacent grade plus two f eet if no depth is indicated. See above, re: one foot requirement, r e floodproofing and insurance purposes and engineering/architect 19 certification. 3. In A Zones: If Base flood elevation data is not provided by the NFIP, obtain, review and reasonably utilize any BFE data available from other sources as basis for elevating residential structures to or above BFE, and elevating or floodproofing non-residential structures to or above BFE. G. Mobile Homes - Require: 1. In A z o n e s , a p p 1 y m o b i 1 e h o m e anchoring specifications: 2. In Al-A30 Zones, for new or substantially improved mobile home parks or subdivisions and for mobile homes n o t p 1 a c e d in e x i s t i n g mobile home p a r k s or subdivisions: a. Stands or lots are elevated to or above BFE; b. Adequate access for hauler and drainage be provided. c. If pilings'are used for elevation, construction standards for pilings are met. H. Obtain and maintain records of elevation floodproofing levels for new construction and substantial improvements. I. Notify adjacent communities, DCA, and FEMA prior to any alteration or relocation of watercourse. J. Until regulatory floodway is designated, no use may increase the BFE more than one foot. 20 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITIES IN REGULAR PROGRAM, FLOODWAY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED (FEMA REGULATIONS, SECTION 60.3(C)(D)) A. When data have been provided by NFIP: 1. Designate regulatory floodway capable of carrying base flood waters without increasing the BFE more than one foot; 2. Prohibit any encroachment in the regulatory floodway which would cause any increase in the base flood level; 3. Prohibit placement of mobile homes in the adopted regulatory floodway except in existing mobile home parks or subdivisions. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE REGULAR PROGRAM WHERE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS (V ZONES) HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED. (FEMA REGULATIONS, SECTION 60.3(C)(E)) For Coastal High H8zard Areas: Zones V1-V30 A. Require that all new construction and substantial improvements: 1. Are elevated and secured to anchored pilings so that lowest portion of lowest structural member is at or above base flood elevation; 2. Are certified by engineer /architect that structure is secured to anchored pilings to withstand velocity waters and wave wash; 3. Have spaces below lowest floor constructed with breakaway walls or left open. Please note: Breakaway 21 walls are still a-llowed, but their use may mean additional premium cost. 4. Is landward of mean high tide. B. Prohibit use of fill for structural support C. Prohibit mobile homes, except in -existing mobile home parks and existing mobile home subdivisions D. Prohibit alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands which would increase potential flood damage. Base Flood Elevation and Floodway Map Sources The BFE maps and floodway maps plot flood hazard risk for each county. In order to enforce NFIP's regulations, a community must be aware of the risks each section is subject to. The following list details the various sources from which BFE information may be available. 1. Corps of Engineers District Office Jacksonville(904)791-1100 Mobile(205)694-3850 2. Soil Conservation Service State Office Gainesville (904)377-8732 3. U.S. Geological Survey District Office Tallahassee (904)386-7145 22 4. Water Management Districts(WMD) Northwest Florida WMD -Havana-(904) 487-1770 Suwannee River WMD - Live Oak - (904)362-1001 5. Apalachee Regional Planning Council Tallahasse(904)575-5850 Blountstown(904)674-4571 6. FEMA, Insurance and Mitigation Division Atlanta(404)881-2391 The Flood Insurance Program is the most extensive federal assistance program. The Federal Government, however, does not supply all of the repair and reconstruction funds under this act. The program's break down in the State of Florida is 75% Federal share, 10% State of Florida, and local municipalities pick up 15% of the repair costs. 11. Emergency Conservation Program (-i-mergency Farmer's Assistance) The Emergency Conservation Program is designed to assist farmers and agricultural endeavors. Funds can be obtained for clearing farmland of fallen trees and debris, fence repair and cropland rehabilitation. 12. Department of Labor U n e m p 1 "YY-m e-ii-t mpensation) The Disaster Unemployment Assistance Program provides job placement and compensation for one year for those out of work as a result of storm damage. The program is usually 23 channeled from the Department of Labor through the State Employment Security Agency. 13. Individual Family Grants (Family Expenses) This program provides monetary contributions of up to $5,000 to those that have demonstrated an inability to repay a SBA loan. The fund s under th is program are generally utilized to pay for medical expenses, transportation costs, home repair and other vital necessities that the individual cannot provide. 14. Charitable Relief Programs (Emergency Provisions) In areas in desperate need of assistance, charitable relief programs such as the Red Cross,Salvation Army, and Goodwill Industries will set up local camps and aid centers where basic necessitiessuch as food, shelter and medical supplies are provided. The Red Cross provides the most extensive charitable relief. The allocated assistance is broken down as follows; A. Emergency mass care assistance including; Food f or disaster victims and emergency workers, temporary shelters, medical and nursing aid, clothing and blood products; B. Emergency assistance on individual family basis 24 including; welfare information services, information concerning government disaster assistance programs and other emergency assistance provisions such as food, clothing, rent, furniture, transportation, medicine and home repair. C. Aid for families who do not qualify for government programs which include; casework services, food and clothing, home repair, furnishings, medical care and personal occupational equipment. _4 25 B. State Programs In Florida the coordinating agency for disaster relief programs is the Divis ion of Emergency Management, within the Department of Community Affairs. DEM, like FEMA at the Federal level, assigns the appropriate state agency to administer to any municipality or county under disaster declaration. The Division of Emergency Management is required to design a State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan directed at civil defense. This program must be consistent with Federal g u i d e 1 i n e sand policies. DEM must also review Local Comprehensive Emergency Management plans for continuity with State and Regional plans. The following section details the various Florida agencies involved in recovery and services they provide in the event of a hurricane: 1. Florida National Guard TEmergency Functions) The Florida National Guard are ordered into an area by the Governor to perform emergency functions such as debris clearance, anti-looting patrols, security, escort, traffic control, water provision, aviation monitoring and medical service provision. 26 2. Depar ment of Natural Resources (Damage Assessment & Structural Repair) The programs available through The Department of Natural Resources range from local damage assessments to structural mitigation measures. During the storm, the DNR can provide teams of sandbaggers to deter storm waters. After the storm, funds may be provided to restore coastal protection devices to their pre-storm condition in compliance with Florida Statutes. After the storm of 1985, DNR worked alongside the National Marine Fisheries Service providing recovery assistance for the oyster beds of Franklin County. Seedling oysters were quickly reestablished in Apalachicola Bay, in hopes the oyster industry would not suffer substantial losses. 3. Department of Environmental Regulation @_Emergency Permitting) The Department of Environmental Regulation will issue "on the spot" permits for emergency dredge and fill operations that involve potential loss of life and property. 4. Department of Transportation (Road Repai@_) ' The Florida Department of Transportation allocates extensive funding to roads washed out as a result of a hurricane. 27 5. De2artment of Health and Rehabilitative Services TIndividual Assistance) The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services provides food stamps, funds for rent, utilities and mortgage payments. A section on individual assistance is contained in a later section. 6. Department of Labor and Employment Security (Unemp-f-oyme-@-t 'Assistance) The Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security assists those out of work as a result of a storm. Depending on the situation, money or employment may be provided. 7. Department of Community Affairs '5isaster Relief Act (Infrastructure Restoration) Local governments within a disaster stricken area may be allocated funds for the restoration and replacement of infrastructure. The Department of Community Affairs is in charge of administering the program. Funds are shared between state and federal governments, the state allocates 25% of the assistance funds, and the federal government allocates 75%. 28 Citizens Assistance Centers Provisions from the agencies listed in subsections 4 through 7 are available through Citizen Assistance Center's, set up in storm damaged localities. The Department of Emergency Management directs each state agency to provide the specifies a region needs to recover from storm damage. C. Local Programs In the event of damage from a hurricane, the local government is the first source the individual looks toward for assistance. Each municipality must be able to rapidly and efficiently allocate Federal and State funds to those in need. In order to ensure this, counties in Florida are required to design a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which is a detailed description of what steps will be taken during a crisis. The Hazard Mitigation Annex of the plan contains guidelines set forth by the Department of Emergency Management that local governments are to follow. These guidelines require local governments to approach hazard mitigation at three levels; issue and policy development; ongoing hazard mitigation studies; and site specific hazard mitigation studies. 29 FIELD ASSISTANCE A. Disaster Field offices (DFO) The Disaster Field Office is set up as a coordination station for all state and federal assistance programs within counties under the President's disaster declaration. The offices are run and staffed by both a FEMA and a state appointed official. The function of these offices is the collection and processing of damage survey reports, and requests for individual assistance and small business loans. Damage survey reports are monetary damage estimates to specific buildings and facilities compiled by assessment teams from FEMA, the State and the affected local government. These reports and applications are evaluated and a decision on the amount of funding to be obligated to each locality is made. B. Disaster Application Centers (DAC) Disaster application centers are set up in counties under the President's disaster declaration after the disaster field office* have bccn votaDiluhcde 5taff in tne3e center3 will assist affected individuals in filling out the proper applications. The applications are than sent to the disaster field office for processing. 31 C. Civil Defense Directors Duties Federal and State authorities who set up each county's disaster application center need to designate a si.te which contains adequate communication and administrative capabilities. The Civil Defense Director for each county has the responsibility of assuring that an appropriate site has been assigned as depicted in their Emergency Management Plan. Table 1 lists the Civil Defense Director of each county in the Apalachee region accompanied by the corresponding office address and telephone number. D. Site Determination Several criteria are utilized in determining the appropriate site for each county's application centers and field office. These sites must be pre-determined to be able to withstand hurricane induced damage, be in a flood free zone, have easy access and ample parking, be under public ownership and have adequate emergency facilities. More than one designation has to be assigned for the Disaster Application Center, unlike the single location for the DFO per county. The DAC must be accessible for both government officials and the general public in need, while the DFO has to be within close proximity of a centralized government facility. Table 2 lists the recommended county sites based on the previous criteria for disaster field offices and application centers in the Apalachee Region. 32 TABLE i CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTORS IN THE APALACHEE REGION COUNTY NAME LOCATION TELEPHONE CALHOUN NATHAN GOODMAN BASEMENT OF CALHOUN 674-8075 COUNTY COURTHOUSE FRANKLIN EUGENE ELLER FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 653-8977 APALACHICOLA GADSDEN CHARLIE BETTS GADSDEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 674-8075 SOUTH MADISON ST. QUINCY GULF LARRY WELLS GULF COUNTY COURTHOUSE 227-1735 PORT ST. JOE JACKSON JAMES MAYDER JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 526-4500 PELT ST. MARIANNA JEFFERSON BOB KNECHT JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 997-5762 140 WEST WASHINGTON MONTICELLO LEON MY ATKINSON LEON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 488-5921 TALLAHASSEE LIBERTY ART PREACHER CIVIL DEFENSE AND PLANNING OFFICE 643-2339 RIVER STREET BRISTOL WAXULLA ERIC HINDLE WAKULLA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 926-5424 CRAWFORDVILLE 33 TABLE 2 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR DISASTER FIELD OFFICES FOR THE COUNTIES OF THE APALACHEE REGION COUNTY LOCATION DESIGNATION COUNTY LOCATION DESIGNATION CALHOUN 1. CALHOUN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFD/DAC - JACKSON 1. HRS CENTER DFO/DAC BLOUNTSTOWN - 401 EAST CLINTON ST. - MARIANNA FRANKLIN 1. CARRABELLE CITY HALL DFOIDAC - CARRABELLE - JEFFERSON 1. JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFO/DAC 2. EASTPOINT ARMORY DFO/DAC - 140 WEST WASHINGTON EASTPOINT - MONTICELLO 3. FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DAC - APALACHICOLA - LEON i. CAPITAL OUTLET CENTER DAC/DFO - WEST TENNESSEE STREET GADSDEN 1. GADSDEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFO/DAC - TALLAHASSEE SOUTH MADISON ST. - 2. TALLAHASSEE RECREATIONAL CENTER DAC QUINCY - JACKSON BLUFF ROAD - TALLAHASSEE GULF 1. PORT ST. JOE FIRE HOUSE DFO/DAC - 404 WILLIAMS AVE - LIBERTY 1. LIBERTY C OUN TY COURTHOUSE DAC/DFO PT. ST. JOE - BRISTOL 2. COMMUNITY CENTER DAC - WEWAHITCHKA - WAKULLA 1. LIVESTOCK PAVILLION DAC/DFO - DOWNTOWN CRAWFORDVILLE 34 ANALYSIS It must be noted that the population of each county in the Apalac hee region is relatively small compared to the rest of the State, thus many Counties use the same facility for both the DFO and DAC. Many of the proposed facilities have not been used in emergency situations, therefore performance standards have yet to be determined. The Franklin County Courthouse was sandbagged during hurricane Kate, therefore it would only be available during a low intensity storm. In the event of a hurricane, the location of centers will be reassessed by government officials, who may decide to change location. Post DAC/DFO Assistance When the disaster assistance centers are gone, mobile service centers are available for assistance two days a week. Hot lines are also open up to 60 days af ter the DACIS close down. Operators will accept and process requests for aid. 35 TEMPORARY HOU3ING FEMA provides accommodations for those disaster victim s left homeless as a result of a storm when no housing facilities are available from county agencies. Depending upon the situation, four types of temporary homes are available; transient accommodations, government owned- housing, private rental housing, and mobile home-s. The following section examines the various temporary housing programs available after a hurricane, how to get that assistance, and the potential demand placed on temporary housing programs based on selected storm scenarios from Phase 1 of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study.An analysis of individual county recommendations based on potential temporary housing needs is also contained in this section. A. Applicant Assistance Applications for temporary housing are taken at disaster application centers. Local governments and the Division of Emergency Management will provide staff assistance to aid in the application process. The victims first step toward receiving temporary housing involves a pre-screening process to determine the victims eligibility for an application. If deemed eligible, the victim is sent to an interviewer who e x p 1 a i n sa vai 1 ab 1 e pr ogra ms before processing the application. The application is reviewed and a determination 37 is made using the followi.ng criteria: 1. Is the damaged housing unit the primary residence of the applicant?; 2. Was the damage a result of the disaster7; 3. Does the applicant have any other available resources such as insurance or another home that will provide him with temporary housing. B. Provisions to Eligible Applicants Once an applicant has been approved for one of the temporary housing programs he is informed of the following information; his eligibility; a recommended dwelling unit based on size and price; the duration of assistance, and his responsibilities within that time frame which includes: an acceptance of the first reasonable offer; an expectance that he properly cares for the unit; and an expectance that the applicant will attempt to find permanent residence during his stay in the temporary unit. Once an applicant's period of assistance is over he may reapply for continued temporary housing. FEMA allocates the bulk of federal housing units. However, housing site allocation, general service provisions and program coordination is up to local governments. Municipalities should interact with FEMA prior to the occurrence of the disaster to insure post-disaster housing operations are efficiently run. 38 Inadequately tied down housing units and poorly constructed manufactured homes are common in the Apalachee Region. These homes are not built to withstand hurricane winds and floodwaters thus; even though the region is not heavily populated there is a definite need for a temporary housing program in the event of a major storm, as the following section will discuss C. Methodology Temporary housing needs are determined by using data from the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study (Phase 1). The loss study depicted 23 hurricane scenarios based on simulated hurricane tracks from the National Weather Service and based the quantity of structural damage on them. The scenarios varied in both landfall site and intensity. Five hurricanes were selected from the 23 scenarios simulated in the first loss study. The intention was to use simulations of all five categories on the Saffir Simpson scale coming closest to a direct hit on each individual county. Housing needs are than determined based on the severity of each storm simulation in relation to location of landfall. The selected scenarios and their landfall sites are contained in table 3 and map 1 , appendix D examines the Saffir Simpson Scale, and tables 4 through 19 determine the demand for temporary housing in the Apalachee region based on these scenarios. 39 TABLE 3 STORM SCENARIO USEDTN INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE AND TEMPORARY HOUSING DETERMINATIONS Direction Storm Scenario CategoEx Landfall Location Hurricane Having A 1 St. Marks NW B 2 St. Marks N C 3 St. Marks N D 3 St. Teresa (NW) R 3 St. Teresa (NE) F 3 St. Teresa (N) G 2 St. George/Carrabelle N H I St. George/Carrabelle N 1 3 St. George Carrabelle (N) 1 5 St. George/Carrabelle N K 3 St. George/Carrabelle (NW) L 3 St. George/Apalachicola (N) M 2 St. George/Apalachicola NW N 3 St. George/Apalachicola (NW) 0 4 St. George/Apalachicola N P I St. George/Apalachicola NE Q 4 Cape San Blas NE R 3 Mexico Beach N a 3 Mexico Beach NE T 4 Mexico Beach N I U 5 Mexico Beach N v I offshore Paralleling 1 offshore Paralleling V W do not make landfall but parallel'the shoreline. 40 A L A 8 A M A MAP 1 ----------------- HURRICANE SCENARIO PATHS JACKSON E 0 R 0 A 6@6s -EN LEON CALHOUN 0 ,sholoof JEFFiRSON LIBERTY WAKULLA GULF co FRANKLIN 1"i I i Pore so. jx@\ locillcole IL A N-- w P /* T U E/ -G L N SPLASH 11 SELECTED HURRICANE TRACKS 41 TABLE 4 CALHOUN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEEDS BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS H 0 0 0 658 264 M 0 0 0 658 264 R 0 0 0 658 264 T 0 0 0 658 264 U 0 0 293 633 234 TABLE 5 CALHOUN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEEDS BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES TOTAL KNER HABITABLE SEASONAL OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS 0 0 0 658 264 M 0 0 0 658 264 R 0 0 0 658 264 T 0 0 0 658 264 U 0 0 V3 n4 42 TABLE 6 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL MAW HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED P 650 167 261 605 705 0 M 1345 167 420 585 670 682 N 1980 170 435 385 450 1750 0 2160 215 650 305 375 2345 2285 215 835 E95 360 2680 TABLE 7 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED P 440 0 261 605 705 0 M 970 10 340 590 680 207 N 1?80 167 435 385 450 912 2160 215 650 305 375 2345 2285 215 835 295 360 2680 43 TABLE 9 GULF COUNTY PROJEC TED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL WITS WITS REQUIRED v 0 0 0 787 45 0 N 0 0 0 787 M 0 S 2347 24 535 345 i9o 2371 200 6 237 615 370 0 U 2650 31 943 85 35 3794 TABLE 9 GULF COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY MUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED v 0 0 0 787 415 0 N 0 0 0 787 45 0 2347 14 535 350 192 2354 a 200 0 107 690 385 0 U 2400 23 943 57 36 3533 44 TABLE In; @DSDEN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES IF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED H 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 G 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 1350 2675 980 0 TABLE 1.1 GADSDEN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF K491TABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE MKS RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 6 0 0 0 3086 1047 0 9 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 00 2675 980 0 45 TABLE 12 JACKSON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 G 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 D 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 T 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 U 0 0 1852 2559 898 0 TABLE 13 JACKSON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE MKS RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 0 0 0 W6 1096 0 G 0 0 0 3U6 1096 0 D 0 0 0 W6 1096 0 T 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 U 0 0 1852 2559 898 0 46 TABLE 14 LEON COUIR PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THNA 25% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE 00 RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED p 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 B 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 0 0 0 23,803 SIV 0 0 0 0 2172 23,704 4995 0 J 42,000 35 2172 5,650 925 37,632 TABLE 15 LEON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED p 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 B 0 0 0 23,803 51V 0 C 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 0 0 0 23,803 5W 0 0 0 V72 23,704 4W5 0 47 TABLE 16 LIBERTY COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL KlMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STURM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED H 0 0 0 311 281 0 G 0 0 0 311 281 0 L 0 0 0 311 281 0 0. 0 0 0 311 281 0 0 0 447 243 127 77 TABLE 17 LIBERTY COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HXS RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED H 0 0 0 311 281 0 G 0 0 0 311 281 0 L 0 0 0 311 281 0 0 0 0 0 311 281 0 1 0 0 385 268 165 0 4 8 TABLE IS WAKULIA COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED &AM ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 850 0 lis 215 440 310 B 850 350 820 80 105 1835 F 0 0 0 658 il3l 0 0 0 8W 320 520 0 1477 4EO 966 32 45 2796 TABLE 19 WAKULLA COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL LNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 0 0 lis 520 850 0 B 850 0 540 87 120 Im F 0 0 0 658 1131 0 0 0 425 340 560 0 0 0 960 130 234 706 49 D. Interpretation of Table's 4 Through 19 Determining when a house unit is uninhabitable is difficult because no set percentage of damage has been established that differentiates between a habitable and uninhabitable housing unit. On many occasions, 20% of damage resulting from a storm may be associated with critical areas of the house such as bedrooms, bathrooms and the kitchen rendering it uninhabitable, while a house damaged 50% by a storm may suffer damage only to the garage, swimming pool and other additional fixtures that do not affect the habitability of the unit. This is why two tables for each County are exhibited in the demand for temporary housing_ section. The first table for each co unty deems a structure uninhabitable if 25% of the unit is damaged and the second table does the same if 50% of it is damaged. The appropriate table depends on which set standard the reviewing agency chooses to use. Many of the scenarios used in the study show that f ew if any housing units will be required. This is misleading because only if structural damage is above 25% does the study indicate that temporary homes will be required. This does not mean that substantial damage has not occurred. A County whose average losses are under 25% still may suffer millions of dollars in losses. 50 Tables 4 through 19 calculate potential housing demands within each county based on five different hurricane scenarios individually selected for each county. The f irst column contains a letter identifier that corresponds with a hurricane scenario already described in the methodology part of this section. Total damage does not necessarily correspond to the intensity of the storm, due to the failure of obtaining f ive scenarios of varying intensity with the same landfall site, so a category one hurricane hitting the center of a certain county can create a greater demand f or temporary housing than a category five storm scenario, if there was no simulation of a category five hurricane making a direct strike on that county. The numbers in columns two, three and four were added together to obtain the total number of housing structures damaged beyond habitability based on the corresponding hurricane scenario. These columns disaggregate housing units into single family dwelling units, multi family dwelling units and mobile homes accordingly. The numbers in columns five and six are subtracted from the sum of columns two, three and four. These two columns consist of the amount of rental units and vacant seasonal dwelling units that may be available to accommodate that county's homeless in the event of the corresponding storm scenario. The number in the column titled TOTAL AVAILABLE UNITS is obtained from subtracting the sum of columns five and six from the sum of columns two, three and four. This is the total number of outside temporary housing units that will be needed in the event of the storm scenario depicte.d in column one of that row. E. Limitations The hurricane damage estimates were based on SPLASH models that only consider damage caused by wind and surge. Rainfall, which varies from storm to storm, causes much damage in a hurricane, yet was not accounted for in the SPLASH models, thus the damage figures for inland counties are substantially lower than can be expected in a real storm. F. Sourc-es The figures in the temporary housing tables were derived from the U.S. 1980 Census of Housing and Phase One of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study. The number for available rental units and seasonal habitable units came from the U.S. 1980 Census of Housing, and the damage estimates came from Phase One of the Loss Study. 52 G. Individual County Analysis CALHOUN COUNTY Calhoun County, separated from the coast by Gulf County, is not susceptible to storm surge. Of the five scenarios selected for the County only scenario U, a category five hurricane that passes just to the west of the County, would cause wind damage greater than 25% to any residential units. This shows the inadequacy of the SPLASH model because a storm of this magnitude would still cause catastrophic damage even this far inward, due to the possible inundation of eastern Blountstown by the Apalachicola River. The assessment that no outside housing facilities are necessary in thi's event is misleading. The tables stating that scenarios R and T, 100-year storms whose dangerous right quadrant sweep the County, would not damage any housing facilities must also be analyzed with skeptism. Recommendation Although the tables show that Calhoun County has the available resources to meet the temporary housing needs of even the most catastrophic storm, a "just in case" program should be initiated. The most heavily populated center is in the less vulnerable southeastern section of the County, but the lack of individual resources of the County's residents must be 53 considered when ignoring a temporary housing program. FRANKLIN COUNTY Without doubt, Franklin County is the forerunner in the region in regards to post-hurricane assistance needs. The scenarios selected all approach landfall in either the Carrabelle or Apalachicola region. In the event that the simulated category five hurricane, depicted making landfall east of the county, was to strike, not only would the majority of housing units be severely damaged, but beach and coastal homes may be washed away Recommendation The temporary housing needs for Franklin County range from zero under the smallest hurricane scenario, to almost three thousand in a severe hurricane. The problem with allocating housing units to these residents is that a high intensity storm of between 3-5 on the Saffir Simpson Scale, would wash away roads necessary to transport the residential units to the victims, leaving them without access to them. Under these circumstances, the surplus of Franklin County's homeless might have to be accommodated by rental and vacant units in Jackson, Calhoun or other inland Counties. 54 GADSDEN COUNTY Gadsden County lies just south of the Georgia border, buffered from the open ocean by Leon and Wakulla Counties to the east, and Liberty and Franklin counties to the west. As tables 7 and 8 indicate only the most catastrophic storm will cause damages of over 25%, and that would only be to mobile homes. Gadsden County borders both the Ochlocknee and Apalachicola rivers. Under severe conditions there will be substantial flooding around these rivers, fortunately most of the population lies out of the one hundred-year flood plain. Recommendation It is likely that Gadsden County will never have to rely on FEMA's temporary housing program, but in the event that coastal counties in the region suffer tremendous damage, the County should devise a program that would accommodate those victims that come from the coastal counties counties. GULF COUNTY Geographically Gulf County lies in a similar storm probability track as Franklin County, but economically there are more resources to counter the post hardships of the storm. By no means is the County financially well off, and regardless of the 55 intensity of the hurricane substantial housing aid still must be rendered. Potential need for temporary housing units may approaches 3500 units under the most severe circumstances, which in this case is scenario U. Port St. Joe, the major populated area in Gulf County, is buffered from the full intensity of a storm by Cape San Blas to the southwest and the mainland to the south southeast. Recommendation Gulf County must develop a program that would assist FEMA in its effort to aid them with temporary housing if a major storm were to occur. It is doubtful t h a t u n d e r t h e w o r s e circumstances enough units would be available. In this event the County must look inland for assistance. JACKSON COUNTY As tables 12 and 13 show, Jackson County would suffer little if any structural damage under any storm scenario. The County lies further inland than any other within the Region, so even if a major hurricane were to hit the gulf coast the distance it would travel over land would be a factor in reducing its severity by the time it reached the County. Under the worse circumstances, mobile homes would suffer extensive wind damage, but the County should have the capacity to house those whose mobile homes were damaged or destroyed. 56 Recommendation Jackson County, like Gadsden, probably will never have to rely on FEMA's temporary housing programs. As mentioned previously, the County should look for methods of accommodating homeless victims from coastal counties that have suffered extensive residential damage. JEFFERSON COUNTY Phase One of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss study did not include any surge damage estimates based on hurricane scenarios for Jefferson County. There is no private land ownership in the vulnerable southern portion of the county, which is federal land, and the population is sparse in the less vulnerable northern section of the county. The only agglomeration of people is in the Monticello area f ar inland. In the event of a catastrophic storm, small populations along the Aucilla and Wacissa rivers may suffer substantial flooding and be in need of housing assistance. Recommendation Limited wind and rain damage to residential structures may occur in Jefferson County. The County will likely need assistance if a hurricane with heavy winds were to strike, due 57 to the large number of mobile homes in the county. LEON COUNTY Leon County is the only urbanized County in the region, so even though it is located inland, there are a large quantity of dwelling units vulnerable to heavy winds and rainfall that would accompany a major storm. Tables 14 and 15 show that under the most severe circumstances damage to dwelling units will be between 25 and 50 percent. This means that under the worse scenario moderate, not extensive structural repair will be required. Recommendation In relation to the rest of the region, Leon County has better financial capabilities to effectively counter storm related damage. Because there is a low probability of a major storm reaching Leon County, there should be a program developed to assist in housing those in need of temporary shelter from the coastal counties. LIBERTY COUNTY Liberty is the least populated county in the region. Most of the population lies in Bristol, a town in the central portion of the County along the Apalachicola River. Tables. 16 and 17 58 show that Liberty County will need only 77 temporary housing units from FEMA in the event of a major storm. Heavy rainfall and floodwaters may cause substantial damage in the Bristol area. Recommendation Although the charts show Liberty County will not need a great deal of Federal Housing Assistance, the limited resources of the residents have to be considered. The population probably lacks the resources to repair damage of less than 25% that does not show up on the tables. In Liberty County a fast home repair program would be more useful than a temporary housing program. WAKULLA COUNTY Unlike Gulf and Franklin Counties, Wakulla County has no barrier islands to buffer the initial devastation of a hurricane. Ocean-front housing units are extremely vulnerable in the county as shown under the weakest storm scenario in table 18. Because an appropriate storm simulation was unavailable from phase one of the Hurricane Loss Study the effects that a category 3,4 or 5 hurricane will have on the region is unknown, however in reviewing losses from level 1 and 2 storms, it can be surmised that nearly all coastal dwelling units will be devastated by very high storm surge and flooding. 59 Recommendation Wakulla County will have to be allocated immediate temporary housing provisions in the event of any hurricane. In instances where all housing units in a region are destroyed, it is unlikely that FEMA could provide the necessary accommodations, however the population in Wakulla County is still relatively low, and can conceivably be covered through effective local government coordination. 60 INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE Individual assistance includes provisions for families and small businesses who qualify. This assistance is allocated in the form of grants and loans used for agricultural assistance, replacement of personal property, reduction of economic losses and reestablishing places of employment. This section examines the need for individual assistance in the Apalachee Region, and briefly analyze two programs, (Individual and Family Grants and Low Interest Disaster Loans) that provide that assistance. A. Individual and Family Grants Several agencies are involved in the administration of Individual and Family Grants. Finances are divided into a 75% Federal share and a 25% State share. The assistance available for qualified applicants ranges from food stamp allocation to the administration of legal counsel, all of which were examined in the Federal Assistance Program section. B. Low Interest Disaster Loans Low interest disaster assistance loans are usually allocated to those who have experienced losses to their economic stability, rather than personal necessities. Qualifiers include those who have experienced crop damage, or damage to their employment source. Again, the assistance available was examined in the 61 TABLE 20 WIP COVERAGE FOR THE COUNTIES OF THE APALACHEE REGION POLICIES COVERAGE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMERCIAL TOTAL CALHOUN 7 1 $236,700 W1000 $52,600 GULF M 22 $14,701,011 $1,515,400 $16,216,400 GADSDEN 4 1 Sl16.iOO $200,000 S316,iOO JACKSON 8 4 $164,400 $325,700 $490,100 FRANKLIN 444 29 $27,540,70D $2,463,300 $30,004,000 LEON 135 16 $7,055,300 $1,132,800 $8.188,100 LIBERTY 0 1 0 $25,000 $25,000 WAKULLA 126 6 $6,209,800 $335,900 $6,545.700 JEFFERSON 0 1 0 $2510,00 $25,000 62 GRAPH 1 TOTAL NFIP COVERAGE 32- APALACHEE REGION 30 - 28 - 26- 24- 22 - 20- U) 18- c cr- o 16 - 0:2 14- 12- 10- a- 6 - 4- 2- 0 CAL GUL GAD JAC FRK LEO LIB WAK JEF COUNTY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL .TABLE 21 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL LOSSES BY HURRICANE SCENERIO CALHOUN COUNTY i JACKSON COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL H $363,279 $40,982 $404,361 A $2,473,490 $264,497 $2,737,985 M $118,475 $7,879 $126,354 G $652,000 $33,631 $685,631 R $2,128,895 $209,681 $2,338,576 D $8,224,648 siliao,389 $9,404,037 T $2,964,512 $429,468 $3,393,980 T $11,435,380 $1,663,242 $13,098,622 U $6,649,371 $2,036,347 $8,685,717 U $25,440,550 $3,790,296 $29,230,946 FRANKLIN COUNTY LEON COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL p $9,398,160 $1,381,709 $10,779,869 * p $25,165,390 $4,345,390 $29,510,990 $13,003,697 $2,069,684 $15,073,381 # B W,25,350 $7,961,000 $54,1761350 N $24,770,821 $3,465,951 $28,236,772 # C $71,300,000 $12,205,000 $83,505,000 0 $56,929,8% $5,101,752 $62,031,568 # a W6045,000 $31,495,250 $207,640,250 1 $33,971,417 S4,36402 $38,335,529 # 1 $537,350,000 $92,000,000 $537,350,000 GULF COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL # SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL v $1,588,260 $0026 $1,693,386 # H $151,000 $10,300 $161,300 N $3,260,8W $284,551 $3,545,351 * G $263,940 $21 1350 $285, 190 S $59,495,000 $3,070,235 $62,565,235 * L $55.380 $1,050 $56,430 a $12085,223 $510,228 $12,695,451 * 0 $518,350 $44,050 $562,400 U $70,223,202 $4,727,251 $74,950,453 * 1 $4,450,000 $135,450 $4,585,450 GADSDEN COUNTY WAKULLA COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL * SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL H $2,020,332 $iB7,571 $2,207,903 * A SM05,000 $368,500 $3,473,500 G $4,590,356 $379,28q $4,969,645 * 0 $13,450,000 $1,627,355 $15,077,355 s $5,993,952 $550,997 $6,444,849 * F $2,056,395 $132,650 $2,189,045 a $6,352,386 $551,587 $6,903,975 * a $7,345,605 $242,565 $7,588,170 1 $31,585,940 $2,732,533 $34,318,473 * 1 $17,148,590 $1,269.427 $18,418,017 64 TABLE 22 PERCENT OF INSURED STRUCTURES APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COUNTY STRUCTURES POLICIES* PCT.* ------------------------------------------------ CALHOUN 3190 1995 62.5 FRANKLIN 4477 888 19.8 GADSDEN 10,388 6493 62.5 GULF 4297 246 6.6 JACKSON 12,121 7575 62.5 JEFFERSON 3,500 0 0 LEON 52,183 32,614 62.5 LIBERTY 1,480 925 62.5 IJAKULLA 3,996 252 62.5 *ADJUSTED FOR INLAND COUNTIES COMMERCIAL COUNTY STRUCTURES POLICIES* PCT.* ------------------------------------------------ CALHOUN 193 120 62.5 FRANKLIN 340 58 17 GADSDEN 464 290 62.5 GULF 298 44 14.7 JACKSON 904 565 62.5 JEFFERSON 28 2 7 LEON 3951 2469 62.5 LIBERTY 17 11 62.5 IJAKULLA 98 12 12.2 *ADJUSTED FOR INLAND COUNTIES 65 ..TABLE 23 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE WEDS BY STORM SCENERIO IN THE APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED TOTAL ASSISTANCE COUNTY SCENARIO LOSS UNINSURED LOSS LOSS UNINSURED LOSS NEEDED CALWUN H $363,279 27.50% $99,901 $40,982 27.50% $11,270 $111, 171 $118,475 27.50% $32,581 $7,879 27.50% $2,167 $34,747 R $2,128,895 27.50% $585,446 $209,681 27.50% $57,662 $643,108 T $2,694,512 27.502 $85,240 $429,468 27.50Z $118,104 $3,897,856 U $6,643,710 27.501 $1,827,020 $2,036,347 Z7.50% $559,995 $2,387,015 FRANKLIN P $9,398,160 80.00% $7,518,528 $1,381,709 83.00% Si,146,818 $8,665,346 M $13,003,697 80.00% $10,402,958 $2,069,694 93.00% $1,717,837 $12,120,796 N $24,770,821 80.00% $19,816,657 $3,465,951 93.00% $2,876,739 $22,693,396 0 $56,929,816 80.00% $45,543,853 $5,101,752 83.00% $4,234,454 $49,728,307 i S33,971,W 80.00% $27,177,134 $4,364,12 83.00% $3,622,213 $30,799,347 GADSDEN H $2,020,332 27.50% $555,591 $187,571 27.50% $51,582 $607,173 G $4,590,356 27.5OX $1,262,348 $379,289 27.50% $104,304 $1,366,652 S $5,893,852 27.50X $1,620,809 $550,997 27.5D% $151,524 $1,772,333 0 $6,352,386 27.50% $1,746,906 $551,587 27.50% $151,686 $1,898,592 1 $31,585,940 27.50% $8,686,134 $2,732,533 27.50% $751,446 $9,437,580 GULF U $1,588,260 93.30% $1,481,846 $105,126 85.30% $89,672 $1,571,518 M $3,260,800 93.30% $3,042,326 $284,551 85.301 $242,770 $3,285,046 S $59,495,000 93.30% $55,508,836 $3,070,235 85.30% $2,618,910 $58,127,745 a $2,185,233 931.30% $11,368,813 $510,228 85.30% $435,224 $11,804,037 U $70,233,Z02 93.30% $65,518,266 $4,727,251 85.30% $4,041,799 $69,560,065 JACKSON A $2,473,4?0 27.50% $680,210 $264,497 27.50% $72,737 $752,947 G $652,000 27.50% $179,300 $33,631 27.50% $9,248 W8,549 D $8,224,648 27.50X $2,586,385 $1,180,389 27.50% $324,606 $2,SM,385 T $11,435,380 27.50% $3,144,740 $1,663,242 27.50% $457,393 $3,602,122 N $25,440,550 27.50% $6,996,151 $3,790,296 27.50% $1,042,331 $8,038,482 66 TABLE 23 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS BY STORM SCENERIO IN THE APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED TOTAL ASSISTANCE COUNTY SCENARIO LOSS UNINSURED LOSS LOIS UNINSURED LOSS NEEDED LEON P $23,165,390 27.50% $4,345,600 Si, 195,040 27.50% $1, 195,040 $8, 115,522 B $46,215,350 27.50% $7,961,000 $2,189,275 27.501 $2,169,275 $14,987,496 C $77,300,000 27.50% $12,205,000 $3,356,375 27.501 1?,.356,375 $24,613,875 0 .$183,356,654 27.50% $31,495,250 $8,661,194 27.50% $3,356,375 $57,iOl,O69 1 $445,350,000 27.50% $92,ODO,000 $25,300,000 27.50% $25,300,000 $07,721,250 LIBERTY H $151,000 27.50% $41,525 $10,300 27.50% $2,833 $444,358 G $263,840 27.50% $19,082 $21,350 27.50% $5,871 $24,953 L $55,380 27.50% $15,229 $1,050 27.50% $288 $15,518 a $518,350 27.50% $152,546 $44,050 27.50% $12,113 $154,659 1 $4,450,000 27.50% $1,223,550 $135,450 27.50% $36,987 $1,267,935 WAKULLA A $3,105,000 93.70% $2,909,385 $368,500 87.80X $322,094 $3,231,479 B $13,450,000 93.70% $12,602,650 $1,627,355 87.80% $1,428,818 $14,031,468 F $2,056,395 93.70% $1,962,842 $152,650 87.80% $2,276,242 $2,276,242 a $7,345,605 93.70% $6,882,832 $242,565 87.801 $212,q72 $7,095,804 1 $17,148,590 ?3.70% $16,068,229 $1,269,427 87.80% $1,114,556 $17,182,786 6 7 Federal Assistance Program Section. C. Interpretation of Tables 20 through 23 To calculate the amount of individual assistance needed under these programs, the scenarios used in the Temporary Housing Section are utilized to simulate damage estimates. Phase one of The Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study determined the monetary residential and commercial damage estimates based on different storm scenarios. This study selected five storm scenarios of varying intensity for each county, and summed up the amount of commercial and residential damage they would create. The amount of insurance to cover the damage was assessed and subtracted from the damage sum to obtain the amount of individual assistance that would be required based on each scenario for the counties in the region. Table 20 Table 20 indicates the number of flood insurance policies and monetary coverage for residential and commercial structures in each county of the Apalachee region. The Counties in the Apalachee Region are relatively new to the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program, so the number of policies and amount of coverage in relation to the rest of the state is relatively low. The Flood Insurance Program covers only water induced damage, thus the number of policies for inland counties 68 are extremely low. Only structures located in the 100-year floodplain are required to have flood insurance. Table 21 Table 21 indicates the amount of monetary damage that would occur to both residential and commercial structures based on the same hurricane scenarios used to determine temporary housing needs. As mentioned in the previous section, SPLASH models, which do no t account for wind and rainfall induced damage, were used to obtain these figures, so the total structural damage for inland counties will be substantially higher in the event of a major storm. Table 22 Table 21 indicates the adjusted ratio of insurance policies to actual residential and commercial structures in each county of the Apalachee Region. Inland counties are not extensively covered under the NFIP, so for purposes of this report an insurance rate of 62.5% was used. This figure is adjusted down 10% from the standard figure used by the General Reinsurance Co. Report. This adjustment is an inferential estimation based on income of the residents in the region and the likelihood that they cannot afford substantial amounts of homeowners insurance. 69 Table 23 Table 23 represents the total amount of individual assistance that will be required based on the selected storm simulations and the calculation of the previously explained formula. The figures for individual assistance needs range from only $15,000 under a small hurricane scenari-o in Liberty County, to $150,000,000 in Leon County in a catastrophic hurricane situation. If these figures are appropriately adjusted upward, the damage potential becomes astronomical. Upon relating these figures to the limited resources of the residents of the Apalachee Region, it becomes apparent that local governments must extensively promote the NFIP in there counties. 70 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Public assistance is available for communities who have suffered extensive public facility damage as a result of a major hurricane. Public assistance eligibility depends upon whether the damaged facilities create a negative impact on the public's health, safety and welfare, and the financial ability of that community to repair the damage. Funds for public assistance are usually available in the form of Community Facilities Loans. these loans are allocated on a cost sharing basis between state and federal government. The federal government will provide 75% of the assistance and the state 25%. This section quantifies the need for public assistance based on replacement costs for the following categories: water facilities; wastewater facilities; electric utilities; transportation facilities; nursing homes; hospitals and government owned facilities. A. Replacement Costs Most public facility replacement costs are provided by FEMA. Limitations are placed on grants so that facilities are restored only to pre-event condition. All public service facilities may be covered by the programs previously mentioned in the Federal Assistance Programs Section. 71 B. Methodology The methodology for determining replacement costs of public facilities in each county differs from the methodology used in determining individual assistance needs. Phase One of the Hurricane Loss Study listed the sum value and location of various facilities, but did not estimate damage based on storm scenarios. In determining facility replacement costs, the value of each different facility was summed. That monetary figure was disaggregated into percentages from 10 to 100 in intervals of ten. This method may be of more use than basing damage estimates on storm scenarios, because an actual storm will never accurately simulate a model scenario. An assessor can determine the amount of damage (for example) to hospitals. If he estimates that all hospitals in Leon County are damaged by 30%, the corresponding dollar figure is available in the following table under Leon County in the category Hospitals. The amount of monetary assistance required can than be distributed by the various federal assistance programs. C. Water Facilities Immediate restoration of water supply facilities is critical to a community in its post event condition. People failing to store adequate quantities of potable water have to rely on treating water themselves. Insufficient treatment can lead to adverse health effects to much of the population, which can 72 further cripple a region after a storm. Table 24 estimates replacement costs to water facilities based on the percentage damaged. Table 24 WATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $201,800 10% $958,663 20% $403,600 20% $1,917,326 30% $605,400 30% $2,875,989' 40% $807,200 40% $3,834,652 50% $1,009,000 50% $4,793,315 60% $1,210,800 60% $5,751,978 70% $1,412,600 70% $6,710,641 80% $1,614,400 80% $7,669,304 90% $1,816,200 90% $8,627,967 100% $2,018,000 100% $9,586,630 73 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $662,910 10% $399,120 20% $1,325,820 20% $798,240 30% $1,988,730 30% $1,197,360 40% $2,651,640 40% $1,596,480 50% $3,314,550 50% $1,995,600 60% $3,977,460 60% $2,394,720 70% $4,640,370 70% $2,793,840 80% $5,303,280 80% $3,192,960 90% $5,966,190 90% $3,592,208 100% $6,629,100 100% $3,991,200 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $93,620 10% $63,400 20% $187,240 20% $126,800 30% $280,060 30% $190,200 40% $374,480 40% $253,600 50% $468,100 50% $317,000 60% $561,200 60% $380,400 70% $6559340 70% $443,800 80% $748,960 80% $507,200 90% $842,580 90% $570,600 100% $936,200 100% $634,000 74 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $110,960 10% $227,082 20% $221,920 20% $454,164 30% $332,880 30% $681,246 40% $443,840 40% $908,328 50% $554,800 50% $1,135,410 60% $665,760 60% $1,362,492 70% $776,720 70% $1,589,574 80% $887,680 80% $1,816,656 90% $998,640 90% $2,043,738 100% $1,109,600 100% $2,270,820 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $89,610 20% .$179,220 30% $268,830 40% $358,440 50% $448,050 60% $537,660 70% $627,270 80% $716,880 90% $806,490 100% $896,100 75 D. Waste Water Facilities Storm damage to waste water treatment plants can lead to widespread sanitation problems. Untreated wastes, loose as a result of flooding, can cause outbreaks of various negative health affects. The immediate restoration of waste 'water facilities is crucial to a county during its post event condition. Table 25 determines the cost of repairing each county's sewage treatment facility by percentage and monetary value. Table 25 WASTE WATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $163,000 10% $4,708,000 20% $326,000 20% $9,416,000 30% $489,000 30% $14,124,000 40% $652,000 40% $18,832,000 50% $815,000 50% $23,540,000 60% $978,000 60% $28,248,000 70% $1,141,000 70% $32,956,000 80% $1,300,400 80% $37,664,000 90% $1,467,000 90% $42,372,000 100% $1,630,000 100% $47,080,000 76 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $952,000 10% $1,472,000 20% $1,904,000 20% $2,944,000 30% $2,856,000 30% $4,416,000 40% $3,808,000 40% $5,888,000 50% $4,760,000 50% $7,360,000 60% $5,712,000 60% $8,832,000 70% $6,664,000 70% $10,304,000 80% $7,616,000 80% $11,776,000 go% $8,568,000 90% $13,248,000 100% $9,520,000 100% $14,720,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $175,000 10% $13,000 20% $350,000 20% $26,000 30% $525,000 30% $39,000 40% $700,000 40% $52,000 50% $875tOOO 50% $65,000 60% $1050,000 60% $78,000 70% $1,225,000 70% $91,000 80% $1,400,000 80% $104,000 90% $1,575,000 90% $117,000 100% $lt750,000 100% $130,000 77 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $909,000 10% $340,600 20% $1,818,000 20% $681,200 30% $2,727,000 30% $1,021,800 40% $3,363,600 40% $1,362,400 50% $4,545,000 50% $1,703,000 60% $5,454,000 60% $2,043,600 70% $6,363,000 70% $2,384,200 80% $7,272,000 80% $2,724,800 90% $8,181,000 90% $3,065,400 100% $9,090,000 100% $3,406,000 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $166,000 20% $332,000 30% $498,000 40% $664,000 50% $830,000 60% $996,000 70% $1,162,000 80% $1,328,000 90% $1,494,000 100% $1,660,000 78 FIELD ASSISTANCE A, Disaster Field Offices (DFO) The Disaster Field Office is set up as a coordination station for all state and federal assistance programs within counties under the President's disaster declaration. The offices are run and staffed by both a FEMA and a state appointed official. The function of these offices is the collection and processing of damage survey report s, and requests for individual assistance and small business loans. Damage survey reports are monetary damage estimates to specific buildings and facilities compiled by assessment teams from FEMA, the State and the affected local government. These reports and applications are evaluated and a decision on the amount of funding to be obligated to each locality is made. B. Disaster Application Centers (DAC) Disaster application centers are set up in counties under the President's disaster declaration after the disaster field offices have been established. Staff in these centers will assist affected individuals in filling out the proper applications. The applications are than sent to the disaster field office for processing. 31 C. Civil Defense Directors Duties Federal and State authorities who set up each county's disaster application center need to designate a site which contains adequate communication and administrative capabilities. the Civil Defense Director for each county has the responsibility of assuring that an appropriate site has been assigned as depicted in their Emergency Management Plan. Table 1 lists the Civil Defense Director of each county in the Apalachee region accompanied by the corresponding office address and telephone number. D. Site Determination Several criteria are utilized in determining the appropriate site for each county's application centers and field office. These sites must be pre-determined to be able to withstand hurricane induced damage, be in a flood free zone, have easy access and ample parking, be under public ownership and have adequate emergency facilities. More than one designation has to be assigned for the Disaster Application Center, unlike the single location for the DFO per county. The DAC must be accessible for both government officials and the general public in need, while the DFO has to be within close proximity of a centralized government facility. Table 2 lists the recommended county sites based on the-previous criteria for disaster field offices and application centers in the Apalachee Region. 32 TABLE I CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTORS IN THE APALACHEE REGION COUNTY WE LOCATION TELEPHONE CALHOUN NATHAN GOODMAN BASEMENT OF CkMb 674-8075 COUNTY COURTHOUSE FRANKLIN EUGENE ELLER FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 653-8977 APALACHICOLA GADSDEN CHARLIE BETTS GADSDEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 674-8075 SOUTH MADISON ST. QUINCY GULF LARRY WELLS GULF COUNTY COURTHOUSE 227-1735 PORT ST. JOE JACKSON JAMES MAYDER JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 526-45DO PELT ST. MARIANNA JEFFERSON BOB KNECHT JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 997-5762 140 WEST WASHINGTON MONTICELLO LEON BUNKY ATKINSON LEON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 488-5921 TALLAHASSEE LIBERTY ART PREACHER CIVIL DEFENSE AND PLANNING OFFICE 643-2339 RIVER STREET BRISTOL WAKULLA ERIC HINDLE WAKULLA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 926-5424 CRAWFORDVILLE 33 TABLE 2 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR DISASTER FIELD OFFICES FOR THE COUNTIES OF THE APALACHEE REGION COUNTY LOCATION DESIGNATION COUNTY LOCATION DESIGNATION CALMN 1. CALHOUN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFO/DAC - JACKSON 1. HRS CENTER DFO/DAC BLOUNTSTOWN - 401 EAST CLINTON ST. - MARIANNA FRANKLIN 1. CARRABELLE CITY HALL DFO/DAC - CARRABELLE - JEFFERSON 1. JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFO/DAC 2. EASTPOINT ARMORY DFO/DAC - 140 WEST WASHINGTON EASTPOINT - MONTICELLO 3. FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DAC - APALACHICOLA - LEON i. CAPITAL OUTLET CENTER DAC/DFO - WEST TENNESSEE STREET GADSDEN i. GADSDEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE DFO/DAC - TALLAHASSEE SOUTH MADISON ST. - 2. TALLAHASSEE RECREATIONAL COW DAC QUINCY - JACKSON BLUFF ROAD - TALLAHASSEE GULF 1. PORT ST. JOE FIRE HOUSE DFO/DAC - 404 WILLIAMS AVE - LIBERTY 1. LIBERTY COUNTY COURTHOUSE DAC/DF0 PT. ST. JOE - BRISTOL 2. COMMUNITY CENTER DAC - WEWAHITCHKA - WAKULLA 1. LIVESTOCK PAVILLION DAC/DFO - DOWNTOWN CRAWFORDVILLE 34 ANALYSIS It must be noted that the population of each county in the Apalachee region is relatively small compared to the rest of the State, thus many Counties use the same facility for both the DFO and DAC. Many of the proposed facilities have not been used in emergency situations, therefore performance standards have yet to be determined. The Franklin County Courthouse was sandbagged during hurricane Kate, therefore it would only be available during a low intensity storm. In the event of a hurricane, the location of centers will be reassessed by government officials, who may decide to change location. Post DAC/DFO Assistance When the disaster assistance centers are gone, mobile service centers are available for assistance two days a week. Hot lines are also open up to 60 days after the DACIS close down. Operators will accept and process requests for aid. 35 TEMPORARY HOUSING FEMA provides accommodations for those disaster victims left homeless as a result of a storm when no housing facilities are available from county agencies. Depending upon the situation, four t ypes of temporary homes are available; transient accommodations, government owned housing, private rental housing, and mobile homes. The following section examines the various temporary housing programs available after a hurricane, how to get that assistance, and the potential demand placed on temporary housing programs based on selected storm scenarios from Phase 1 of the Apa.IAR@A@t Eej.LR!j Hurricane Loss Study.An analysis of individual county recommendations based on potential temporary housing needs is also contained in this section. A. Applicant Assistance Applications for temporary housing are taken at disaster application centers. Local governments and the Division of Emergency Management will provide staff assistance to aid in the application process. The victims first step toward receiving temporary housing involves a pre-screening process to determine the victims eligibility for an application. If deemed eligible, the victim is sent to an interviewer who explains available programs before processing the application. The application is reviewed and a determination 37 is made using the following criteria: 1. Is the damaged housing unit the primary residence of the applicant?; 2. Was the damage a result of the disaster'?; 3. Does the applicant have any other available resources such as insurance or another home that will provide him with temporary housing. B. Provisions to Eligible Applicants Once an applicant has been approved for one of the temporary housing programs he is informed of the following information; his eligibility; a recommended dwelling unit based on size and price; the duration of assistance, and his responsibilities within that time frame which includes: an acceptance of the first reasonable offer; an expectance that he properly cares for the unit; and an expectance that the applicant will attempt to find permanent residence during his stay in the temporary unit. Once an applicant's period of assistance is over. he may reapply for continued temporary housing. FEMA allocates the bulk of federal housing units. However, housing site allocation, general service provisions and program coordination is up to local governments. Municipalities should interact with FEMA prior to the occurrence of the disaster to .insure post-disaster housing operations are efficiently run. 38 Inadequately tied down housing units and poorly constructed manufactured homes are common in the Apalachee Region. These homes are not built to withstand hurricane winds and floodwaters thus; even though the region is not heavily populated there is a definite need for a temporary housing program in the event of a major storm, as the following section will discuss C. Methodology Temporary housing needs are determined by using data from the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study (Phase 1). The loss study depicted 23 hurricane scenarios based on simulated hurricane tracks from the National Weather Service and based the quantity of structural damage on them. The scenarios varied in both landfall site and intensity. Five hurricanes were selected from the 23 scenarios simulated in the first loss study. The intention was to use simulations of all five categories on the Saffir Simpson scale coming closest to a direct hit on each individual county. Housing needs are than determined based on the severity of each storm simulation in relation to location of landfall. The selected scenarios and their landfall sites are contained in table 3 and map 1 , appendix D examines the Saffir Simpson Scale, and tables 4 through 19 determine the demand for temporary housing in the Apalachee region based on these scenarios. 39 TABLE 3 STORM SCENARIO USED,TN INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE AND TEMPORARY HOUSING DETERMINATIONS storm Scenario Catego Landfall Location* Direction EX - Hurricane Moving A I St. Marks NW B 2 St. Marks N C 3 St. Marks N D 3 St. Teresa (NW) E 3 St. Teresa (NE) F 3 St. Teresa (N) G 2 St. George/carrabelle N H I St. George/Carrabelle N 1 3 St. George Carrabelle (N) 5 St. George/Carrabelle N 3 St. George/Carrabelle (NW) L 3 St. George/Apalachicola (N) M 2 St. George/Apalachicola NW N 3 St. George/Apalachicola (NW) 0 4 St. George/Apalachicola N P 1 St. George/Apalachicola NE Q 4 Cape San Blas NE R 3 Mexico Beach N S 3 Mexico Beach NE T 4 Mexico Beach N U 5 Mexico Beach N v 1 Offshore Paralleling w 1 Offshore Paralleling V 6 W do not make landfall but parallel'the shoreline. 40 A L A B A M A MAP 1 ---------------- HURRICANE SCENARIO PATHS JACKSON E 0 j R G A dAd$D.EN owiticy CAL.HOUN LEON 12161 JEFFiRSON fBiRTY WAKU LLA 0Cro.twelvil GULF 00 FRANKLiN* of N Per# V. JI's POWWOW A give.. Ql N --hee w P A T \D U E/ A\N SPLASH 11 SELECTED HURRICANE TRACKS 41 TABLE 4 CALHOUN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEEDS BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME TOTAL NJMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS H 0 0- 0 658 264 M 0 0 0 658 264 R 0 0 0 658 264 T 0 0 0 659 264 U 0 0 293 633 234 TABLE 5 CALHOUN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEEDS BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES TOTAL MM HABITABLE SEASONAL OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS H 0 0 0 658 264 M 0 0 0 658 264 R 0 0 0 658 264 T 0 0 0 658 264 U 0 0 293 633 234 42 TABLE 6 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REGUIRED P 650 167 261 605 705 0 1345 167 420 585 670 682 N 1980 170 435 365 450 1750 0 2160 215 650 305 375 2345 2285 215 &35 m 360 2680 TABLE 7 FRANKLIN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED P 440 0 261 605 705 0 M 970 167 340 590 680 207 N 1910 117 415 185 450 912 2160 215 650 305 375 2345 2285 215 835 295 360 2680 43 TABLE 8 GULF COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON WE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL MAR HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENAR10 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE MKS OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED v 0 0 0 787 415 0 N 0 0 0 787 W 0 S E347 24 535 345 190 2371 200 6 237 615 370 0 U 2650 31 943 85 35 3794 TABLE 9 GULF COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER. HABITABLE SEAM TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENAR10 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED v 0 0 0 787 415 0 N 0 0 0 787 415 0 S 2347 14 535 350 192 2354 a 200 0 107 6" 385 0 U 2400 23 943 87 36 3533 4 4 TABLE .1n; I GADSDEN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES OF RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED H 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 G 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 s 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 1350 2675 960 0 TABLE I I GADSDEN COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE WKS RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED H 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 G 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 5 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 0 0 3088 1047 0 0 0 1350 2675 980 0 4S TABLE 12 JACKSON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING WED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 G 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 D 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 T 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 U 0 0 1852 2559 898 0 TABLE 13 JACKSON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY H OUS ING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY M091LE MKS RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 G 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 D 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 T 0 0 0 3226 1096 0 U 0 0 1852 2559 898 0 46 TABLE 14 LEON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THNA 25% TOTAL KIM OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED P 0 0 0 23,803 51V 0 B 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 C 0 0 0 23,803 SW 0 a 0 0 2172 23,704 4995 0 1 42,000 35 V72 5,650 925 37,632 TABLE 15 LEON COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUKBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS MITI REQUIRED P 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 B 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 C 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 a 0 0 0 23,803 5117 0 0 0 2172 23,704 4995 0 47 TABLE 16 LIBERTY COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOMING WED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL MAR OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REWIRED --- I H D 0 0 311 281 0 6 0 0 0 311 261 0 L 0 0 0 311 281 0 0 0 0 0 311 281 0 1 0 0 447 243 127 77 TABLE 17 LIBERTY COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REGUIRED H 0 0 0 311 281 0 6 0 0 D 311 281 0 L 0 0 0 311 281 0 0 0 0 0 311 281 0 0 0 M5 268 165 0 4 8 TABLE 18 WAKULLA COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING WED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 25% TOTAL NAM OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED A am 0 115 215 440 310 "0 80 105 1835 F 0 0 0 658 il3i 0 0 0 800 320 520 0 1477 420 966 32 45 2796 TABLE 19 WAKLU.4 COUNTY PROJECTED TEMPORARY HOUSING NEED BASED ON DAMAGE GREATER THAN 50% TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITABLE SEASONAL TOTAL UNITS STORM SCENARIO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOMES RENTAL UNITS UNITS REQUIRED 0 0 ils 520 650 0 B 850 0 540 87 120 1195 F 0 0 0 658 1131 0 0 0 425 340 560 0 0 0 960 130 234 706 49 D. Interpretation of Table's 4 Through 19 Determining when a house unit is uninhabitable is difficult because no set percentage of damage has been established that differ.entiates between a habitable and uninhabitable housing unit. On many occasions, 20% of damage resulting from a storm may be associated with critical areas of the house such as bedrooms, bathrooms and the kitchen rendering it uninhabitable, while a house damaged 50% by a storm may suffer damage only to the garage, swimming pool and other additional fixtures that do not affect the habitability of the unit. This is why two tables for each County are exhibited in the demand for temporary housing section. The first table for each county deems a structure uninhabitable if 25% of the unit is damaged and the second table does the same if 50% of it is damaged. The appropriate table depends on which set standard the reviewing agency chooses to use. Many of the scenarios used in the study show that f ew if any housing units will be required. This is misleading because only if structural damage is above 25% does the study indicate that temporary homes will be required. This does not mean that substantial damage has not occurred. A County whose average losses are under 25% still may suffer millions of dollars in losses. so Tables 4 through 19 calculate potential housing demands within each county based on five different hurricane scenarios individually selected f or each county. The f irst column contains a letter identifier that corresponds with a hurricane scenario already described in the methodology part of this section. Total damage does not necessarily correspond to the intensity of the storm, due to the f ailure of obtaining f ive scenarios of varying intensity with the same landfall site, so a category one hurricane hitting the center of a certain county can create a greater demand for temporary housing than a category five storm scenario, if there was no simulation of a category five hurricane making a direct strike on that county. The numbers in columns two, three and four were added together to obtain the total number of housing structures damaged beyond habitability based on the corresponding hurricane scenario. These columns disaggregate housing units into single family dwelling units, multi family dwelling units and mobile homes accordingly. The numbers in columns five and six are subtracted from the sum of columns two, three and four. These two columns consist of the amount of rental units and vacant seasonal dwelling units that may be available to accommodate that county's homeless in the event of the corresponding storm scenario.. The number in the column titled TOTAL AVAILABLE UNITS is 51 obtained from subtracting the sum of columns five and six from the sum of columns two, three and four. This is the total number of outside temporary housing units that will be needed in the event of the storm scenario depicted in column one of that row. E. Limitations The hurricane damage estimates were based on SPLASH models that only consider damage caused by wind and surge. Rainfall, which varies from storm to storm, causes much damage in a hurricane, yet was not accounted for in the SPLASH models, thus the damage figures for inland counties are substantially lower than can be expected in a real storm. F. Sources The figures in the temporary housing tables were derived from the U.S. 1980 Census of Housing and Phase One of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study. The number for available rental units and seasonal habitable units came from the U.S. 1980 Census of Housing, and the damage estimates came from Phase One of the Loss Study. 52 G. Individual County Analysis CALHOUN COUNTY Calhoun County, separated from the coast by Gulf County, is not susceptible to storm surge. Of the five scenarios selected for the County only scenario U, a category five hurricane that passes just to the west of the County, would cause wind damage greater than 25% to any residential units. This shows the inadequacy of the SPLASH model because a storm of this magnitude would still cause catastrophic damage even this far inward, due to the possible inundation of eastern Blountstown by the Apalachicola River. The assessment that no outside housing facilities are necessary in this event is misleading. The tables stating that scenarios R and T, 100-year storms whose dangerous right quadrant sweep the County, would not damage any housing facilities must also be analyzed with skeptism. Recommendation Although the tables show that Calhoun County has the available resources to meet the temporary housing needs of even the most catastrophic storm, a "just in case" program should be initiated. The most heavily populated center is in the less vulnerable southeastern section of the County, but the lack of individual resources of the County's residents must be 53 considered when ignoring a temporary housing program. FRANKLIN COUNTY Without doubt, Franklin County is the forerunner in the region in regards to post-hurricane assistance needs. The scenarios selected all approach landfall in either the Carrabelle or Apalachicola region. In the event that the simulated category five hurricane, depicted making landfall east of the county, was to strike, not only would the majority of housing units be severely damaged, but beach and coastal homes may be washed away Recommendation The temporary housing needs for Franklin County range from zero under the smallest hurricane scenario, to almost three thousand in a severe hurricane. The problem with allocating housing units to these residents is that a high intensity storm of between 3-5 on the Saffir Simpson Scale, would wash away roads necessary to transport the residential units to the victims, leaving them without access to them. Under these ci rcumstances, the surplus of Franklin County's homeless might have to be accommodated by rental and vacant units in Jackson, Calhoun or other inland Counties. S4 GADSDEN COUNTY Gadsden County lies just south of the Georgia border, buffered from the open ocean by Leon and Wakulla Counties to the east, and Liberty and Franklin counties to the west. As tables 7 and 8 indicate only the most catastrophic storm will cause damages of over 25%, and that would only be to mobile homes. Gadsden County borders both the Ochlocknee and Apalachicola rivers. Under severe conditions there will be substantial flooding around these rivers, fortunately most of the population lies out of the one hundred-year flood plain. Recommendation It is likely that Gadsden County will never have to rely on FEMA's temporary housing program, but in the event that coastal counties in the region suffer tremendous damage, the County should devise a program that would accommodate those victims that come from the coastal counties counties. GULF COUNTY Geographically Gulf County lies in a similar storm probability track as Franklin County, but economically there are more resources to counter the post hardships of the storm. By no means is the County financially well off, and regardless of the 55 intensity of the hurricane substantial housing aid still must be rendered. Potential need for temporary housing units may approaches 3500 units under the most severe circumstances, which in this case is scenario U. Port St. Joe, the major populated area in Gulf County, is buffered from the full intensity of a storm by Cape San Blas to the southwest and the mainland to the south southeast. Recommendation Gulf County must develop a program that would assist FEMA in its effort to aid them with temporary housing if a major storm were to occur. It is doubtful that under the worse circumstances enough units would be available. In this event the County must look inland for assistance. JACKSON COUNTY As tables 12 and 13 show, Jackson County would suffer little if any structural damage under any storm scenario. The County lies further inland than any other within the Region, so even if a major hurricane were to hit the gulf coast the distance it would travel over land would be a factor in reducing its severity by the time it reached the County. Under the worse circumstances, mobile homes would suffer extensive wind damage, but the County should have the capacity to house those whose mobile homes were damaged or destroyed. 56 Recommendation Jackson County, like Gadsden, probably will never have to rely on FEMA's temporary housing programs. As mentioned previously, the County should look for methods of accommodating homeless victims from coastal counties that have suffered extensive residential damage. JEFFERSON COUNTY Phase One of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss study did not include any surge damage estimates based on hurricane scenarios for Jefferson County. There is no private land ownership in the vulnerable southern portion of the county, which is federal land, and the population is sparse in the less vulnerable northern section of the county. The only agglomeration of people is in the Monticello area f ar inland. In the event of a catastrophic storm, small populations along the Aucilla and Wacissa rivers may suffer substantial flooding and be in need of housing assistance. Recommendation Limited wind and rain damage to residential structures may occur in Jefferson County. The County will likely need assistance if a hurricane with heavy winds were to strike, due 57 to the large number of mobile homes in the county. LEON COUNTY Leon County is the only urbanized County in the region, so even though it is located inland, there are a large quantity of dwelling units vulnerable to heavy winds and rainfall that would accompany a major storm. Tables 14 and 15 show that under the most severe circumstances damage to dwelling units will be between 25 and 50 percent. This means that under the worse scenario moderate, not extensive structural repair will be required. Recommendation In relation to the rest of the region, Leon County has better financial capabilities to effectively counter storm related damage. Because there is a low probability of a major storm reaching Leon County, there should be a program developed to assist in housing those in need of temporary shelter from the coastal counties. LIBERTY COUNTY Liberty is the least populated county in the region. Most of the population lies in Bristol, a town in the central portion of the County along the Apalachicola River. Tables 16 and 17 58 show that Liberty County will need only 77 temporary housing units from FEMA in the event of a major storm. Heavy rainfall and floodwaters may cause substantial damage in the Bristol area. Recommendation Although the charts show Liberty County will not need a great deal of Federal Housing Assistance, the limited resources of the residents have to be considered. The population probably lacks the resources to repair damage of less than 25% that does not show up on the tables. In Liberty County a fast home repair program.would be more useful than a temporary housing program. WAKULLA COUNTY Unlike Gul f and Franklin Counties, Wakulla County has no barrier islands to buffer the initial devastation of a hurricane. Ocean-front housing units are extremely vulnerable in the county as shown under the weakest storm scenario in table 18. Because an appropriate storm simulation was unavailable from phase one of the Hurricane Loss Study the effects that a category 3,4 or 5 hurricane will have on the region is unknown, however in reviewing losses from level 1 and 2 storms, it can be surmised that nearly all coastal dwelling units will be devastated by very high storm surge and flooding. 59 Recommendation Wakulla County will have to be allocated immediate temporary housing provisions in the event of any hurricane. In instances where all housing units in a region are destroyed, it is unlikely that FEMA could provide the necessary accommodations, however the population in Wakulla County is still relatively low, and can conceivably be covered through effective local government coordination. 60 INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE Individual assistance includes provisions for families and small businesses who qualify. This assistance is allocated in the form of grants and loans used for agricultural assistance, replacement of personal property, reduction of economic losses and reestablishing places of employment. This section examines the need for individual assistance in the Apalachee Region, and briefly analyze two programs, (Individual and Family Grants and Low Interest Disaster Loans) that provide that assistance. A. Individual and Family Grants Several agencies are involved in the administration of Individual and Family Grants. Finances are divided into a 75% Federal share and a 25% State share. The assistance available for qualified applicants ranges from food stamp allocation to the administration of legal counsel, all of which were examined in the Federal Assistance Program section. B. Low Interest Disaster Loans Low interest disaster assistance loans are usually allocated to those who have experienced losses to their economic stability, rather than personal necessities. Qualifiers include those who have experienced crop damage, or damage to their employment source. Again, the assistance available was examined in the 61 TABLE 20 NFIP COVERAGE FOR THE CDXIES OF THE APALACHEE REGION POLICIES WMAGE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL CALHOUN 7 1 $236,700 $10,000 $152,600 GULF 143 22 S14,70i,0li $1,515,400 W,V6,400 GADSDEN 4 1 W000 $200,000 $316,0 JACKSON a 4 $164,400 $325,700 $490,100 FRANKLIN 444 29 $27,540,700 $2,463,300 $30,004,000 LEON 135 16 $7,055,300 $1,132,800 $8.188,100 LIBERTY 0 1 0 $25,000 $25,000 WAKULLA 126 6 $6,209,800 $335,900 $6,545.700 JEFFERSON 0 1 0 $25,0'0'0 $25,000 62 GRAPH 1 TOTAL NFIP COVERAGE 32- APALACHEE REGION 30- 28- 26- 24- 22- 20- 18- cr- o W -= 16 - >= 0:2 14- 12- 10- 8- 6 - 4- 2 0 CAL GUL GAD JAC FRK LEO LIB WAK J@F COUNTY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TABLE 21 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL LOSSES BY HURRICANE SCENERIO CALHOUN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL H $363,279 $40,982 $404,361 A $2,473,490 $264,497 $2,737,985 M $118,475 $7,879 $26,354 G $652,ODD $33,631 $685,631 R $2, 128,895 $209,681 $2,338,576 D $8,224,648 $1, 180,389 $9,404,037 T $2,964,512 $429,468 $3,393,980 T $11,435,380 $1,663,242 $13,098,622 U $6,649,371 $2,036,347 $8,685,717 U $25,440,550 $3,790,296 $29,230,846 FRANKLIN COUNTY LEON COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL p $9,398,160 $1,381,709 $10,779,869 * p $25,165,390 $4,345,390 $29,510,990 $13,003,697 $2,069,684 $15,073,381 * B $46,215,350 $7,961,000 $54,176,350 N $24,770,821 $3,465,951 $28,236,772 * C $71,300,000 $12,205,OW $93,505,000 0 $56,929,816 $5,101,752 $62,031,568 * a $176,05,000 $31,495,250 $207,640,250 1 $33,971,07 S4,364J12 $38,335,529 * 1 $537,350,000 $92,000,000 $537,350,WD GULF COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL v $1,588,260 sio5, 126 $1,693,386 H $151 1 000 $10,200 N $3,260,8W $284,551 $3,545,351 G $263,840 $21,350 $285, i9o S $59,495,000 $3,070,235 $62,565,235 L $55,380 $ 1 1050 $56,430 a $12,185,223 $510,228 $12,695,451 0 $518,350 $44,050 $562,400 U $70,223,202 $4,727,251 $74,950,453 1 $4,450,000 $135,450 $4,585,450 GADSDEN COUNTY WAKULLA COUNTY SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL f SCENARIO RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL- TOTAL H $2,020,332 $iB7,57i $2,207,903 * A $3,105,000 $368,500 $3,473,500 G $4,590,356 $379,2&q $4,969,645 * B $13,450,000 $1,627,355 $15,077,355 S $5,993,85Z $550,997 $6,444,849 * F $2,056,395 $132,650 $2,189,045 0 $6,352,366 $551,587 $6,903,975 * a $7,345,605 $242,565 $7,588,170 1 $31,585,940 $2,732,533 $34,318,473 # i S17,48,590 $1,269,427 $18,418,017 64 TABLE 22 PERCENT OF INSURED STRUCTURES APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COUNTY STRUCTURES POLICIES* PCT.* ------------------------------------------------ CALHOUN 3190 1995 62.5 FRANKLIN 4477 888 19.8 GADSDEN 10,388 6493 62.5 GULF 4297 246 6.6 JACKSON 12,121 7575 62.5 JEFFERSON 3,500 0 0 LEON 52,183 32,614 62.5 LIBERTY 1,480 925 62.5 WAKULLA 3,996 252 62.5 *ADJUSTED FOR INLAND COUNTIES COMMERCIAL COUNTY STRUCTURES POLICIES* PCT.* ------------------------------------------------ CALHOUN 193 120 62.5 FRANKLIN 340 58 17 GADSDEN 464 290 62.5 GULF 298 44 14.7 JACKSON 904 565 62.5 JEFFERSON 28 2 7 LEON 3951 2469 62.5 LIBERTY 17 11 62.5 IJAKULLA 98 12 12.2 *ADJUSTED FOR INLAND COUNTIES 6S ..TABLE 23 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS BY STORM SCENERIO IN THE APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED TOTAL ASSISTANCE COUNTY SCENARIO LOSS UNINSURED LOSS LOSS UNINSURED Los NEEDED CALl" H $363,279 27.50% $?91901 00,992 27.50% $11,270 $111,171 M $118,475 27.50% $32,581 $7,879 27.502 $2,167 $34,747 R $2,128,895 27.50% $585,446 $209,691 27.501 $57,662 $03,iOg T $2,694,512 27.50% $85,240 $429,468 27.50% W8,104 $3,897,856 U $6,643,710 27.501 $1,827,020 $2,036,347 V.50% $5591"5 $2,387,05 FRANKLIN P $9,398,160 80.00% $7,518,528 $1,381,709 83.00% $1,146,818 $8,665,346 M $13,003,697 80.00% $10,402,958 $2,069,684 83.001 $1,717,837 $12,120,796 N $24,770,821 80.OOX $19,816,657 S3,465,95i 83.00% $2,876,739 $22,693,396 0 $56,929,816 80.00% $45,543,853 $5,41,752 83.00% $4,234,454 $49,728,307 1 $33,971,417 80.002 $27,177,134 $4,364,142 93.OOX S3,622,EQ $30,799,347 GADSDEN H $2,020,332 27.50% $555,591 $187,571 27.50% $51,582 $W7,i73 G $4,590,356 27.50% $1,262,348 $379,289 27.50% $104,304 $1,366,652 s $5,893,852 27.50% $1,620,809 $550,997 27.50% $151,524 $1,772,333 a S6,352,38& 27.50% $1,746,906 $551,587 27.50% $151,686 $1,898,592 1 $31,585,940 27.50% $8,686,134 $2,732,533 27.50% $751,446 $9,437,580 GULF U $1,588,260 93.30% $1,481,946 $105,126 95.30% $89,672 $1,571,519 $3,260,800 93.30% $3,042,326 $2a4,55i 85.30% $242,770 $3,285,046 S $59,495,000 93.30% $55,508,836 $3,070,235 85.30% $2,08,910 $58,127,745 a $12,185,233 93.30% $il,368,813 $510,228 85.30% $435,224 $11,804,037 U $70,233,202 93.30% $65,518,266 $4,727,251 85.301 $4,041,799 $69,560,065 JACKSON A $2,473,490 27.501 VM,210 $264,497 27.50% $72,737 $752,947 G $652,000 27.50% $179,300 $33,631 27.50% $9,248 $188,549 D $8,224,648 27.50% $2,586,385 $1,180,389 27.50% $324,606 $2,586,385 T $11,435,380 27.50% $3,144,740 $1,663,242 27.50% $457,393 $3,602,122 N $25,440,550 27.50% $6,996,51 $3,790,296 27.50% $1,042,331 $8,038,M2 66 TABLE 23 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS BY STORM SCENERIO IN THE APALACHEE REGION RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED STRUCTURAL PCT. UNINSURED TOTAL ASSISTANCE COUNTY SCENARIO LOSS UNINSURED LOSS LOSS UNINSURED LOSS NEEDED LEON p $25,165,390 27.50% $4,345,600 $1,195,040 27.50% $1, 195,040 $8,115,22 B $46,25,350 27.50% $7,961,000 $2,189,275 27.50% $2,169,275 $14,987,496 C $77,300,000 27.50% $12,205,000 $3,356,375 Z7.501 17:356,375 $24,03,675 a $183,356,654 27.50% $31,495,250 $8,661,194 27.50% $3,356,375 $57,101,069 1 $445,350,000 27.50% $92,ODO,OOO $25,300,000 27,50% $25,300,000 $147,721,250 LIBERTY H $151,000 27.50% $41,525 $10,300 27,50% $2,833 $444,358 G $263,840 27.50% $19,082 $21,350 27,50% $5,871 $24,953 L $55,380 27.50% $15,229 $1,050 27.50% $288 $15,518 a $518,350 27.50% $152,546 $44,050 27.50% $12,113 $154,659 1 $4,450,000 27.50% $1,223,550 $135,450 27.50% $36,987 $1,267,935 WAKULLA A $3,105,000 93.70% $2,909,385 $368,500 87.80% $322,094 $3,231,479 B $13,450,000 93.70% $12,602,650 $1,627,355 87.80% $1,428,818 $14,031,468 F $2,056,395 93.70% $1,962,942 $152,650 87.80% $2,276,242 $2,276,242 a $7,345,605 93.70% $6,882,832 $242,565 87.802 $212,972 $7,095,804 1 $17,148,590 93.70% $16,068,229 $1,269,427 87.80% $1,114,556 $17,182,786 67 Federal Assistance Program Section. C. Interpretation of Tables 20 through 23 To calculate the amount of individual assistance needed under these programs, the scenarios used in the Temporary Housing Section are utilized to simulate damage estimates. Phase one of The AR,@.LAS@t @@Xion Hurricane Loss Study determined the monetary residential and commercial damage estimates based on different storm scenarios. This study selected five storm scenarios of varying intensity for each county, and summed up the amount of commercial and residential damage they would create. The amount of insurance to cover the damage was assessed and subtracted from the dama ge sum to obtain the amount of individual assistance that would be required based on each scenario for the counties in the region. Table 20 Table 20 indicates the number of flood insurance policies and monetary coverage for residential and commercial structures in each county of the Apalachee region. The Co.unties in the Apalachee Region are relatively new to the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program, so the number of policies and amount of coverage in relation to the rest of the state is relatively low. The Flood Insurance Program covers only water induced damage, thus the number of policies for inland counties 68 are extremely low. Only structures located in the 100-year floodplain are required to have flood insurance. Table 21 Table 21 indicates the amount of monetary damage that would occur to both residential and commercial structures based on the same hurricane scenarios used to determine temporary housing needs. As mentioned in the previous section, SPLASH models, which do not account for wind and rainfall induced damage, were used to obtain these figures, so the total structural damage for inland counties will be substantially higher in the event of a major storm. Table 22 Table 21 in dicates the adjusted ratio of insurance policies to actual residential and commercial structures in each county of the Apalachee Region. Inland counties are not extensively covered under the NFIP, so for purposes of this report an insurance rate of 62.5% was used. This figure is adjusted down 10% from the standard figure used by the General Reinsurance Co. Report. This adjustment is an inferential estimation based on income of the residents in the region and the likelihood that they cannot afford substantial amounts of homeowners insurance. 69 Table 23 Table 23 represents the total amount of individual assistance that will be required based on the selected storm simulations and the calculation of the previously explained formula. The figures for individual assistance needs range from only $15,000 under a small hurricane scenario in Liberty County, to $150,000,000 in Leon County in a catastrophic hurricane situation. If these figures are appropriately adjusted upward, the damage potential becomes astronomical. Upon relating these figures to the limited resources of the residents of the Apalachee Region, it becomes apparent that local governments must extensively promote the NFIP in there counties. 70 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Public assistance 13 available for communities who have surfer d extensive public facility damage as a result of-a major hurricane. Public assistance eligibility depends upon whether the damaged facilities create a negative impact on the public's health, safety and welfare, and the financial ability of that community to repair the damage. Funds for public assistance are usually available in the form of Community Facilities Loans. these loans are allocated on a cost sharing basis between state and federal government. The federal government will provide 75% of the assistance and the state 25%. This section quantifies the need for public assistance based on replacement costs for the following categories: water facilities; wastewater facilities; electric utilities; transportation facilities; nursing homes; hospitals and government owned facilities. A. Replacement Costs Most public facility replacement costs are provided by FEMA. Limitations are placed on grants so that facilities are restored only to pre-event condition. All public service facilities may be covered by the programs previously mentioned in the Federal Assistance Programs Section. 71 B. Methodology The methodology for determining replacement costs of public facilities in each county differs from the methodology used in determining individual assistance needs. Phase One of the Hurricane Loss Study listed the sum value and location of various facilities, but did not estimate damage based on storm scenarios. In determin-ing facility replacement costs, the value of each different facility was summed. That monetary figure was disaggregated into percentages from 10 to 100 in intervals of ten. This method may be of more use than basing damage estimates on storm scenarios, because an actual storm will never accurately simulate a model scenario. An assessor can dete rmine the amount of damage (for example) to hospitals. If he estimates that all hospitals in Leon County are damaged by 30%, the corresponding dollar figure is available in the following table under Leon County in the category Hospitals. The amount of monetary assistance required can than be distributed by the various federal assistance programs. C. Water Facilities Immediate restoration of water supply facilities is 'critical to a community in its post event condition. People failing to store adequate quantities of potable water have to rely on treating water themselves.' Insufficient treatment can lead to adverse health effects to much of the population, which can 72 further cripple a region after a storm. Table 24 estimates replacement costs to water facilities based on the percentage damaged. Table 24 WATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $201,800 10% $958,663 20% $403,600 20% $1,917,326 30% $605,400 30% $2,875,989 40% $807,200 40% $3,834,652 50% $1,009,000 50% $4,793,315 60% $1,210,800 60% $5,751,978 70% $1,412,600 70% $6,710,641 80% $1,614,400 80% $7,669,304 90% $1,816,200 90% $8,627,967 100% $2,018,000 100% $9,586,630 73 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $662,910 10% $399,120 20% $1,325,820 20% $798,240 30% $1,988,730 30% $1,197,360 40% $2,651,640 40% $1,596,480 50% $3,314,550 50% $1,995,600 60% $3,977,460 60% $2,394,720 70% $4,640,370 70% $2,793,840 80% $5,303,280 80% $3,192,960 90% $5,966,190 90% $3,592,208 100% $6,629,100 100% $3,991,200 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $93,620 10% $63,400 20% $187,240 20% $126,800 30% $280,060 30% $190,200 40% $374,480 40% $253,600 50% $468,100 50% $317,000 60% $561,200 60% $380,400 70% $655,340 70% $443,800 80% $748,960 80% $507,200 90% $842,580 90% $570,600 100% $936,200 100% $634,000 74 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $110,960 10% $227,082 20% $221,920 20% $454,164 30% $332,880 30% $681,246 40% $443,840 40% $908,328 50% $554,800 50% $1,135,410 60% $665,760 60% $1,362,492 70% $776,720 70% $1,589,574 80% $887,680 80% $1,816,656 90% $998,640 90% $2,043,738 100% $1,109,600 100% $2,270,820 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $89,610 20% $179,220 30% $268,830 40% $358,440 50% $448,050 60% $537,660 70% $627,270 80% $716,880 90% $806,490 100% $896, 100 75 D. Waste Water Facilities Storm damage to waste water treatment plants can lead to widespread sanitation problems. Untreated wastes, loose as a result of flooding, can cause outbreaks of various negative health affects. The immediate restoration of waste water facilities is crucial to a county during its post event condition. Table 25 determines the cost of repairing each county's sewage treatment facility by percentage and monetary value. Table 25 WASTE WATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $163,000 10% $4,708,000 20% $326,000 20% $9,416,000 30% $489,000 30% $14,124,000 40% $652,000 40% $18,832,000 50% $815,000 50% $23,540,000 60% $978,000 60% $28,248,000 70% $1,141,000 70% $32,956,000 80% $1,300,400 80% $37,664,000 90% $1,467,000 90% $42,372,000 100% $1,630,000 100% $47,080,000 76 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $952,000 10% $1,472,000 20% $1,904,000 20% $2,944,000 30% $2,856,000 30% $4,416,000 40% $3,808,000 40% $5,888,000 50% $4,760,000 50% $7,360,000 60% $5,712,000 60% $8,832,000 70% $6,664,000 70% $10,304,000 80% $7,616,000 80% $11,776,000 90% $8,568,000 90% $13,248,000 100% $9,520,000 100% $14,720,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $175,000 10% $13,000 20% $350,000 20% $26,000 30% $525,000 30% $39,000 40% $700,000 40% $52,000 50% $875,000 50% $65,000 60% $1,050,000 60% $78,000 70% $1,225,000 70% $91,000 80% $1,400,000 80% $104,000 90% $1,575,000 90% $117,000 100% $1,750,000 100% $130,000 77 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $909,000 10% $340,600 20% $1,818,000 20% $681,200 30% $2,727,000 30% $1,021,800 40% $3,363,600 40% $1,362,400 50% $4,545,000 50% $1,703,000 60% $5,454,000 60% $2,043,600 70% $6,363,000 70% $2,384,200 80% $7,272,000 80% $2,724,800 90% $8,181,000 90% $3,065,400 100% $9,090,000 100% $3,406,000 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $166,000 20% $332,000 30% $498,000 40% $664,000 50% $830,000 60% $996,000 70% $1,162,000 80% $1,328,000 90% $1,494,000 100% $1,660,000 78 E. Public Utilities An effective post disaster electrical facility replacement plan can reduce a municipality's post storm recovery time. Table 26 examines the electric facility replacement costs for the counties in the Apalachee Region. Table 26 ELECTRICAL FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $803,923 10% $26,480,482 20% $1,607,846 20% $52,960,934 30% $2,411,769 30% $79,441,445 40% $3,215,692 40% $105,921,868 50% $4,019,615 50% $132,402,409 60% $4,823,538 60% $158,882,890 70% $5,627,461 70% $185, 363,372 80% $6,431,384 80% $211,843,736 90% $7,235,307 90% $238,324,336 100% $8,039,230 100% $264,804,818 79 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $886,850 10% $9,718,549 20% $1,773,700 20% $19,437,098 30% $2,660,551 30% $29,155,647 40% $3,547,400 40% $38,874,196 50% $4,434,251 50% $48,592,746 60% $5,321,102 60% $58,311,294 70% $6,207,951 70% $68,029,844 80% $7,094,800 80% $77,748,392 90% $7,981,652 90% $87,466,942 100% $8,868,502 100% $97,185,491 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $574,776 10% $56,826 20% $1,149,553 20% $113,652 30% $1,724,329 30% $170,477 40% $2,299,106 40% $227,304 50% $2,873,882 50% $284,127 60% $3,448,658 60% $340,954 70% $4,023,345 70% $397,779 80% $4,598,212 80% $454,608 90% $5,172,988 90% $511,430 100% $5,747,764 100% $568,255 80 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $1,035,025 10% $369,069 20% $2,070,050 20% $738,138 30% $3,105,076 30% $1,107,207 40% $4,140,100 40% $1,476,276 50% $5,175,127 50% $1,845,345 60% $6,210,152 60% $2,214,414 70% $7,245,178 70% $2,583,482 80% $8,280,200 80% $2,952,552 90% $9,315,229 90% $3,321,620 100% $10,350,254 100% $3,690,689 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $85,250 20% $175,000 30% $255,750 40% $350,000 50% $426,250 60% $511 500 70% $596,750 80% $700,000 90% $767,250 100% $852,500 F. Transportation Facilities Although not as important in the Apalachee Region, the revitalization of transportation facilities is important to an area to move possible assistance supplies and people in and out the disaster area. Transportation facilities do not include road networks, only structures such as airports and bus stations. Table 27 examines the replacement costs for transportation facilities in the Apalachee Region. Table 27 TRANSPORTATION FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $9,000 10% $200,000 20% $18,000 20% $400,000 30% $27,000 30% $600,000 40% $36,000 40% $800,000 50% $45,000 50% $1,000,000 60% $54,000 60% $1,200,000 70% $63,000 70% $1,400,000 80% $72,000 80% $1,600,000 90% $81,000 90% $1,800,000 100% $90,000 100% $2,000,000 82 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $24,000 10% $6,210 20% $48,000 20% $12,420 30% $72,000 30% $18,630 40% $96,000 40% $24,840 50% $120,000 50% $31,050 60% $144,000 60% $37,260 70% $168,000 70% $43,470 80% $192,000 80% $49,680 90% $216,000 90% $55,890 100% $240,000 100% $62,100 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY HAS LIBERTY COUNTY HAS NO TRANSPORTATION NO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FACILITIES 'A 83 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $10,162 10% $106 20% $20,324 20% $212 30% $30,486 30% $318 40% $40,648 40% $424 50% $50,810 50% $530 60% $60,972 60% $636 70% $71,134 70% $742 80% $81,296 80% $848 90% $91,458 90% $954 100% $101,620 100% $1,060 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $16,100 20% $32,200 30% $48,300 40% $64,400 50% $80,500 60% $96,600 70% $112,700 80% $128,800 90% $144,900 100% $161,000 84 G. Nursing Homes Nursing homes provide care for patients whose needs are unique. Nursing home residents are difficult to evacuate because they require special care and in some cases untransportable machinery. Table 28 exhibits the damage estimates by percentage of nursing homes in the counties of the Apalachee Region. Table 28 NURSING HOME REPLACEMENT COST WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $370,000 10% $1,290,000 20% $740,000 20% $2,580,000 30% $1,110,000 30% $3,870,000 40% $1,480,000 40% $5,160,000 50% $1,850,000 50% $6,450,000 60% $2,220,000 60% $7,740,000 70% $2,590,000 70% $9,030,000 80% $2,960,000 80% $1,032,000 90% $3,330,000 90% $1,160,000 100% $3,700,000 100% $1,290,000 8S GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $180,000 10% $710,000 20% $360,000 20% $1,420,000 30% $540,000 30% $2,130,000 40% $720,000 40% $2,840,000 50% $900,000 50% $3,550,000 60% $1,080,000 60% $4,260,000 70% $1,260,000 70% $4,970,000 80% $1,440,000 80% $5,680,000 90% $1,620,000 90% $6,390,000 100% $1,800,000 100% $7,100,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST Liberty County has no 10% $180,000 nursing home facilities. 20% $360,000 30% $540,000 40% $720,000 50% $900,000 60%, $1,080,000 70% $1,260,000 80% $1,440,000 90% $1,620,000 100% $1,800,000 86 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $370,000 10% $180,000 20% $740,000 20% $360,000 30% $1,110,000 30% $540,000 40% $1,480,000 40% $720,000 50% $1,850,000 50% $900,000 60% $2,220,000 60% $1,080,000 70% $2,590,000 70% $1,260,000 80% $2,960,000 80% $1,440,000 90% $3,330,000 90% $1,620,000 100% $3,700,000 100% $1,800,000 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $380,000 20% $760,000 30% $1,140,000 40% $1,520,000 50% $1,900,000 60% $2,280,000 70% $2,600,000 80% $3,040,000 90% $3,420,000 100% $3,800,000 87 H. Hospitals In the event a major hurricane has caused any degree of personal injury or fatalities, a hospital must be at peak operating capacity. Table 29 gives a cost by percentage estimate of hospitals in the Apalachee Region. Table 29 HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY There are no hospitals DAMAGE COST in Wakulla County 10% $17,380,000 20% $34,760,000 30% $52,140,000 40% $69,520,000 50% $86,900,000 60% $104,280,000 70% $121,660,000 80% $139,040,000 90% $156,420,000 100% $173,800,000 88 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $41,000,000 10% $3,100,000 20% $82,000,000 20% $6,200,000 30% $123,000,000 30% $9,300,000 40% $164,000,000 40% $12,400,000 50% $205,000,000 50% $15,500,000 60% $246,000,000 60% $18,600,000 70% $287,000,000 70% $21,700,000 80% $328,000,000 80% $24,800,000 90% $369,000,000 90% $27,900,000 100% $410,000,000 100% $31,000,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY HAS NO HOSPITALS HAS NO HOSPITALS 89 17RANKLIN COUNTY GULF COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $4,340,000 10% $880,000 20% $8,680,000 20% $1,760,000 30% $13,020,000 30% $2,640,000 40% $17,360,000 40% $3,520,000 50% $21,700,000 50% $4,400,000 60% $26,400,000 60% $5,280,000 70% $30,380,000 70% $6,160,000 80% $34,720,000 80% $7,040,000 90% $39,060,000 90% $7,920,000 100% $43,400,000 100% $8,880,000 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $700,000 20% $1,400,000 30% $2,100,000 40% $2,800,000 50% $3,500,000 60% $4,200,000 70% $4,900,000 80% $5,600,000 90% $6,300,000 100% $7,000,000 90 I. Government Owned Facilities Many of the post-disaster assistance programs are administered out of go vern ment owned f a ci 1 i t i es. Tab 1 e 30 gi ves a da ma ge estimate by percentage for these facilities in the nine counties of the Apalachee Region. Table 30 GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS WAKULLA COUNTY LEON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $9,000,000 10% $55,000,000 20% $18,000,000 20% $110,000,000 30% $27,000,000 30% $165,000,000 40% $36,000,000 40% $220,000,000 50% $45,000,000 50% $275,000,000 60% $54,000,000 60% $330,000,000 70% $63,000,000 70% $385,000,000 80% $72,000,000 80% $440,000,000 90% $81,000,000 90% $495,000,000 100% $90,000,000 100% $550,000,000 91 GADSDEN COUNTY JACKSON COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $230,000 10% $6,800,000 20% $460,000 20% $13,600,000 30% $690,000 30% $21,400,000 40% $920,000 40% $28,200,000 50% $1,150,000 50% $35,000,000 60% $1,380,000 60% $41,800,000 70% $1,610,000 70% $48,600,000 80% $1,840,000 80% $55,200,000 90% $2,070,000 90% $62,000,000 100% $2,300,000 100% $68,000,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $300,000 10% $1,800,000 20% $600,000 20% $3,600,000 30% $900,000 30% $5,400,000 40% $1,200,000 40% $7,200,000 50% $1,500,000 50% $9,000,000 60% $1,800,000 60% $10,800,000 70% $2,100,000 70% $12,600,000 80% $2,400,000 80% $14,400,000 90% $2,700,000 90% $17,200,000 100% $3,000,000 100% $18,000,000 92 GULF COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY DAMAGE COST DAMAGE COST 10% $2,900,000 10% $1,270,000 20% $6,800,000 20% $2,540,000 30% $9,700,000 30% $3,810,000 40% $11,600,000 40% $5,080,000 50% $14,500,000 50% $6,350,000 60% $17,400,000 60% $7,620,000 70% $20,300,000 70% $8,890,000 80% $23,200,000 80% $10,160,000 90% $26,100,000 90% $11,430,000 100% $29,000,000 100% $12,700,000 CALHOUN COUNTY DAMAGE COST 10% $2,250,000 20% $4,500,000 30% $6,750,000 40% $9,000,000 50% $11,250,000 60% $13,500,000 70% $15,750,000 80% $18,000,000 90% $20,250,000 100% $22,500,000 93 CONCLUSION Public Facility replacement costs in the Apalachee Region are modest in relation to the rest of the state because of the low density population figures. Regardless of the region's stature, immediate restoration of any public facility is of great importance as a community attempts to return to its pre-storm condition. 94 I I I I I SECTION II. Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Policy Plan: Prevention of Future Loss I I I I i d -4 A .4 95 Introduction This section formulates policies that can guide both development and post hurricane redevelopment. Compliance with these suggested policies should ensure that the counties in the Apalachee Region reduce and avoid property losses in the event of a hurricane. This section consists of seven parts. The first part contains a developed methodology for reviewing a development's impact on life and property based on its location and hurricane vulnerability. Next, potential sites for the relocation of facilities will be examined, followed by a subsection to guide the location of construction away from hurricane vulnerable areas. Public acquisition techniques and recommendations make up the fourth part. The fifth section contains growth management tools available to counties who may be developing sound mitigation practices. After the planning tools are examined, a county by county inventory of existing mitigation-aimed planning will be analyzed. The final section includes the formulation of hurricane hazard mitigation policies to guide development in hazardous areas. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT This section contains a methodology for reviewing future 97 development, based upon potenti al hurricane hazard vulnerability. Included i s a m e a n so fassessing the development's potential impact on life and property, according to its location, as well as impact on hurricane evacuation routes, population density and shelter capacity. A. Procedure The recommendation for development in a high risk area may depend on the threat to both life and structures. A determination of this threat can be accomplished through an analysis based on a project's impacts upon the following: 1) evacuation time and routes; 2) population and shelters. To accomplish this analysis developments have to be d i v i d e d into different vulnerability zones, predetermined in the Apalachee Regional Hurricane Evacuation Flan. The plan depicts two levels of vulnerability, A and B. All land area in Level A is subject to flooding in hurricane intensity's of 1 or 2.(See appendix D for the Saffir Simpson Scale description). All area contained in region B is subject to flooding in a level 3-5 intensity hurricane. B. Assessment of Evacuation Time and Routes For coastal development, impact on population evacuation time is critical. The affected coastal counties in the Apalachee 98 region are Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla (Jefferson County has no coastal population). Although populations in the coastal counties are relatively low, transportation routes are limited and may flood well in advance of a hurricane's arrival. The impacts and recommended policies are dependent on the precise location of the project as related to hurricane vulnerability based on the previously described zones, level A and B. Level A Developments in level A zones, usually beaches and barrier islands, must be scrutinized to a greater degree than projects located inland. These regions are likely to be inundated during a category 1 or 2 storm, whose probability is greater than a higher intensity storm. Policies concerning development in A zones must be very stringent because there are few non structural -mitigation techniques that would be of use in these regions. Development assessment must be based on the increase in evacuation time for the area. The following list contains a methodology for measuring impacts in this fashion: 1.) Assess existing evacuation time for the zone in which the project is located. 2.) Determine the evacuation time for the proposed project and the subsequent increase in the evacuation time for the zone with the project added. 99 3. Assess the impact that transportation improvements provided by the applicant will have upon evacuation time. 4.) Assess the area's warning system, and time it takes for the population at risk to be notified to evacuate. 5). Assess potential improvements that the developer may have on warning systems; improved evacuation routes or suitable hurricane shelters. Approval for development must be based on the evacuation network and further delays in clearance times. Table 31 shows clearance times in the Apalachee Region ranging from 4.5 to 11 hours depending on the intensity, location, and forward speed of the hurricane. If a development accessively impedes clearance time for a high risk area, modifications should be enacted to minimize clearance time impacts. Level B Most of area B in Apalachee is only moderately populated. Since the :region is growing, it can be anticipated that future coastal development will intensify. Developments in this area will slow evacuation time by tying up roadways that residents located in the more hazardous A zone use to evacuate. This situation can cause further problems, because the surge in a 100 TABLE 31 CLEARANCE TIMES (IN HOURS) REGIONAL REGIONAL VULNERABILITY LEVEL VULNERABILITY LEVEL RESPONSE CURVE A B RESPONSE CURVE A B GULF A-Quick'Response 4 1/2 4 3/4 GADSDEN A-Quick Response 4 1/2 4 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 7 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 71/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 10 1/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 101/2 FRANKLIN A-Quick Response 5 5 1/2 LIBERTY A-Quick Response 4 1/2 5 112 COUNTY B-Quick Response 8 7 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 7 1/2 C-Slow Response I 1 10 1/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 10 1/2 WAKULLA A-Quick Response 4 1/2 5 CALHOUN A-QuickResponse 4 1/2 6 COUNTY B-QuickResponse 7 1/2 7 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 8 1/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 10 112 C-51ow Response 10 1/2 10 1/2 JEFFERSON A-Quick Response 4 1/2 4 1/2 JACKSON A-QuickResponse 4 1/2 4 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 7 1/2 COUNTY B-Medium Response 7 1/2 7 1/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 10 1/2 C-Slow Response 10 1/2 10 1/2 LEON A-QuickResponse 5 6 1/4 COUNTY B-Medium Response 8 8 C-Slow Response 11 11 L113ERTY COUNTY qb%*:: so 0 a es 00 0 VOL-it so jelco *ft. so* so - 00 48 0 so Of oves4*so&o MAP 2: FLOOD VULNERABILITY ZONES FOR FRANKL LEGEND Is 0 ow,* a**:*:*:* LEVEL "A" FLOODIM; LEVEL $aaso FLOODING L n Primary Shelters 0 *Poadway Critical Links 20T ja3illio AOMPOCIM AlNnoo sina rjailo4g Aistulid Waooi:i ,S,, 13A31 Waowu ,v,, i3ni QN303r "IM ul 110*s 91D*S 014doil) 0 711MOD aqnD HOa SaNOZ X1IUI9VURNqflA GOOqa E c1vw 0.2 0 0 1JOd jet 30 lot Illit D443114040M IT ALIN NnoH-Wa MID EO RG 1A LOU to 10 in 0 Be to z 19 z 0 U Soo***# *::sees goft X X9 A Graphic Scale Scale In Miles MAP 4: FLOOD VULNERABILITY ZONES FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY LEGEND LEVEL "A Ek B" FLOODING JEFFERSON COUNTY Primary Shelters Roadway Critical Links 104 LtON COUNTY Crawleffillm too t to', X.. to 0 0 0 *04000*#, 0 0 00 oetlco Of 0 LEGEND LEVEL %10 FLOODING LEVEL "Ir FLOODING primary shelters Roadway critical Linko orephle scale Iltell In Miles MAP 5 FLOOD VULNERABILITY ZONES FOR WAKULLA COUNTY 7: J WAKULLA COUNTY 105 level 3-5 storm is greater, and arrives earlier than with lower intensity storm, thus clearance time must begin earlier in order, to avoid getting trapped due to flooding, tree fall and road washout. In order for developments in this zone to obtain approval there are three suggested options they should meet: 1. Construct on site shelters above the maximum surge levels, providing shelter for both area A and B residents; 2. Improve existing evacuation routes; and 3. Construct structures whose minimum floor elevation are above maximum flood base elevation for a 100-year storm. C. Assessment of Population and Shelter Adequacy The vulnerability a proposed development creates for future residents must include an analysis of existing shelters and their adequacy to handle residents in the event of a hurricane. Methodology for determining this impact includes the following: 1. An assessment of available shelter space in areas outside of the vulnerable area. If the development causes existing shelter space to be inadequate, additional shelter space should be provided by the developer; 2. Assuming that adequate shelter space is currently available, the proposed population impacts are then analyzed. This analysis includes the projects expected 106 population that will require and seek shelter and assumes that 45% of the population will be required to s e e k s h e 1 t e r if a s t o r m is forecasted to strike (Apalachee Region Hurricane Evacuation Study); and 3. If the shelters in zone A or B which the project is located in exceeds capacity, then the developer will either have to participate in the creation of new shelters or be recommended for denial. Of the over 300,000 people in the Apalachee Region over 60,000 w i 11 be required to seek shelter in a major hurricane. Currently there is adequate shelter space to accommodate those seeking refuge, but if the population at risk increases and shelter space does not, new facilities will have to be constructed. In the event of a catastrophic storm, however, it is doubtful that the region can handle victims from outside such as Perry, Ft. Walton or Panama City. Recommendations The DRI process incorporates some evacuation issues within its application for development approval process. Although very few exist in the Apalachee Region, coastal DRI's have the biggest impact on transportation and shelter facilities. The following issues are specifically addressed within this region's DRI process; 1) what impact will the development have on the evacuation of developed region in the event of a storm? 2) What 107 impacts will the development have upon the availability of shelter space? 3) What are the impacts on flood proofing needs caused by the statistical 100-year storm. These questions have to be adequately addressed before the Application for Development Approval can be declared sufficient by the RPC. Other policy recommendations concerning evacuation time and shelter space that should be considered are: Shelters: 1. Shelters shall be designed to withstand the winds of a catastrophic storm. 2. Shelters should be equipped with necessities such as water, food, communications and electrical generators. Evacuation: 1. Developers shall include plans for evacuation and indicate the adverse effects their development will have on evacuation networks ( as required in the DRI process). 2. Evacuation routes s h a 1 1be p u tin an o r d e r of priority. 108 RELOCATION SITES Failing to relocate hurricane damaged or structures vulnerable to hurricane damage, can amount to great costs for a locality. Generally, a municipality will allow post-storm reconstruction to take on characteristics, such as site and architecture, similar to those in its pre-storm condition, 1 e a v i n g development vulnerable to recurring structural damage. To prevent this a community must identify sites for structural relocation, and consider the economic feasibility of placing certain facilities in low risk regions. Relocation can be cost ineffective if it involves either moving large structures, or encountering resistance by private owners to move. This section identifies sites in the Apalachee Region suitable for the relocation of the following structures: damaged housing; water facilities; waste water treatment; health care facilities; electric facilities; emergency facilities, educational facilities; custodial care facilities; and transportation facilities, based on factors such as costs, vulnerability and suitability of the recommended location. Development located in zones that would be inundated during a category one or two storm should be considered for relocation. Probabilities are far greater for a modest hurricane to strike as opposed to a catastrophic one, thus only those facilities located in regions that would be inundated during either a 109 category one or two storm should relocate, as this section will discuss. A. Damaged Housing Housing units located in river f lood plains, areas vulnerable to storm surge, and regions that can be flooded by standing water are candidates for relocation. Wind damage does not factor into relocation decisions because all of the Apalachee Region would be impacted by hurricane force winds. The most vulnerable regions in Apalachee to flooding and wind are the coasts of Franklin, Gulf and Wakulla Counties. Unfortunately most of the housing units within these counties are located along the coast or rivers, the most vulnerable areas to storm surge and flooding. Populations locate along the coast for aesthetic and economic reasons, and would be very unwilling to relocate. Local Government rules and regulations should require dwelling units to either be elevated, or relocated to safer areas. The most important issue is strict enforcement of Federal, State and County regulations for coastal development. a. Wakulla County In Wakulla County the land slopes up to the northwest. Coastal communities should encourage redevelopment to expand in this direction through zoning regulations and growth limitations. Coastal areas should also find ways to obtain tracts of land 110 suitable for the relocation of mobile home communities, who suffer the greatest damage in the event of a storm. b. Franklin County In Franklin County the land immediately to the north of the current residential areas should be considered for the relocation of housing units. Further inland, swampy conditions exist over large areas, so new development and relocation are only possible a short distance away from the coast where it is still vulnerable to storm damage. Residents on barrier islands should either elevate their structures, or move them back behind dune lines. Those who live on the islands usually purchase their homes so they can live on the beach, and probably would not be willing to relocate, regardless of the storm probability. H e r e ,e 1 e v a t i o n requirements and density restrictions should be enacted to eliminate further potential storm damage costs. c. Gulf County In Gulf County, protected to a small extent by St. Joe spit, not as many dwelling units are vulnerable to low intensity storms. Alternatives here include the elevation of structures and tax incentives that encourage residents to relocate inland. Strict enforcement of the Gulf County Coastal Control Line program should be undertaken on St. Joe peninsula. no one should be allowed to degrade the primary dune system without first receiving a permit from DNR. d. Inland Counties Inland Counties, where riverine flooding is a possibility, should practice structural mitigation techniques rather than relocation. The probability of the occurrence of riverine flooding is substantially less then storm surge, thus relocation may not be cost effective. Communities such as Blountstown, partially located in the floodplain, should not promote development within flood-prone areas, but instead encourage growth into low risk regions. The feasibility of relocating manufactured residential units must also be considered. Mobile homes are obviously the easiest to move and relocate. Most of the land these communities are located on is rented, thus compensation may not be required. Another plus when considering mobile home relocation is the amount of available low risk land in the region suitable for mobile home parks. Moderate sized homes cannot be moved as easily as mobile homes. Here compensation will have to occur, and a new lot purchased by the homeowner. The unit on the acquired lot can either be 112 demolished, or a new elevated unit may be constructed. B. Water Facilities There are two costs levied when relocating water facilities. First there is the cost of relocating the entire facility. Second, there is the cost of piping water f rom the new site out to the population. Failing to relocate results in repair costs to hurricane damaged facilities and the inability to supply water to the public. Most of the water supply facilities in the Apalachee Region utilize groundwater extraction. The hazards to groundwater extraction depends on the depth of the well; deeper aquifers generally cannot be contaminated in the event of a hurricane. Table 32 identifies water facilities in the Apalachee Region located in areas vulnerable to either storm surge or riverine f looding, based on inf ormation contained in part one of the Apalachee Region Hurricane Loss Study. It must be noted that many of the listed f aci lit ies are businesses, such as restaurants. It is recommended that these facilities either move the business along with the water facility, or switch to an alternate source of water supply. 113 TABLE 32 PUBLIC WATER FACILITIES LOCATED IN HIGH RISK Z ONE S APALACHEE REGION COUNTY FACILITY NAME LOCATION COUNTY FACILITY NAME LOCATION - - ------------ - --------------- CALHOUN JACKSON AIRPORT MOTEL BLOUNTSTOWN APALACHEE CORRECTIONAL INST. U.S. 90 CAPT. TON'S BLOUNTSTOWN PARAMORE LODGE SR 271 SCHOLZ ELECTRICAL S.E. COUNTY FRANKLIN SNEADS WATER SYSTEM SNEADS ALLIGATOR POINT U.S. 98 THREE RIVERS PARK SR 271 ANNAWEEKE FOUNDATION U.S. 98 CITY OF APALACHICOLA S.R. 384 JEFFERSON BAY NORTH U.S. 98 NONE BAYVIEW U.S. 98 BREAKAWAY LODGE APALACHICOLA LEON BUCCANEER INN ST. GEORGE BLOUNT'S LANDING TALQUIN CARRABELLE SYSTEM CARRABELLE COE'S LANDING TALOUIN CARRABELLE PARK CARRABELLE FORT BRADEN SCHOOL SR 20 EASTPOINT WATER DISTRICT EASTPOINT LEWIS HALL LANDING TALQUIN GULFVIEW CAMPGROUND EASTPUINT RIVER BLUFF PICNIC AREA SR 20 LANARK VILLAGE LANARK WILLIAM'S LANDING TALLAHASSEE SEABREEZE MOTEL EASTPOINT SPORTSMAN'S LODGE EASTP01NT LIBERTY ST. GEORGE IS. PARK ST. GEORGE NONE ST. GEORGE UTILITIES ST. GEORGE WAKULLA GADSDEN OCHLDCKNEE STATE PARK S.W. SECTION CHATTAHOOTCHEE REST AREA CHATTAHOOTCHEE PANACEA WATER SYSTEM PANACEA GULF CAPE SAN BLAS CAMPING PORT ST. JOE CAPE SAN BLAS WATER CR 30 HIGHLAND VIEW WATER DIST. HIGHLAND VIEW INDIAN PASS CAMPGROUND PORT ST. JOE LIGHTHOUSE UTILITIES PORT ST. JOE CITY OF PT. ST. JOE PORT ST. JOE ST. JOSEPH PARK PORT ST. JOE WILLIAM J. RISH PARK PORT ST. JOE 114 C. Waste Water Treatment Facilities Relocation of wastewater facilities involves the movement of the transport system that carries wastes from structures to the main facility. Sub-regional plants probably cannot be relocated in the region due to a low usage rate, which makes moving costs prohibitive. Plants that use evaporation/percolation ponds should not be located in an area that may be subject to category one or two level storms. In the event of a storm the ponds will likely overflow contaminants into various water systems, Threatening human drinking supplies. Waste water treatment plants that are nearing the end of there lifetime function should not be relocated. The replacement plant, however, should not be located on the same high risk area. Table 33 indicates the wastewater treatment facilities in the region that are located in high risk zones. D. Health Care Facilities Table 34 indicates the health care facilities and hospitals in the Apalachee Region located in high hazard zones. Hospitals and nursing home facilities are generally too large to relocate. The only effective mitigation technique is to wait until the facility has deteriorated beyond its use, and rebuild the new structure outside high hazard zones. Notice that some of the facilities listed in table 34 are publicly owned and lis TABLE 33 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES LOCATED IN HIGH RISK REGIONS APALACHEE REGION COUNTY NAME LOCATION TREATM ENT FRANKLIN ALLIGATOR POINT PANACEA AERATION APALACHICOLA, CITY OF APALACHICOLA TRICKLING FILTER BUCHANEER INN - ST. GEORGE ISLAND AERATION CITY OF CARRABELLE CARRABELLE STP EASTPOINT WATER DIST. EASTPOINT CONTACT STABILIZATION LANARK VILLAGE LANARK VILLAGE AERATION ST GEORGE ISM RESTAURANT ST. GEORGE ISM SEPTIC TANK 3DO OCEAN MILE ST. GEORGE ISLAND AERATION VILLAS OF ST. GEORGE ST. GEORGE ISM AERATION GADSDEN 1-10 REST FACILITY CHATAHOOTCHEE CONTACT STABILIZATION GULF BARRIER MKS CAPE SAN BLAS AERATION GULF AIRE BEACON HILL CONTACT STABILIZATION CITY OF PT. ST. JOE PORT ST. JOE PRIMARY DIGESTION LIBERTY LIBERTY HEALTH CARE BRISTOL AERATION WAKULLA ANGELO'S RESTAURANT PANACEA SEPTIC SYSTEM BAYSIDE VILLAS PANACEA AERATION OYSTER BAY SHELL POINT CONTACT STABILIZATION PARADISE VILLAGE SHELL POINT AERAT10N SHELL POINT SHELL POINT AERATION 116 some are privately owned. Governments have greater control over publicly owned facilities, and can select suitable locations for redevelopment. E. Electrical Facilities It is uneconomical to relocate electrical substations and power generating facilities. Power stations have to be located within close proximity to population centers. If the facility were to be relocated, there would be added expenses in obtaining easements for power lines, and boosters for transport stations. Electrical facilities in the region are for the most part away from high risk areas. Table 35 indicates electrical facilities in the Apalachee Region located in moderate risk areas. For these facilities structural mitigation techniques, such as placing brick walls around the substations, are recommended. This should protect the facility from floating debris that can damage the facility in the event of a major storm. For cooling purposes major power stations must be located near a water source. There are only two generating stations located in The Apalachee Region. Both of these sites are in Leon County next to the Ochlocknee River, where riverine and lake flooding are controlled by a dam. 117 TABLE 34 HOSPITALS AND NURSING HONES LOCATED IN HIGH RISK AREAS APALACHEE REGION NAME COUNTY TYPE MANAGEMENT_] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE E. WEEMS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FRANKLIN HOSPITAL PUBLIC ANEEUAKEE, INC. FRANKLIN HOSPITAL PUBLIC APALACHICOLA HEALTH CARE CENTER FRANKLIN NURSING N.A. GULF PINES HOSPITAL GULF HOSPITAL PRIVATE BAY ST. JOSEPH CARE CENTER GULF NURSING N.A. TABLE 35 ELECTRICAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN HIGH RISK AREAS APALACHEE REGION NAME OF COMPANY TYPE OF FACILITY COUNTY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES BLOUNTSTOUN SUBSTATION CALHOUN CITY OF BLOUNTSTOUN N.A. CALHOUN FLORIDA POUER CORP. APALACHICOLA SUBSTATION FRANKLIN FLORIDA POUER CORP. OCHLOCKNEE SUBSTATION FRANKLIN FLORIDA POUER CORP. EASTPOINT SUBSTATION FRANKLIN FLORIDA POIJER CORP. BEACON HILL SUBSTATION GULF FLORIDA POIJER CORP. PORT ST. JOE SUBSTATION GULF FLORIDA POIJER CORP. PORT ST. JOE IND. SUBST. GULF GULF POIJER CO. SCHOLZ SUBSTATION JACKSON FLORIDA POIJER CORP. JACKSON BLUFF SUBSTATION LEON TALQUIN ELECTRIC LAKE JACKSON SUBSTATION LEON FLORIDA POUER CORP. SEMINOLE ASPHALT IJAKULLA 118 F. Educational Facilities Because most educational facilities are owned by local governments, relocation encouragement through land use regulations does not apply. Rather than rebuilding in vulnerable a r e a s , 1 o c a 1 governments f i n a n c i n g t h e reconstruction of hurricane damaged schools must closely examine other options. Because of their size, schools generally cannot be relocated. When the old facility has outlived its usefulness, land can be obtained for construction of a new unit, while the old structure is rehabilitated and converted to other uses. G. Custodial Care Facilities In the Apalachee Region, relocation of custodial care facilities is not a major issue. It is up to various governmental agencies not to locate in regions where they risk hurricane damage. H. Transportation Facilities Relocation of transportation facilities is not a major issue in the Apalachee Region. Ports along the coast have to be located in high risk areas, however, there are mitigation techniques that can be enacted by loc*alities to minimize damage to boats. Ports must develop boat tie down policies to immobilize them in the event of a major storm. Airports in the region are located inland away from high risk zones. One major bus facility is located in downtown Tallahassee, outside of any flood hazard area. Conclusion Governments must closely examine where major public and private facilities are located that provide service to the general public. Hurricane surge and flooding as well as erosion of the land must be closely examined pending development approval for any type structure. Where possible, major facilities should be relocated from barrier islands and the coastal fringe to secure location in the interior of counties. Where this is not possible due to size and cost, A suitable replacement location should be selected, so at the end of the structures life-cycle the new structure has been constructed and is functioning. 120 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES People locate along coastlines, rivers and lakes for aesthetic reasons. Local governments are encouraged to guide development toward sites that are both suitable for construction and away from the potential damages that can accompany a hurricane. This section identifies potential sites in the region suitable for the relocation of hurricane vulnerable development. A. Inland Counties The greatest threat to inland counties in the event of a hurricane are strong winds. The entire Apalachee region is at risk to hurricane force winds. All structures risk wind induced damage in the region. The enactment of stringent building codes would be more feasible than future development location guidelines in the inland counties. B. Coastal Counties Lands vulnerable to hurricane induced flooding need to limit, or halt growth. Storm surge can reprofile coastal lands to the extent of completely removing all structures located there. There are extensive areas in the Apalachee Region susceptible to this form of destruction. 121 St. George Island, Dog Island and other barrier islands in the region are the most dangerous places to be during a hurricane because they risk being entirely cutoff from assistance for an extended time. Coastal areas such as Wakulla County, that have no barrier islands to buffer some of the storm effects, have the greatest potential for storm surge damage. The surge heights around Panacea and St. Marks under certain storm scenarios may reach as high as 63 f eet. All coastal areas in the Region, however, w i 11 experience great surge heights depending on the hurricane's intensity, direction of movement and the condition of the tides. Guiding development away from regions vulnerable to even modest hurricane induced damage is a difficult task. In the coastal counties, especially Wakulla and Franklin, land away from the coast is either under public ownership, or wetlands unsuitable for development. Crawfordville and Wewahitchka are the only communities of modest size located away from the gulf in a coastal county. Since the region's coastal counties do not have adequate tracts of land to locate future development on, they may have to enact various growth management tools such as density limitations and growth caps. 122 PUBLIC ACQUISITI'OK OF HIGH HAZARD SITES Public land acquisition is the only absolute method of preventing development in high hazard areas. This section first identifies the characteristics of high hazard areas. Next, various federal, state and local Government public acquisition programs are reviewed, followed by suggested methods for local governments to obtain private land f or public use. Sources of land acquisition funding are than examined, followed by a county by county review of existing land purchasing programs. Finally, a status report of various tracts of coastal lands is analyzed. A. High Hazard Regions As previously described, high hazard areas, for purposes of this study, are those regions that risk being inundated by hurricane induced flooding. These lands include barrier islands, coastal areas, land adjacent to river floodplains, and low lying areas. 1. Barrier Islands Barrier islands undergo the greatest amount of physical change during a hurricane. On many occasions, all structures located on barrier islands can be completely destroyed due to a shift shoreward. Construction on barrier islands is far more risky than developing anywhere on the mainland, because the island can both 123 r ece i ve the s tor m Is in i t i al surge and w inds a n d experience this physical shift. Due to these dangers, barrier islands should be high on all public acquisition priority lists. 2. Shoreline Unprotected coastal regions receive the blunt of incoming hurricane intensified surge waters. Depending on the location, hurricanes can be accompanied by a 25-35 foot surge, and waves in some instances that may reach 50 feet. Beach resort areas that locate on the shoreline can be devastated by one hurricane. To prevent the occurrence of this destruction, various acquisition programs should be enacted to keep coastal lands free from development. 3. River Flood Plains Lands adjacent to rivers are subject to periodic flooding, which may inundate property and displace homeowners. Traditionally in the Apalachee Region inland flooding has not been a major problem. The mouth of rivers such as the Ochlocknee, Apalachicola and Aucilla experience the greatest flooding due to surge, but this report classifies those regions as shoreline. Land adjacent to rivers should rank lower on priority lists for public acquisition than coastal areas. Where there is a chance of flooding, however, local governments should consider stringent land use regulations. 124 4. Low Lying Areas There are many low lying areas, excluding coastal areas, in the Apalachee Region. These include areas such as Southern Franklin County, which has extensive wetlands. These regions will likely remain in their natural state because of the unsuitable- nature of the land for development. Non coastal low lying areas should be ranked below other high hazard zones on various land acquisition priority lists. B. Public Acquisition Programs Acquiring private lands for public use will ensure the land will remain free of development. Land acquisition may be a direct or indirect form of hazard mitigation. Direct methods of hazard mitigation through land acquisition occur when governme nt obtains land specifically to prevent development in a region that is vulnerable to hurricane induced f looding. Indirect hazard m i t i g a t i o nthrough 1 a n d acquisition occurs when land is obtained for an alternative use. The alternative use does not allow development to occur, minimizing the worry of hurricane induces structural damage. There are several methods through which land acquisition may occur. These methods include; eminent domain, purchase of easements, exclusive use regulatory measures, compensation 125 regulations, tax techniques etc. The source of funding for these acquisition programs depends upon the level of government involvement and the intentions behind the purchase. Under some programs cost may be shared among various combinations of local, state or federal government. Most programs, however, are financed through a specific unit of government. To follow is a profile of state, local and federal land acquisition programs and methods by which they are f inanced. Federal Programs Under the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Section 1362, the Federal Government can acquire flood, or hurricane damaged lands. To be purchased by the Federal Government, land must be covered by the National Flood Insurance Program and meet one of the following criteria: a. The structure must be damaged beyond repair by flood waters; b -The structure must have had flood damage on not less than three occasions during a five year period while covered by NFIP. Each time the structure was flooded the cost of repair must have been at least 25% of the total value; C. Local or State Government law must prevent repair of property from a single storm; and d. Local or state ordinances permit repair only at a significantly increased cost to the owner. 126 2. State Acquisition Program The majority of Florida's land acquisition programs are indirect methods of hazard mitigation. These programs will purchase undeveloped flood hazard regions that are either environmentally sensitive, or have positive aesthetic value. They are then transformed into recreational areas, or left in their natural state. This form of land acquisition is not directed at hazard mitigation, but restricting development on public lands eliminates potential structural damage in the event of a storm. In Florida the four major land acquisition programs include the Conservation and Recreational Lands(CARL), Land Acquisition Trust Fund(LATF), Save our Coast(SOC) and Save our Rivers(SOR) program. a. Conservation and Recreational Lands The CARL land acquisition program(under 253.023 F.S) is the most active in the State. Environmentally sensitive, ecologically delicate and recreationally desirable are the major categories of land purchased through the program. There are presently over 70 tracts of land on CARL's priority list for land acquisition. These lands may be acquired through outright purchase or eminent domain, some of the tracts in the Apalachee Region include: Wakulla Springs, Wakulla County; Aucilla and 127 Wacissa Rivers, Jefferson County; and after completion of a boundary design, parts of the Apalachicola Bay Waterfront, which may include Nick's Hole, Cat Point, East Hole, Small Point Bayfront, City of Apalachicola Bayfront, Sike's Cut, designated lower Apalachicola parcels and Gadsden County Glades. Funds for CARL come from an exise tax on the - severance of oil, g a s , phosphates and minerals. b. Land Acquisition Trust Fund Less active than the CARL program, The LATF generally purchases flood prone areas to transform them into recreational sites. The intentions of the trust fund are no t aimed at direct hazard mitigation, but in exclusively purchasing shoreline properties, development is kept out of vulnerable areas. The program is administered through the Department of Natural Resources who obtain funds from selling and leasing state resources. c. Save Our Coasts Inducing positive coastal growth patterns in the interest of conservation and preservation are the intentions behind the Save our Coasts program. High risk'coastal lands often fall into this category. As of the beginning of 1986, 278 acres of the St. Joseph peninsula in Gulf County was the only*tract in the Apalachee Region on the SOC priority list. Fundi ng is provided through the Land 128 Acquisition Trust Fund. d. Save Our Rivers The Save our Rivers land acquisition program was developed under section 373-590, F. S. which requires water management districts in Florida to design a priority list directed at purchase of land for water management, supply and conservation. Funds are available through the Water Management Lands Trust Fund. e. Private Non Profit Land Acquisition Programs The two principle non profit land purchasers in Florida are the Trust for Public Lands and the Nature Conservancy. These organizations may keep the land they purchase for their own intentions, or sell it to local state or federal government. Purchases are usually oriented toward pre-servation and conservation instead of hazard mitigation, but governments who obtain land from them may have hazard mitigation intents 3. Local Government Land Acquisition Because of the limited financial resources of many local governments in the Apalachee Region, local land acquisition programs are generally not feasible. These governments depend upon the well funded state land acquisition programs to protect their high risk lands. This section examines the 129 various county issues in the region concerning land acquisition. Calhoun County Calhoun County has no coastal areas, so land acquisition is not a major issue. The Apalachicola River forms the eastern boundary of the county. Flooding from the river has generally not been a problem in the past, but Blountstown lies in a vulnerable area that could be flooded in the event of a major storm. Although not critical, the County could prohibit Blountstown's further encroachment toward the river floodplain by acquiring land, which may not be possible because of high costs. The County has a large quantity of federally owned land within the Apalachicola Forest where development will not occur. Franklin County Franklin County has not had the opportunity to develop a local land acquisition program. As previously mentioned, State and Federal Government has specific interests in the County. St. Vincent, St. George and Dog Island, the Apalachicola River Basin and the Apalachicola National Forest all are owned by either State or Federal Government. Other County lands, being the most fragile in the region, are on priority lists of various land acquisition programs. 130 Gadsden County For purposes of hurricane damage mitigation, Gadsden County is in no need of a land acquisition program. There are lakes in the County, however, where development can be flooded under heavy hurricane induced rainfall. The County may wish to acquire some lake and river front property in areas subject to flooding. Gulf County There are currently no local land acquisition programs in Gulf County. The Federal Government recently donated Beacon Lighthouse Property, Dead Man's Curve and some property at White City. These properties were acquired as a result of recurring flood damage. Because of the coastal location and vulnerability to storm damage, many State land acquisition programs are interested in Gulf County lands, ranking various properties high on priority lists as previously mentioned. Jackson County Being a substantial distance inland, developing a local land acquisition program is not vital to Jackson County. The Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers form the eastern 131 boundary of the County. This land is currently undeveloped and still can be protected through an acquisition program. Flood probability from the river, however, is minimal. Jefferson County Jefferson County, similar to the other counties in the region, has no land acquisition program. the county has five miles of coast all in the St. Marks National Wildlife Refugee, which is protected from development. Most of the land suitable for development in the County is either owned by timber companies, agricultural or under public ownership. The Wacissa River and Aucilla River Sink are two areas ranked high on the priority list of state land acquisition programs. Leon County Unlike the rest of the region, Leon County may have the financial resources to participate in a local land acquisition program. In order to obtain private lands the County requests dedications as a part of the subdivision review process. This land is transformed into either public facility siting or a recreational site. Because there are no storm induced flood hazards in the County, a land acquisition program is not required. 132 Liberty County Most of the land in Liberty County is either owned by St. Joe Paper Company, or is in the Apalachicola National Forest. With the exception of some areas adjacent to the Apalachicola River, the populated areas of the county are not subject to flood hazards, so land acquisition is not a major concern. The Northwest Florida Water Management District, however, has recently purchased floodplain areas along the Apalachicola River in southern Liberty County. Wakulla County Wakulla County, when reviewing construction permits, will often require a dedication of land as a condition for development approval. This allows for growth, but limits its occurrence in high hazard regions. A number of high risk regions in Wakulla County are on land acquisition program priority lists. The state's interest in the county, coupled with the thousands of acres within the Apalachicola National Forest will insure most of the undeveloped high hazard regions in Wakulla will remain that way. Methods of Land Acquisition In acquiring private land for public use a unit of government must consider time and money. Some techniques are cheaper in the short run, but may be challenged by time 133 consuming litigation, rendering them cost inefficient. The appropriate method depends upon the individual unit of government and the inherent characteristics of the land. Listed below are the various methods of public land acquisition. 1. Fee Simple Acquisition Fee simple land acquisition involves the outright transfer of property rights from a private owner to government at market rate or below. There are two methods by which this may be accomplished. First, the owner is given the opportunity to voluntarily sell his property title. If this is not successful the government may acquire the land by the second method, eminent domain. This method is often met with resistance and usually spends substantial time in litigation. Fee simple land acquisition gives government 100% control of the land. The problem with the acquisition of high hazard coastal land is cost. Obtaining coastal property at existing market rates is usually beyond the financial resources of most local governments. If the local unit of government possesses the financial resources to purchase the property, they often cannot afford maintenance costs that accompany the management of a public accessed area. 134 2. Leasebacks Leasebacking is another form of fee simple land acquisition. When a local unit of Government purchases a tract of storm damaged property, they may lease it back to the previous property owner at a low rate, providing he takes into account hazard mitigation measures during reconstruction. 3. Partial Lot Acquisi tion Partial lot acquisition grants government complete control of a section of private property, allowing the owner to remain on the rest of the tract. Government will use this method of acquisition to keep development out of either environmentally sensitive areas or lands under the 100-year flood plain. Owners of tracts that have wetlands or land unsuitable for development , on which taxes are paid, are often willing to sell to local governments in order to reduce costs. D. Financing Land Acquisition 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered through the U.S. Department of Interior and Florida's Department of Natural Resources. This program primarily supports the purchase of coastal lands, thus is a direct form of hazard mitigation. The program is funded on a 50% 135 matching basis between the State and Federal government. Revenues come from user fees at Federal recreational s i t e s ,sale of surplus lands, marine fuel tax, and offshore leasing programs. 2. Resource Conservation and Developlent Program The Resource Conservation and Development Program is administered through local offices of the Soil Conservation Service. Financial assistance is available for land acquisition if it deals with resource con-servation measures. Funds are available through regional branches of the Soil Conservation Service who coordinate with the Florida Department Agriculture on a 50% matching basis with the community. Water Resource Development Funds The Water Resource Development Funding program is one of few land acquisition financing programs intended for hazard mitigation. Money is channeled through the Corps of Engineers to local governments, aiding them in the purchase of lands located in the floodplain. The eligibility requirements, however, are stringent, making it difficult for local governments to obtain this type of funding. The Corps of Engineers coordinates with both the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the directly with the community involved. 136 4. Florida's Water Management Trust Fund The Florida Water Management Trust Fund is used for land acquisition by Florida's five Water Management Districts. Monies are obtained from stamp taxes, deeds and land transactions by the Department of Environmental Resources. Lands are purchased primarily for water management purposes, water supply and protection of water resources. 5. Conservation and Recreational Lands Trust Fund The Conservation and Recreational Lands Trust Fund is set aside for acquisition of lands on the coast near urban sites. The fund is used to protect areas that are marshy, estuarine, in state parks or recreation areas, public beaches, sensitive ecosystems, archaeological sites or state forests. 6. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Losses The Watershed and Flood Prevention Losses financing program is administered through the Farmer's Home Administration. This program assists local governments in acquiring land for flood hazard mitigation. Rock Creek of the Torreya region in Liberty County is ranked 7th on the trust fund's priority list as of the beginning of 1986, 137 B. Coastal Land Inventory of Franklin and Gulf Counties Table 35 is a coastal land inventory prepared 6 years ago by the Department of Coastal Zone Studies at the University of West Florida. The intent of the project was to locate coastal property for public acquisition. At the time of the study Wakulla and Jefferson County did not have coastal construction lines,-thus are absent from the study. The delineation of these lines preceded the inventory. The inventory profiles Gulf and Franklin County's ocean- front tracts. The tracts are sized in linear footage and deter-mined to be either developed or undeveloped property. It was also determined if the tracts were publicly owned or not. Several criteria were used to determine priority lists for public acquisition, they included; coastal construction control line impact, erosion, public access, development status, geomorphology and property size. Three parcels in Apalachee were singled out, including Yon's Subdivision, North Cape San Blas and an area just East of Cape San Blas. Conclusion An intense public acquisition can be successful in the Apalachee Region because of the abundance of undeveloped coastal lots. Working in the Apalachee Region's favor are the large amounts of undeveloped coastal lots. State and County 138 TABLE 36 COASTAL LAND INVENTORY OF THE APALACHEE REGION GULF COUNTY LOCATION DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED LINEAR LENGTH OWNERSHIP BEACON HILL EAST x 600' BEACON HILL x 1000, BEACON HILL x 700' BEACON HILL x 200' BEACON HILL x 2500' BEACON HILL x 100, YON'S SUBDIVISION x Z600' YON'S SUBDIVISION x 100, E. OF YON'S SUBDIVISION x 8200' ST. JOSEPH STATE PARK 46700' STATE S. OF ST. JOS. ST. PARK x 2600' S. OF ST.JOSE. ST. PK. x 500, NORTH OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 24800' CAPE SAN BLAS x 1700' CAPE SAN BLAS 2200, FEDERAL CAPE SAN BLAS 1000, FEDERAL CAPE SAN BLAS 2000' FEDERAL CAPE SAN BLAS 3700' FEDERAL E. OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 1800, E. OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 8400" E. OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 100, E. OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 7200' E. OF CAPE SAN BLAS x 1200' INDIAN PENINSULA x 13200' INDIAN PENIN M A x 1500, INDIAN PENINSULA x 3900, FRANKLIN COUNTY LITTLE ST. GEORGE ISLAND 14800' STATE LITTLE ST. GEORGE ISLAND 29500' STATE ST. GEORGE ISLAND CHANNEL 500, ST. GEORGE ISLAND x 20500' ST. GEORGE ISLAND x 19000, ST. GEORGE ISLAND x 11250' ST. GEORGE ISLAND STATE PK. 32950 STATE 139 governments have realized that it is desirable for land in this area to remain in its natural state through land acquisition. Although this is not a direct form of hazard mitigation, it does provide a buffer between hurricane surge and structures. Allowing land to remain in its natural state means large sums of monies are not spent on the revitilization of infrastructure and buildings that may be devastated in the event of a majo r storm. 140 GROWTH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES This section examines various growth management tools recommended for use by local governments as a means to promote sound hazard mitigation practices. The analysis will include: police power regulations, compensation programs, financial incentives and disincentives, taxing policies and various other methods to manage growth in coastal areas. A. Police Power Regulations Local governments can use their police power, which is the authority to regulate in order to promote the health, safety, welfare and morality of its citizens, in order to control development in high hazard areas. Some communities have faced legal challenges concerning the adoption of certain police power regulations. When government regulations unreasonably preclude a private property owner from all economical use of his land, the landowner may challenge through litigation. Past legal precedent favors land regulations enacted to prevent a public harm. Local governments who deny property owners certain development rights must prove that the restrictions they impose are for the protection of the general public. Zoning is the most common way by which government regulates private property through police power. The original intent of zoning was to separate incompatible land uses. Lately, governments have utilized zoning as an effective hazard 141 mitigation tool. Zoning may restrict building densities, heights and land use in sensitive regions such as coastal and floodplain areas. 1. Flood Hazard Zoning The hazards of development in a floodplain depend upon the intensity of construction and flood risk of the area. Generally, regulating floodplain development is viewed as preventing a public harm, usually within the bounds of local government authority. 2. Subdivision Regulations Through subdivision regulations local governments can monitor the division of large tracts of land into small parcels for development. By enforcing density limits and facility control, local governments can take into account the specific hazard vulnerability of the subdivision and regulate accordingly. 3. Overlay zones Overlay zones can be used during times of an emergency as interim regulations prior to the enactment of a revised zoning ordinance. Also known as floating zones, overlay zones are used while officials reexamine and determine the zoning policy of their region. 142 4. M.ixed use Zoning Mixed use zoning deviates f rom the traditional zoning pattern by allowing different land use intensities in a single zone. Mixed use zoning can create a clustering effect on coastal developments by combining setback lines and density limitations. Developers are restricted from building within a certain distance of the shoreline in return for lenient density limitations. B. Compensation Programs When regulations prevent individual property owners from using their land to its highest economic use, the court may require government to provide compensation. This type of litigation is both costly and time consuming. Courts must determine what rights government and the landowner have, and than determine who has control of the land, and how much compensation is required, if any. C. Financial Incentives and Disincentives Since the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate at the local level they must use indirect methods to control high risk development. The most effective way of encouraging local governments and private citizens to take into consideration hazard mitigation techniques when developing in high risk areas is the carrot and stick approach. Federal government may of f er funding, the carrot, in return f or local government land use regulation compliance with Federal intents. 143 The NFIP and CZMA (previously mentioned)are two programs that use incentive techniques to encourage localities to take into account hazard mitigation planning. The NFIP rewards communities who abide by minimum development guidelines through subsidized flood insurance. Under the CZMA, the Federal Government allocates financial assistance to those municipalities who plan their coastlines in accordance with Federal standards. If local Governments continue to utilize poor hazard planning techniques the Federal Government may enact the stick approach and revoke funding that local governmental entities have become dependent on. Threatening to revoke highway funding is the most common utilization of the stick approach. 1. Incentive Zoning Incentive zoning is used as a trade off between local government and developers. Often the developer is allowed to build at increased densities in high risk areas if he allocates land for some type of public benefit. Incentive zoning is primarily used in coastal regions to encourage development far behind the shoreline where structural damage from surge should be minimal. Some incentives the builder may receive in return for compliance are increased residential units per acre, increased floor space, street improvements, additional use types and favorable tax evaluations. 144 D. Taxing Policies Taxing programs can be used in a manner similar to the Federal government's carrot and stick approaches at the local level. Tax breaks may be used as a way to discourage developers from building in coastal regions. If a developer, within regulation, ignores local government mitigation-desires, local governments can stick him with unfavorable tax burdens. This section details how government can use various taxing methods to encourage effective hazard mitigation. 1. Abatements Tax abatements are used by a local government in post disaster situations.to ease some of the financial burdens of redevelopment. Those who suffer storm related damage can have their taxes reduced for the post hurricane period until they hav e economically recovered. 2. Exemptions Tax exemptions are enacted under more critical circumstances than abatements. When tax exemptions are imposed storm damaged lands are eliminated from the tax base. Through exemptions, monies originally intended to go to government can now be used by the property owner to aid in the recovery process. 145 3. Tax by Hazard Assessment Tax by hazard assessment is used by local government to levy taxes on properties in relation to their hazard vulnerability. Generally an assessor is hired who imposes taxes based on the properties risk calculation. This technique discourages floodplain development by making it financially unattractive to do so. 4. Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing reduces the tax rate of an area that has recently undergone extensive hurricane damage. Local governments will sell bonds and use the money to finance the reconstruction of an area. The debt on increment bonds is eliminated during reconstruction as the tax rate slowly increases slightly above base level. 5. Parcel Development Agreement Parcel development agreements are exchanges between a property owner and a local unit of government. Generally government will inspect an individuals house and inform him of necessary improvements directed at hazard mitigation that he must undertake before being allocated a tax break. E. Building Codes Building codes are enacted to protect the public from poor, unregulated construction. Enforced building codes can also aid in hazard mitigation planning if restrictions are placed in 146 order to minimize storm damage. Local governments usually abide by a standardized model building code. Local governments; however,'have the option of developing more stringent codes based on the unique characteristics of their locality. Regardless of what code a municipality chooses, it is their responsibility to regulate and enforce the code. There are various mo .del codes that municipalities may adopt. The Counties of the Apalachee Region generally abide by the Standard Building Code. The use of the code is based upon occupancy, location and type of construction. The Southern Building Code takes into account appendix m of the Standard Building Code. This is actually an initial effort to addrezz floodplain and high hazard areas within a building code. Under this subsection, buildings in high risk regions must acknowledge high water forces through elevation standards, anchoring standards, construction methods and record certification. A new code that has yet to be adopted by any of the coastal counties in the Apalachee Region is the Coastal Construction Code(CCC). Unlike standard building codes, the intentions of the CCC are directed at storm loss mitigation. Structures are required to be constructed so as to remain stable under storm 147 conditions, taking into consideration beach and dune stability. A shortcoming of this code, however, is that it is directed toward barrier islands and does not include coastline behind the islands. F. Other Techniques This section details other growth -management techniques that can be enacted by local governments as a form of hazard mitigation. 1. Impact Fees An impact fee is a trade off between a developer and local government. Under normal circumstances a developer is requi red to donate either land or public facilities such as roads,schools or infrastructure in return for development approval. In high risk areas, however, local government can direct t his technique toward hazard mitigation by requiring the developer to assist in the financing of mitigation measures based on the strain the development places on current facilities. 2. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of development rights enable a developer to increase construction densities on a receiving area of land by selling the property rights of restricted land. Local government are within the rights of their police power when using the transfer of development rights because the 148 developer usually takes no loss by selling the property. 3. Public Facilities Location A local government can encourage development in low risk areas by strategically locating necessary public facilities and limiting their service area. It is more expensive for a developer to generate his own facilities than to use ones provided by the city, so development tends to follow the pattern of city facilities. Locating public facilities in low risk areas will discourage development in and around the flood plains. 4. Special Development Districts Special development districts attach user fees to new developments planning to use city services and facilities. This enables a city to accommodate growth, yet keeps it in check. Special development districts also use eminent domain, taxing powers and land use controls to limit growth. 5. Hurricane Redevelopment District. A new concept in service district ordinances is the hurricane redevelopment district, used only in high risk areas. Within these districts the County Commission acts as the governing body. They first designate shore and beach preservation districts. Residents within the designated areas are charged up front fees that are earmarked for post storm restoration. This way residents in the lower risk 149 regions of a municipality will not be burdened with post disaster financing. Funds are also used for eminent domain land acquisition within the designated areas. 6. Sand Dune Regulations Sand dune regulations inhibit the encroachment of development onto the beach areas of a coast line. Vegetated sand dunes serve as an important buffer between the open ocean and inshore development. Sand dune regulations can reduce the impact from a major storm if they are designed to protect the vegetation and restrict development from within a certain distance. Septic Tank Regulations After a municipality develops a public facility siting plan, a developer may counter by providing cheaper private services to his residents. A city can discourage developers from locating in the higher risk areas by attaching demanding restrictions on the allocation of various facility licenses. Septic tank regulations are the most common of these restrictions. Making it difficult to obtain a license for the installation of private septic tanks may discourage flood plain development G. Imple!lentation Legislation Recent Florida legislation has attempted to address hazard 150 mitigation through numerous programs. These programs are designed to insure local governments are abiding by State and Federal desires, thus are effective at implementing hazard mitigation. 1. Local Government Comprehensive Planning and the Coastal - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Management Element Recent growth management legislation requires local governments to enact strict hazard mitigation policies. The Coastal Management Element of a region's Comprehensive Plan is one of the primary tools used to guide development in coastal areas. The Coastal Management Element is to address the following subjects. a. A map of areas subject to coastal flooding. b. An analyses of the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impact of development and redevelopment proposed in the future land use plan, including required infrastructure on natural historic coastal resources, along with measures designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts. a. Principles for hazard mitigation, including consideration of the population density subject to possible evacuation as proposed in the future land use plan. d. Principles for protecting existing beach and dune systems from man induced erosion, as well as restoring altered beach and dune systems. 151 e. Designation of high hazard coastal areas subject to destruction or severe damage from natural disasters, for which limitations on state expenditures will be imposed. f. Principles providing financial insurances that adequate public facilities will be in place to meet the demand imposed by development and redevelopment. 9. Identification of regulatory and management techniques, either adopted or proposed for adoption, to mitigate the threat to h u m a nlife,control development a n d redevelopment, give consideration to cumulative impacts, and protect the coastal environment. 2. Coastal Construction Program The Coastal Construction Program(CCP) is designed to control development seaward of the mean high water line(MHWL). All construction seaward of this line is subject to strict regulation based on the project's proximity to the MHWL. As stated in chapters 161 and 403, F.S. anyone wishing to undertake any type of development seaward of the mean high water line, must seek approval from the Department of Natural Resources. The permitting requirements are identified in the Florida Administrative Code. a. Coastal Construction Control Line The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 requires local municipalities bordering waterfronts to design a standardized building code for developments within the 152 coastal building zone,' defined as the land area from the seasonal high water-line to 1500 feet landward of the coastal construction control line(CCCL) on mainland areas, and 5000 feet on barrier islands. The zone for areas, like the Big Bend Area, with no CCCL consists of property seaward of the most landward portion of the velocity zone. Within this region all structures must be able to withstand 110 mph wind speeds at 30 feet off the ground, be above the flood zone and foundations must be able to survive wave, erosion and scourage forces that would accompany a 100 year storm. 3. Developments of Regional Impact The development of regional impact process allows State and Regional authorities to closely monitor projects of large magnitude. Through the DRI process the developer is required to take into account all of the adverse effects his development proposal will have on the surrounding region before he is granted development approval. DRI's can be an important hazard mitigation tool if the development order requires the builder to take into account the surge and flood risk as well as the hurricane evacuation issues of his property. Coastal construction projects, however, are generally under the DRI threshold, therefore mitigation regulations are far less stringent. 1S3 4. Areas of Critical State Concern A region whose preservation is of absolute necessity concerning conservation of the state's natural resources, may be designated as an Area of Critical State Concern by the State of Florida. In these regions local governments are delegated regulation enforcement. If the local government does not regulate up to state standards they lose their governing authority over the region. In the Apalachee region, Apalachicola bay is an area that has been designated one of Critical State Concern. Restrictions imposed on the area will insure that coastal development will remain minimal, reducing the potential of storm related structural damage. CONCLUSION The appropriate growth management tool concerning hazard mitigation depends upon the specific County and the site within that County. Land use planning techniques can deter development from high hazard areas, and thus prevent structural damage. Most of the Apalachee Region is undeveloped, so growth can be continually checked and guided in a manner that takes into account the real threat that hurricanes are to the area. 154 COUNTY MITIGATION MEASURES This section details the various ongoing hazard mitigation measures f or each county in the Apalachee Region as stated in their Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. A. Calhoun County Calhoun County does not have a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The vulnerability to hurricane induced damage in the county i s minimal, so the draf ting of the plan is not critical. Calhoun County is not forecasted to experience very much future growth. This coupled with the f act that a great deal of property is either publicly owned, or under paper company jurisdiction, means the County does not need to expend funds on enforcing ordinances concerning hazard mitigation. The only protective measures on-going in Calhoun County are the requirements set forth by the the NFIP. B. Franklin County The Franklin County Clerk of the Court is in charge of Emergency Management Administration. Due to the limited budget of the county the Clerk is only available on a part time 155 basis. His primary responsibilities include interpretation and execution of the guidelines and policies of the Franklin County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which is the basic format the County must follow under pre and post hazard conditions. According to the County Emergency Management Plan, assembled by DCA, the following agencies are charged with the corresponding functions concerning hazard mitigation: 1. County Commission: a. Restrict building in the 100 year flood zone through limited permit issuance; b. Instruct the Department of Planning and Zoning to maintain and update maps of all flood-prone areas; and c. Monitor and control density of development in areas which may have evacuation problems. 2. Office of Civil Defense: a. Act as the primary agency for mitigating hurricane associated hazards in the county; b. Keep the most current 100 year flood zone maps available for review; c. Provide information to the Department-of Planning and Zoning on the associated hazards in Franklin County in order to limit potential damage to persons and property; and d. See that hazard-related public information is disseminated to the general public in a timely manner. 156 3. Franklin County Planning, Zoning and Building Department a. Enforce building codes; and b. Review development for compliance with coastal setback criteria and building standards. Franklin County has imposed several regulations directed toward hazard mitigation. Some of the major ones include the following: a. Coastal density restrictions; b. Encouragement of vegetation planting on sand dunes, which will increase stabilization; c. Discourage the location of schools and public facilities along the coast; d. Compliance with the minimum requirements set forth by the NFIP, including elevation of minimum floor-space at least two feet above base flood elevation, and all structures must be able to withstand 140mph winds; e. Strict mobile home tie down specifications, and the restriction of mobile homes from velocity zones; f. No recreational vehicles in sand dune areas; and g. No development approval for developments with more than 20% of impervious service. Franklin County has been recognized by various forms of government as being both an environmentally delicate area and extremely susceptible to hurricane induced damage. The State of 157 Florida has recently designated most of the county as one of critical state concern. The Federal Government has taken notice as well, transforming a large portion of Apalachicola Bay into a National Sanctuary. The accompanying rules and regulations associated with these designations will limit development, minimizing the possibility of structural damage in the event of a major hurricane. C. Gadsden County Gadsden County is still in the process of developing a Hazard Mitigation Annex as part of their Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The county has a part time Emergency Management Director who would be the one responsible for hazard mitigation related activities. The Gadsde n County Comprehensive Land Use Plan is in the revision and update phase. On-going hazard mitigation measures include the following: a. Requirements set forth by the regular phase of the NFIP; b. Subdivision regulations; c. Enforcement of the Southern Standard Building Code; and d. Review of all proposed development based on criteria contained in an informally adopted land development code. 158 1). Gulf County Gulf County's Emergency Management Plan has been in ef fect since March 1985. The plan designates hazard mitigation responsibilities as belonging to the County Commission in conjunction with the Gulf County Civil Defense. The Council is currently working on site specific hazard mitigation plans and studies. The Gulf County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1974, lays down the following mitigation measures: a. Subdivision regulations and zoning restrictions during the development review process; b. Enforcement of the Southern Standard Building Code; and c. No mobile homes within the city of Port St. Joe. The contents of the plan do not address effective hazard mitigation policies. The plan lacks a Coastal Zone Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Future Land Use Element and a Utilities Element. There are various other ongoing hazard mitigation policies in the county including: a. Implementation of regulations associated with the Coastal Control Line which consists of six miles of mainland coast; and A 159 b. Meeting of requirements as designated by the regular phase of the NFIP. E. Jackson County Jackson County has yet to develop a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Jackson was the county in the region not under disaster declaration during the two hurricanes (Kate and Elena) of 1985. Because Jackson County is not vulnerable to the blunt of hurricane induced damage, innovative mitigation related regulations are not critical. F. Jefferson County The Jefferson County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, assembled by DCA, designates the hazard mitigation responsibilities of local agencies as follow: 1. County Commission: a. Restrict building in the 100 year flood zone through limited permit issuance; b. Instruct the Office of Building, Planning and Zoning to maintain and update maps of all flood prone areas; and c. Monitor and control density of development in areas which may hav e evacuation problems. 160 2. Office of Civil Defense: a. Act as the primary agency for mitigating hurricane associated hazards in Jefferson County; b. Keep the most current 100 year flood-zone maps available for review; c. Provide information to the Office of Building, Planning and Zoning to the associated hazards in Jefferson County in order to limit potential damage to persons or property; and d. See that hazard related public information is disseminated to the general public in a timely manner. 3. Office of Building, Planning and Zoning: a. Enforce building codes; b. Review development for compliance with set back criteria and building standards. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not adequately address hazard mitigation. On-going landuse regulations in the county dealing with hazard mitigation include: a. Subdivision regulations; b. Individual development review for compliance; C. Regulatory requirements of the regular phase of the NFIP; and d. Set-back line of 100 feet along the Aucilla River. 161 G. Leon County Leon County is well ahead of the rest of the region in emergency management. According t o t h eL e o n County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, hazard mitigation functions are the responsibility of the Department of Disaster Preparedness. The duties of the department include policy development, education and hazard mitigation information. They can also make recommendations concerning zoning and building codes. The Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan takes into account hazard mitigation. Guidelines laid down by the plan, and other on-going hazard mitigation measures taking place in the county include the following: a. Subdivision regulations; b. Storm water management ordinance; C. Sign regulations(size,height and location); d. Tree protection ordinances; and e. Requirements set forth by the regular phase of the NFIP. H. Liberty County The Emergency Management Plan for Liberty County, assembled by DCA, details the various agencies in the county involved in hazard mitigation and their responsibilities. These agencies 162 and their corresponding responsibilities are as follow: 1. County Commission: a. Restr i ct bu i ld i n g i n the 100 year f lood zone throu gh limited permit issuance; b. Instruct the Office of Building, Planning and Zoning to maintain and update maps of all f lood prone areas; and C. Monitor and control density of development in areas which may have evacuation problems. 2. Office of Civil Defense: a. Act as the primary agency f or mitigating hurricane associated hazards in Liberty County; b. Keep the current 100 year flood-zone maps available for review; c. Provide information to the Office of Building, Planning and Zoning to the associated hazards in Liberty County in order to limit potential damage to persons or property; and d. See that hazard related public information is disseminated to the general public in a timely manner. 3. Office of Building, Planning and Zoning: a. Enforce building codes; b. Review development for compliance with set back criteria and building standards. 163 Most of the land in Liberty County is rural in nature, with large tracts belonging to the National Forest and paper companies. The primary hazard mitigation measures within the County would be the requirements of the regular phase of the NFIP . I. Wakulla County The Hazard Mitigation Annex of the Wakulla County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, assembled in 1985, extensively addresses hazard mitigation. According to the Issue and Policy Development section of the Annex, The Director of Disaster Preparedness is to coordinate the overali effort to address hazard m i t i g a t i o nin Wakulla County. The Director's responsibilities include the following: 1. Work closely with the Florida Division of Emergency Management and other agencies whose responsibilities effect the success a n d implementation of hazard mitigation measures; 2. Assist in identifying problems with existing regulations or practices regarding community growth and development to avoid or reduce disaster potential from natural or manmade hazards; 3. Notify the Division of Emergency Management of problems affecting Wakulla County and if necessary, suggest 164 appropriate local and stated legislation to reduce the risk of life and property in areas where hazards reoccur; and 4. T h e 1 o c a 1 Director w i 11 w o r k c 1 o s e 1 y w i t h s t a t e regional and other agencies to effectively use the resources and their expertise necessary to address hazard mitigation. State, regional and local efforts will be accomplished through the Interagency Management Committee. The IMC in concert with its advisory arm, the Interagency Advisory Committee , will a c t as t h e interagency coordinative body in planning and directing hazard mitigation actions and programs. The Hazard Mitigation Annex of the County Emergency Management Plan lists the tasks of the various County agencies concerning hazard mitigation, they include: 1. The County Building Official will assure that z o n i n g requirements and limitations are consistent with anticipated hazards; 2. The County Attorney will stress the importance of proper legal measures employed prior to hazard situations; 3. The offices of Disaster Preparedness and building Official will stress the need of adequate insurance coverage; 4. The local Red Cross representatives and the Department of Disaster Preparedness will review designated evacuation shelters that will be made available for various hazard 165 situations; 5. The Office of Disaster Preparedness will maintain a checklist of resources that are available for various hazardous conditions; 6. The. Building Official and the Director of Disaster Preparedness will see that informative programs are initiated in stressing hazard mitigation; 7. The Director of the Department of Disaster Preparedness will assist in the development of state, regional and local hazardous mitigation policies affecting the several communities within the jurisdiction; 8. The Office of Disaster preparedness w i 11 s o 11 c i t the assistance of private agencies such as insurance contractors and others in the community who could assist in recognizing hazardous problems; 9. The Director will assume the responsibility of bringing to the attention of policy makers issues and programs affecting local growth and development; 10. The Director will encourage appropriate legislation at the local level to reduce the risk of lif e and property in areas vulnerable to the impacts of predictable, recurring hazards; 11. The Office of Disaster Preparedness will maintain a current file of local past and anticipated hazards; and 12. The Director will request state assistance in matters pertaining to hazard mitigation beyond the capability of local government. 166 The Hazard Mitigation Annex of the Wakulla County Emergency Management Plan states that hazard mitigation assessment in the county will consist of a four step pro-cess including a: Community Analysis, Emergency Analysis, Mitigation Needs Assessment and a Mitigation Strategy Development. Following is a summary of these four steps: 1. Community Analysis A community checklist of potential hazards and their effects on future changes should be examined. Review of this checklist is necessary to identify other emergencies or hazards that will have their future existence in the community. 2. Emergency Analysis Emergency analysis involves examining the nature and effect of hazards when they become emergencies. This involves the type of emergency the hazard caused, the affected population by impact, and health, and the impact on the property and the economy of the region. 3. Mitigation Needs Analysis The mitigation Needs Analysis is used to illustrate the opportunity for improving public health and safety by preventing, avoiding or protecting people and property from a disaster. 167 4. Mitigation Strategy Development Developing a mitigation strategy involves selecting from all the available resources and techniques that exist in the community. Aside from the Emergency Management Plan, Wakulla County enacted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1978 which includes the following mitigation measures: a. Coastal Zone Protection Element identifying the boundary of the coastal zone. -b. Coastal zoning restrictions. c. Subdivision regulations, related to hazard mitigation. Other ongoing hazard mitigation policies in Wakulla County include: 1 . A. se t back of 50 feet from the mean high water line for all coastal construction; 2. Coastal zone construction standards as prescribed under the Coastal Zone Protection act of 1985; and .3. Building requirements as set forth under the regular phase of the NFIP. 168 POLICY This section examines region-wide mitigation policies to guide future development and post hurricane redevelopment in areas vulnerable to hurricane induced damage. The Apalachee Regional Policy Plan fails to include hazard mitigation guidelines, so there are no adopted goals and guidelines. The f o 11 o w i n gsection includes recommended guideline policies that should be incorporated into the Regional Policy Plan, Local Comprehensive Plans and Peacetime Emergency Management Plans. *OBJECTIVE* To provide various hazard mitigation recommendations that local governments should consider depending on there r e 1 a t i v e location and specific hazard vulnerability. These recommendations, if implemented effectively, will decrease the probability of structural damage, increase the safety factor of the population, and keep periods of public service disruptions to a minimum in the event of a major hurricane. 169 the Plan A. New Development should: a. Be discouraged from occurring in high risk areas; b.- If in high risk areas be elevated one f oot above the minimum requirement of the NFIP; a. Keep the floor space below the first floor of elevated structures free from enclosure; d. Be able to withstand the wind forces of a category three hurricane; and e. Be part of an integrated hurricane evacuation and shelter plan. B. Hurricane reconstruction should: a. Be reassessed so not to be victim of recurring structural damage; b. If possible be relocated to a lower risk area; C. Be removed f rom city services if rebuilt in the same manner; d. Elevated higher, and built to withstand stronger hurricane forces than those that caused the initial damage; e. Be placed under more stringent growth management guidelines such as building codes and zoning regulations; and f. Be in compliance with existing land use regulations, even if a variance had been granted prior to the storm. 170 Local governments should: a Develop comprehensive land use plans that adequately address hazard mitigation through growth management techniques; b. Finish their Peacetime Emergency Management Plan which should cover goals and duties of those involved with hazard mitigation; C. Participate in the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program and enforce its residents to abide by its minimum requirements; d. Develop innovative ways to provide salaries to o f f i c i a 1 ssuch as planners, building inspectors and full time civil defense directors who can implement the intent of local Comprehensive Land Use Plans; e. Establish minimum criteria levels by which new development may degrade current evacuation routes, and base building permit issuance on that criteria; f. Adopt building codes which require structures to maintain themself in a category 3 hurricane; g. Establish interlocal agreements directed at maintaining the level of service for existing evacuation routes, mutual assistance to provide shelter space depending on the County affected and providing recovery assistance to one another based on need ; h Improve public awareness of the potential dangers of regional hazards and the necessary steps to prevent 171 structural repair costs in the event of the occurrence of that hazard; i. Discontinue public services to storm damaged areas to prevent redevelopment in high risk regions; j Establish a public acquisition priority list, and present it to State and Federal land acquisition program authorities accompanied by the criteria used to establish this list; k. Relocate public facilities out of vulnerable zones. This will discourage development from locating in high risk areas; 1. Enforce the requirements of various statewide programs that restrict development in f lood hazard areas through growth management tools such as subdivision regulations, setback 1 i n e s , T D R I s a n d z o n i n g ordinances. These programs include the Coastal Co nstruction Control Line Program, the Coastal Zone Protection Act, Coastal Building Zone, Florida's Beach Management and Erosion Control Program, Coastal Barrier Executive Order, and the Coastal Barrier Infrastructure Policy; M. Establish a plan that enables the provision of temporary housing and establishment of disaster field of f ices and application centers to occur in a timely manner in the aftermath of a major storm; n. Redevelop hurric .ane damaged facilities in high risk areas only to serve predisaster densities; 172 0. Enforce both impact fee payments to developers who lower the level of service for existing transportation networks, and fair-share payments to developers who degrade existing transportation standards; p. Establish density standards in all flood hazard areas; q. Monitor existing DRI's, if applicable, and report any deviations from the development order that would negatively effect the local hazard mitigation intents to the appropriate authoritative agency; r. Prohibit septic tanks from the 100-year flood plain. S. Develop and implement tree and vegetation ordinances which encourage native species to enhance sand accumulation and stabilization; and t. Not allow unrecorded subdivisions to be developed within their community. D. Development on barrier islands should: a. Have density limitations enforced; b. In no way alter the vegetation on sand dunes, nor the dune itself; C. Not be serviced by any public facilities; and d. If permitted, be landward of setback lines and elevated in compliance with minimum criteria established by the NFIP. 173 Individual homeowners should: a. Be aware of community hazard mitigation policies, and comply with them; b. Abide by local construction standards, such as building codes and elevation guidelines; C. Be aware of the location of DACs and DFOs as well as local shelters and evacuation routes; and d. Participate in public hearings dealing with local land use regulations, so they may have a say in community hazard mitigation. Developers should: a. Elevate structures in the 100-year flood plain to comply with FEMA criteria; b. Ensure pilings are placed far enough into the ground and steel reinforced; C. Comply with local land use regulations; and d. Dedicate shelters or improve evacuation systems prior to the completion of any project estimated to burden existing shelter space, or degradade the level of service of evacuation routes. Mobile homes should: a. Be adequately tied down and securely anchored; b. Be located out of designated V zones as depicted on NFIP maps; and C. Be apart of an integrated evacuation and shelter plan. 174 There are several other mitigation policies that have been mentioned in previous sections. If properly implemented these policies allow communities to locate in medium risk areas, yet greatly reduce personal injury and structural damage. 175 FINAL CONCLUSION When comparing the potential monetary losses resulting f rom hurricane induced destruction in the Apalachee Region with the rest of the state, the numbers appear small. This is a very misleading statistic when one considers the economic condition of the residents in the area. The population in Apalachee lacks the financial resources to adequately recover from structural damage that can occur during a major storm. Utilization of effective hazard mitigation techniques can prevent the stress on the limited finances of the Apalachee residents. If growth in the region is directed away from high risk areas, and mitigation practices are utilized on existing structures, than the disaster potential in Apalachee can be substantially lessened, minimizing recovery time and the need for post disaster assistance. 177 APPENDIX A The Three Periods of the Hurricane Recovery Process Immediate Emergency Period The immediate emergency period begins at storm strike and continues up to a f ew days af ter the storms arrival. During this period emergency rescue operations are undertaken, which may include immediate medical assistance, shelter provision and food allocation. In catastrophic storms there may be many casualty victims. In this event extensive search and rescue operations will be undertaken. Immediate assistance activities are carried out through an Emergency Operations Genter within each county during this primary phase. State Emergency Response teams working along side local government emergency groups allocate immediate emergency supplies though these centers. Disaster Field Offices take over the functions of these emergency centers once a disaster declaration is made. Short Term Restoration Period The short term restoration period begins a few days after storm strike and may continue for up to a month. During this period the disaster field office serves as the primary disaster 179 assistance center in each County under disaster declaration. When the president declares a region as a major disaster area, a greater variation of assistance programs are available out of the field offices. Field offices process damage assessment reports and coordinate the allocation of various assistance programs to disaster stricken areas. Disaster Assistance Centers are set up shortly after the field office has been established in counties under the President's disaster declaration. These centers are set up in buildings that are easily accessible by the public. The DACs accept application for disaster victims throughout the short range restoration period. Long Range Reconstruction Period The long range reconstruction period lasts until the stricken area is restored to pre hurricane condition. Most of the programs listed in the Federal Program Assistance section of the report are enacted during this period such as construction and removal of major structures. After this period the region usually has reobtained its social and economic stability. Within 180 days of the President's disaster declaration all state and local governments must submit a Hazard Mitigation Plan to the FEMA Regional Director. The Hazard Mitigation Plan must consist of a complete analysis of all damage that resulted 180 f rom the previous storm. The plan must also contain a hazard mitigation annex which reviews strategies for the enactment and implementation of storm mitigation measures. All future disaster assistance is conditioned on the rationality of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 181 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL 182 APPENDIX B Population Projections for the Apalachee Region Expected population growth in the Apalachee Region, ranges from slow in Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Jackson and Liberty Counties moderate in Gadsden and Jefferson Counties; to fast in Leon and Wakulla Counties. Local officials have to be aware of population projections in order to prepare an effective hazard mitigation plan for their area. POPULATION PROJECTIONS APALACHEE REGION COUNTY 1982 1?95 REGION 2?2,713 364,000 CALHOUN 9,270 9,60 FRANKLIN 7,894 91000 GUM 42,707 49,100 my 10,712 11,400 JACKSON 39,657 0,500 JEFFERSON 10,993 13,200 LEON 156,043 208,400 LIBERTY 4,353 4,M WAKULLA li,064 17,000 183 GRAPH 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 400- FOR THE APALACHEE REGION 71 250 - 200- N N N N NN N 2 N N 0- =9:m REG CAL FRK CAD CUL JAC JEF LEO LIB WAK COUNTY 1982 1995 N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N @ XI, 184 APPENDIX C VULNERABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THE APALACHEE REGION COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME TOTAL CALHOUN 2,355 75 760 3,190 FRANKLIN 2.987 380 1,110 4,477 GADSDEN 8,928 130 1,330 10,388 GULF 3,316 38 943 4,297 JACKSON 9,120 155 1,852 12,121 JEFFERSON 2,700 10 800 3,500 LEON 46,328 3,683 2,172 52,183 LIBERTY 980 52 448 1,480 UAKULLA 2,515 515 966 3,996 185 GRAPH 3 VULNERABLE HOUSING UNITS APALACHEE REGION 60- 50- 40- Li c M 0 U) 30 0 co CIN z -c 20- 10 - lz zZ-.Ilq 7-77-7-711 CAL FRK GAD GUL JAC JEF LEO LIB WAK SINGLE FAM. MULTI FAMILY MO.B. HOMES APPENDIX D The gaff ir Simpson scale, developed by Dr. -Herbert Saf fir and Dr. Robert Simpson, is used to categorize hurricanes based on their intensity. The scale ranges from 1 to 5, 1 being of moderate strength and five being a catastrophic storm. The following is an assessment of the categories and storm characteristics. Category 1- Winds f rom 74 to 95 miles per hour. Can cause debris from blown vegetation and tree branches. Mobile homes that are poorly anchored may be damaged. Surge waters can inundate coastal roads Category 2- Winds from 96 to 110mph. Damage may be in the form of tree fall, fallen signs and mobile home destruction. Storm surge can peak at 12 feet, inundating coastal evacuation routes. Category 3- Winds from 111 to 139mph. Damage to masonry homes, signs, mobile homes and buildings. Coastal structures may be 187 destroyed, including roads, bridges and public facilities. Surge will destroy boats, docks, marinas in addition to eroding beaches. Category 4- Winds range from 131 to 155 mph. Roofs, windows and doors of homes may be completely destroyed. Mobile homes will also be destroyed. An eighteen foot storm surge in some areas may create extensive flooding as far as 10 miles inland. Beaches are greatly modified, and total evacuation of all coastal residents is required. Category 5- Winds 155mph+. Catastrophic damage to residential, commercial and industrial structures. Total evacuation of all population within 10 miles of the coast. The Saffir Simpson Scale is used to categorize hurricanes based on their intensity. The scale ranges from 1 to 5, one being of moderate strength and five being a catastrophic storm. The Saffir Simpson Scale was developed by Herbert Saffir and Dr. Y Robert Simpson. The following is an assessment of the categories and the detriment accompanying it. 188 Category 1 Winds from 74 to 95 miles per hour. Can cause debris dislodging in the f orm of vegetation and tree branches. Mobile homes that are poorly anchored may be damaged. Surge waters can inundate coastal roads. Category 2 - Winds up to 110 mph. Damage in the f orm of tree f all, signs and mobile home destruction. Surge can peak at about 12 feet, inundating evacuation routes. Category 3 Winds up to 130 mph. Damage to masonry homes, signs, mobile homes and buildings. Coastal structures will be destroyed, including roads and homes. Surge will destroy evacuation routes and marinas. Category 4 Winds as high as 155 mph. Roof s, windows and doors of homes can be destroyed. All mobile homes completely uninhabitable. 18 foot storm surge may create extensive flooding as far as 10 miles inland. Beaches may be eroded. Total evacuation of 189 all coastal residents is required Category 5 Winds.155mph+. Catastrophic damage to residential, commercial and industrial structures. Total evacuation of all population within 10 miles of the coast. SAFFIR/SI?M HURRICANE SCALE CATEGORY SURGE (FT.) WIND SPED DAME 1 4-5 74-95 MINIMAL 2 6-8 96-110 MWATE 3 9-2 111-130 EXTENSIVE 4 13-18 131-155 EXTREME 5 18+ 155+ CATASTROPHIC 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ap alachee Regional Planning Council. Apalachee Regi 'on Hurricane Loss Study. September, 1986. Apalachee Regional Planning Council. Hurricane Evacuation Guide to Decision Making. 1984. Apalachee Regional Planning Council. Hurricane Evacuation Plan. 1984. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1985 Florida Statistical Abstract. University of Florida Press. Coastal Area 'Planning and Development Commission. A Coordination, Educational Model for Disaster Preparedness in Coastal Areas. September, 1980. Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. S t or m Preparedness Planning Guide. April, 1984. Coastal Resources Interagency Advisory Committee Working Group. Hurricane Post Disaster Case Study for Franklin County, Indian Rocks Beach and Cedar Key. January 13, 1986. Coastal Zone Studies at the University of West Florida. Comprehensive Erosion Control and beach Preservation and Hurricane Protection Plan for the State of Florida. 1984. Federal Emergency Management Agency. A Guide to Hurricane PrepaLedness Planning For State 'a n d L C(@Tf -6 f T -1- c ETTZ' December, 1984. Federal Emergency Management Agency. R.Lj@SsL 2.L Federal Disaster Relief Programs. 1982. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Volumes 1,2,5,6,11. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study For Franklin County. January, 1984. Federal Emer gency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study For Gulf County. December, 1982. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study for Wakulla County. June, 1986. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study for Leon County. June, 1982. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Guide For F 1 o o d Preparedness Planning. Febuary, 1983. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Perspectives on Hurricane Preparedness Techniques in Use Today. October, 1984. Florida Census of Housing. 1984. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Bureau of Planning. Post Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan For FLorida. 1986. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management Natural Disaster Section. Final Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan. July, .1984. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Planning. A local Officials Guide to Assessing Development in the Floodplain. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management. Floodplain Management in Florida. November, 1974. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management. State Temporary Housing Plan Procedures Manual. December,1979. Florida Departmen t of Community Affairs, Division of Public Safety and Planning Assistance. Hurricane Hazard Mitigation at the Local Level. October, 1980. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Public Safety and Planning Assistance. State of Florida Integrated Hurricane Evacuation Plan and Hazard Mitigation Program. 1982. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management. Selective Public Acqistition of Flood-prone Land and Structures in a Post Flood Situation. January, 1986. Franklin County. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. September, 1985. Gadsden County. Gadsden County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. January, 1987. Handmer John. The Identification of High Hazard Floodplain Areas for Possible Public Acqusition. 1985. Jefferson County. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. December,1985. Kellogg, Landon. Planning and Managing land Use in Developed Coastal Flood Hazard Areas. June, 1984. 192 Liberty County. ComRES!jSnsive Emer iency jj.@1!1,@jement Plan. June, 1986. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, office of Coastal Zone Management. Methods For Redevelopment of Dauphin Island After Frederick. cember 20, 1979. Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. Northeast Florida Hurricane Loss and Contingency Pi-a-n'ning Study. December, 1985. Rubin, Claire B. Natural Disaster RecoverL Ear Local Officials. vember, 1979. Salmon, Jack & Henningsen, Don. Prior Plannin.1 La!j Eost Hurricane Reconstruction. JanTTrT,-1987. South Florida Regional Planning Council. South Florida Hurricane Contingency Planning Study. June, 19C7. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Hurricane Loss Study 1984, Mitigation and Assistance. 1984. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Tampa Bax Regional Hurricane Loss and Contingenc.j-@lanning Study. October, T9Cf.-- United States Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Preparing for Hurricanes and Coastal Floods. March, 1983. United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resource and Technology. A Process For Community Floodplain Management. Nov emb;-e-r,--1-9'ff. United States Department of the Interior, Report to Congress. Coastal Barrier Resources System. March, 1987. Wakulla County Dept. of Emergency Preparedness. Wakulla County Peacetime Emergency Management Plan. T 6. West Florida Regional Planning Council. Hurricane Loss and Contingency Study. December# 1985. 193 t I I I I I 0 i I I I I . I I I I I i a - -, -- - -- r, . I @ 1 3 6668 14101- 8780 -