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







                                                                                                                   J4N 25

                                                                                                                  F7,
                                                      ORM HAZARD MITIGATION
                                                (S                     AND
                                       POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES





                                                       A  Report of a Project to the
                                                 Coastal Zone Management Program
                                              Florida Department of Community Affairs
                                               (Contract No. 930S-07-13-00-15-012)



                                                              January 15, 1994


                                                                         by



                                                 Robert E. Deyle, Assistant Professor
                                                                        and
                                                       Richard A. Smith, Professor

                                            Department of Urban and Regional Planning
                                                       The Florida State University

















                   Funds for this project were provided bV the Department of CommunitV Affairs, Florida Coastal Management Program,
                      using funds made available through the NOAA under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.















                                                 STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
                                                                      AND
                                       POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES





                                                      A Report of a Project to the
                                                 Coastal Zone Management Program
                                             Florida Department of Community Affairs
                                               (Contract No. 930S-07-13-00-15-012)



                                                             January 15, 1994


                                                                        by



                                                Robert E. Deyle, Assistant Professor
                                                                       and
                                                      Richard A. Smith, Professor

                                           Department of Urban and Regional Planning
                                                      The Florida State University

















                  Funds for this project were provided by the Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management Program,
                     using funds made available through the NOAA under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.










                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS



            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                i


            PREFACE                                                                                        xiii


            CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION                                                                           1


                           The Need for Coastal Storm Hazard Mitigation, 1
                           A Perspective on Po licy, 4
                           Overview, 13


            CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR STORM HAZARD
                           MITIGATION AND POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT, AND
                           STATE PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION                                          16


                           Introduction, 16
                           National Flood Insurance Program, 17
                           Disaster Relief (Stafford) Act, 32
                           Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 41
                           Summary, 47

            CHAPTER 3 A REVIEW OF CURRENT FLORIDA STATE POLICIES
                           AND PROGRAMS GOVERNING COASTAL STORM
                           HAZARD MITIGATION                                                               53


                           Introduction, 53
                           State Coastal Construction Permitting Programs, 61
                           Regulation of Land Use, 78
                           Planning & Regulatory Mandates, 80
                           Acquisition of Coastal Property, 86
                           Development of Capital Facilities & Infrastructure, 106
                           Economic Incentives, 127
                           Education & Information, 136


            CHAPTER 4 A REVIEW OF LOCAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS:
                           HOW WELL DO LOCAL PLANS MEET HAZARD MITIGATION
                           AND POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?                                      139


                           Introduction, 139
                           The Study, 140
                           Results: Correspondence to State Planning Mandates, 145
                           Conclusions: The Weaknesses of Local Plans, 158












            CHAPTER 5 IDEAS FROM OTHER STATES AND OTHER NATURAL
                      HAZARDS SITUATIONS                                    162


                      Introduction, 162
                      Regulation of Construction & Site Development, 163
                      Planning and Regulatory Mandates, 168
                      Acquisition of Coastal Property, 168
                      Development of Capital Facilities & Infrastructure, 174
                      Economic Incentives, 176
                      Information & Education, 179

            CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND POLICY OPTIONS             183


                      Introduction, 183
                      Summary of Current Policy Instruments, 183
                      Constraints to Achieving State Policy Objectives, 209
                      Options for Achieving State Policy Objectives, 227
                      Forging a Feasible Strategy, 255

            REFERENCES CITED                                                261



            APPENDIX A                                                      A-1










                                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




           In July, 1992, Bob Nave, then Director of the Division of Emergency Management, Florida

           Department of Community Affairs, prepared a draft issue paper on post-disaster redevelopment for

           discussion by the state's Interagency Management Committee. The premise of the issue paper was

           that the diverse array of statutes and administrative rules adopted to guide development and

           redevelopment within coastal high hazard areas of the state were not operating effectively.




           The discussion of the issues raised by Nave highlighted the significant costs that were accruing to

           the state as a result of current coastal development patterns. Adequate mitigation, it was argued,

           would reduce public costs by virtue of lower levels of storm damage to beaches, dunes, public

           facilities, and infrastructure, and would also reduce the public costs for emergency preparedness,

           response, and recovery. This strategy, however, would likely involve increased regulation of land

           use and development making it problematic from both legal and political perspectives. An

           alternative is a market based approach, in which public funds would be withdrawn from coastal

           high hazard areas so that the private sector would bear a larger proportion of the true costs of

           coastal development. As these costs mount, less development would be expected to occur.




           It is unlikely that public policy would follow one approach exclusively over the other. The state's

           interests in the public welfare and in the protection of life and property argue against a full

           withdrawal from a regulatory approach. The specific policy mechanisms that are available under

           each approach may present different issues in feasibility and effectiveness. Moreover, the variety

           of different environments within the state suggests that different approaches may work better in

           different locations. Both approaches, therefore, raise issues of what can be done, where, and with

           what expected results.




           Given this background, the Interagency Management Committee, utilizing funds available through










                 the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, awarded a contract to The Florida State University to

                 study and analyze both the existing array of state policy initiatives as well as the possibilities for

                 new policy initiatives concerning coastal development and storm hazards. This final report presents

                 that analysis and presents a set of policy options that could be adopted and implemented through

                 appropriate legislation and administrative rules.




                 The analysis is constructed upon an integrated policy framework of three dimensions: 1) desired

                 outcomes; 2) policy instruments; and 3) the context within which means are adopted and

                 implemented. Three goals from the existing statutory and regulatory framework are taken as the

                 guiding principles of the project and are summarized as follows: (1) to protect and preserve coastal

                 environmental resources; (2) to protect human life and property; and (3) to limit public expenditures

                 in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters. For each of the goals we identified a number

                 of policy objectives as initial statements of what should be achieved:




                         1) Protection of natural resources:


                                a) Protect the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment.

                         2) Protection of life and property:

                                a) Alter the coastal environment to reduce vulnerability to storms.

                                b) Reduce the vulnerability of buildings and facilities to storm damage.

                                c) Manage the development and redevelopment of land to minimize threats of

                                    storm damage.

                         3) Minimizing public costs:

                                a) Reduce the vulnerability of public capital facilities and infrastructure to storm

                                    damage.

                                b) Manage the development and redevelopment of land to minimize public costs of

                                    disaster planning, response, and mitigation.










                           c) Allocate public costs of storm hazards to private sector users in proportion to


                               risk.




           We organized the alternative policy instruments for achieving these storm hazard mitigation policy

           objectives into four general subject categories each including two specific types of means:




                   1) Regulation

                           a) Regulation of construction and site development

                           b) Regulation of land use


                   2) Mandate


                           a) Planning mandate

                           b) Regulatory mandate

                   3) Investment


                           a) Acquisition of coastal property

                           b) Development of capital facilities and infrastructure


                   4) Incentive


                           a) Economic incentives


                           b) Education and information.




           Policies relating to storm hazard mitigation contain a time dimension, characterized as either pre- or

           post-storm. Pre-storm policies that are designed to address hazard issues are those that focus on

           the initial development of land. Policies that address post-storm issues are concerned with those of

           redevelopment and relocation. The opportunities for realizing hazard mitigation policy objectives

           may differ at each stage of this temporal sequence. During the development stage the opportunity

           may exist to construct land use patterns over large tracts of coastal land, effectively influencing

           both the intensity and density of land development with respect to hazard issues. In contrast,










                  during the redevelopment phase, fewer land parcels are likely to be involved and existing use

                  patterns and investments may make the realization of hazard mitigation objectives more difficult.

                  Thus, the same means may be more effective at one particular stage of the cycle as a result of

                  differences in the development context.




                  Our framework suggests that two contextual features are particularly important. These are the

                  government jurisdiction applying the policy instrument (federal, state, and local) and the

                  characteristics of the environment within which the instrument is implemented. Three

                  characteristics of environments are distinguished as particularly relevant: level of development,

                  susceptibility to storms, and vulnerability to storm damage.




                  Our analysis begins with an elaboration of the analytic framework in Chapter 1. Current policies for

                  realizing these policy objectives are reviewed and evaluated in Chapters 2-4 according to our three

                  part jurisdictional distinction. Thus, in Chapter 2 we review and evaluate the content and operation

                  of federal programs that affect storm hazard policies. In Chapter 3 we review and evaluate the

                  history and current status of state.policy initiatives. In Chapter 4 we evaluate the policies of local

                  governments within the state through a content analysis of the coastal element of a selection of

                  local comprehensive plans. In Chapter 5 we review the initiatives for coastal storms and other

                  natural hazards occurring in other states, and in Chapter 6 we bring the separate parts of the

                  analysis together into a set of policy options for the State of Florida. Our purpose in this final

                  chapter is to suggest how state policy goals and objectives can be achieved through different

                  policy instruments, organized at various jurisdictional levels.




                  The policy options developed in Chapter 6 include the following. The final section of the report

                  presents configurations of these options in the context of the three state policy goals for storm

                  hazard mitigation.



                                                                      iv










            Option 1: Establish a dedicated source of state funds for purchasing properties that would be

            rendered unbuildable by strict enforcement of the state's coastal construction regulations.




            Option 2: Mandate conformance of local subdivision regulations with the 30-year setback and other

            locational requirements under the 50-year setback and CCCL permitting programs.




            Option 3: Impose relocation requirements comparable to those imposed under the grandfather

            provisions of the 30-year erosion setback rule, as permit conditions for all CCCL and 50-foot

            setback construction permits in areas with significant erosion rates.




            Ootion 4: Require relocation of habitable structures at sites with receding shorelines before they

            interfere with natural sand movement or intrude into the sovereign beach.




            Option 5: Amend the authorizing legislation for the Florida Communities Trust so that storm hazard

            mitigation is explicitly listed as an objective to be attained through the Trust's matching grants

            program for local land acquisition.




            Option 6: Create a separate dedicated source of state funds for acquiring parcels of coastal

            property primarily with the objective of mitigating public losses from storms.




            Ootion 7: Develop a state inventory of coastal properties that would be ranked highly for

            acquisition to achieve storm hazard mitigation policy objectives.




            Ootion 8: Amend the statutory authorization for the conveyance of development rights covenants

            and conservation easements to explicitly allow such transactions for the purpose of achieving

            storm hazard mitigation objectives.



                                                             V










                 Option 9: Obtain authorization from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to certify

                 structures as subject to imminent collapse under Upton-Jones provisions of the National Flood

                 Insurance Act (NFIA) and actively promote the program in cooperation with local governments.

                 Apply FEMA imminent collapse criteria rather than local condemnation criteria, and link the program

                 to the state's coastal construction permitting program.



                 Option 10: Increase state funding allocated to the Department of Environmental Protection, Division

                 of Beaches and Shores, for completing analysis of the remaining 97 miles of critically eroding

                 shorelines.




                 Option 11 : Extend state regulation of habitable structure design standards to all tidal shorelines

                 including vegetated shorelines and the shores of inland waters.




                 Ootion 12: Revise the State Minimum Building Code and the Coastal Zone Protection Act so as to

                 require application of wind load design standards and flood elevation standards comparable to

                 those imposed in areas subject to state coastal construction permits.




                 Ootion 13: Lower the "substantial modification" threshold for requiring repaired or rebuilt habitable

                 structures to meet design and construction standards seaward of the Coastal Construction Control

                 Line (CCCL) or the 50-foot setback.




                 Option 14: Support and participate in the effort by the Building Officials Association of Florida to

                 deploy retired certified building inspectors and provide for mutual aid among municipalities in the

                 wake of major disasters.                                                                   I



                 Ootion 15: Promote adoption of proposed amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act that



                                                                  vi










           would provide holders of federal flood insurance with coverage for rebuilding in compliance with

           current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) construction and elevation requirements.




           Option 16: Explore the potential for the state to require that private insurance carriers operating in

           the state provide coverage for rebuilding in compliance with state and local building codes as

           modified under Options 11 or 12.




           Option 17: Provide a means for correcting deficiencies in the coastal elements of local

           comprehensive plans and assuring their implementation through appropriate local land development

           regulations (LDRs).




           Option 18: Provide statutory authority for expedited acquisition of coastal property under post-


           storm conditions.




           Option 19: Give the Florida Communities Trust the authority and a mandate to acquire and replatt

           land and resell it to achieve density reduction objectives.




           Option 20: Amend Chapters 163 and 380 of the.Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida

           Administrative Code governing the coastal elements of local government comprehensive plans to

           achieve greater consistency with the storm hazard mitigation policy objectives articulated in E.O.

           81-105 governing post-storm redevelopment and federally-designated Coastal Barrier Resources

           System units.




           Ootion 21: Amend Chapters 163 and 380 of theflorida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida

           Administrative Code so as to mandate use of a single definition of the Coastal High Hazard Area by

           all local governments and state agencies that is consistent with risk levels that are explicit or



                                                            vii










                 implicit in other state policies governing natural hazards.




                 Option 22: Initiate action through the Office of the Governor to clarify the conditions under which

                 state agencies are to adhere solely to the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) of the Florida Statutes as

                 opposed to Executive Order 81-105.



                 Ootion 23: Establish a formal process for coordinating state agency review of coastal infrastructure


                 decisions.




                 Ootion 24: Repeal ï¿½380.27(2) of the Florida Statutes and return to a centralized state

                 decisionmaking process that assesses the appropriateness of state expenditures for coastal

                 infrastructure based on state policy objectives, including minimizing short-term and long-term public

                 costs of coastal storm damage.




                 Option 25: Extend the state's barrier island bridge policy to all unbridged coastal islands.




                 Option 26: Enact legislation modelled on the proposed Massachusetts bill that would require early

                 and accurate notice to prospective buyers of property within some clearly defined coastal hazard


                 area.




                 Option 27: Require that the cost-effectiveness of relocation of infrastructure vulnerable to coastal

                 storm damage be assessed as a condition to any grants made from the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund

                 for protecting local infrastructure.



                 Option 28: Impose a risk-based surcharge on all commercial and residential property insurance

                 policies to cover the costs of planning for, responding to, and mitigating coastal storms.



                                                                  viii










           Option 29: Establish regional hurricane mitigation districts as a means of coordinating and providing

           the emergency management services necessitated by hurricanes and other severe storms and for

           assessing the costs for those functions on the basis of relative risk.



           The options can be characterized by the degree of change they embody. Some represent fine-

           tuning of existing statutes, regulations, or programs. Others involve more substantial change, but

           change which is incremental relative to existing policy instruments. Others constitute innovations

           that depart significantly from current policies and programs. Fine-tuning will generally have modest

           impacts. Some of the incremental changes, however, may yield substantial enhancements over

           current policies and programs. The most significant improvements, however, will require

           innovations that necessitate substantial changes in the allocation of public resources or in the role

           of state government in influencing the behavior of its citizens.




           Our analysis suggests that enhanced achievement of the goal of protecting coastal resources can

           be partly accomplished through a combination of fine-tuning of existing statutes JOption 5) and

           incremental changes to current regulations (Options 1-3), land acquisition mechanisms (Options 7

           and 8), economic incentives for relocating imminently endangered structures (Option 9), and state

           expenditures for analyzing critically eroding beaches (Option 10). Substantial gains in achieving

           this goal, however, will require two major policy innovations: (1) establishing a separate and

           dedicated source of funding for acquiring lands to achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives

           (Option 6) and (2) requiring the relocation of habitable structures at sites with receding shorelines

           before they interfere with natural beach processes and intrude upon the sovereign beach (Option

           4).




           Enhancing protection of life and property from the hazards of coastal storms will require policy

           initiatives focused primarily on two objectives: (1) reducing the vulnerability of private buildings and



                                                            ix











                  facilities and (2) managing the development and redevelopment of land. In terms of the first

                  objective, extension of the state's regulation of design and construction standards to all areas of

                  the state's coasts (Option 11) coupled with revisions to the state's mandates governing local

                  building codes (Option 12) can resolve the problem of inconsistent protection of habitable

                  structures that face comparable risks from coastal storms. Effective application of these standards

                  under post-storm conditions can be increased by incremental change to the substantial

                  i m prove ment/d amage threshold under the state's coastal construction regulatory programs (Option

                  13), expanded capacity to enforce building codes in post-storm circumstances (Option 14), and

                  initiatives to assure that property owners hold adequate insurance to cover bringing substantially

                  damaged structures up to code (Options 15 and 16). Option 16, which suggests employing the

                  leverage generated by creation of the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, represents a more significant

                  innovation that will require further study and, perhaps, substantial politicking.




                  Significant advances on the second objective will require a substantial departure from recent views

                  of the state's role in guiding and influencing land use planning and regulation. Fine-tuning of the

                  CARL land acquisition process may marginally enhance its applicability in post-storm circumstances

                  (Option 18), but the more radical step of creating a separate, dedicated source of funds for storm

                  hazard land acquisition (Option 6) appears essential if purchase of fee-simple property rights is to

                  have any substantial impact on the development or redevelopment of coastal land.




                  Incremental changes to the state's barrier island bridge policy (Option 25) would provide more

                  consistent state policy governing one form of growth-inducing infrastructure, but the current

                  dichotomy between the state's earlier infrastructure policy, set forth in Governor Graham's 1981

                  executive order, and the policy established through 1985 amendments to Chapter 380 FS,

                  necessitates more substantial changes if a consistent and effective state policy governing coastal

                  infrastructure is to be achieved.



                                                                    x










            Absent any change to Chapter 380 FS, clarification is needed from the Governor's Office on the

            present status of the 1981 executive order (Option 22), and a formal process is needed to

            coordinate state agency decisions on coastal infrastructure (Option 23). If the state is to rely

            entirely on the mechanism defined in Chapter 380 FS, and there is a commitment to using that

            process to achieve state policy objectives, a combination of marginal and innovative policy changes

            will be reqLiired. Incremental changes are needed in the statutes and regulations governing the

            coastal elements of local comprehensive plans (Options 20 and 21) to achieve a consistent

            statewide policy that includes policy objectives defined in the earlier executive order. To be

            effective, however, these must be coupled with significant changes in the state's authority to

            mandate amendments to local comprehensive plans and adoption of local land development

            regulations that will achieve storm hazard mitigation goals (Option 17). A third option, which also

            represents a major shift in current policy, is to return to a centralized state policy that is uncoupled

            from the local planning process (Option 24). Such a policy would permit the state to make its own

            judgments as to what circumstances warrant expenditure of state funds for infrastructure that will

            create potentially greater state liability for the costs of storm damage.




            Two other options which constitute entirely new initiatives may further contribute to the state's

            ability to influence the development of land so as to minimize the threats posed by coastal storms:

            (1) mandating provision of hazard disclosure information to prospective purchasers of property in

            hazardous coastal areas (Option 26) and (2) directing the Florida Communities Trust to actively buy

            and sell real property to reduce development densities in areas prone to coastal storm damage

            (Option 19).




            The options listed for achieving the objective of minimizing the threats of coastal storm damage

            through managing the development and redevelopment of coastal land (Options 17-26) will have

            similar impacts on reducing the public costs that result from such development and redevelopment.



                                                             A










                   Most of these options will also reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure by limiting the

                   installation of infrastructure in areas most prone to coastal storm damage. Option 27, which fine-

                   tunes provisions governing grants from the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, would also contribute to

                   this policy objective.




                   The greatest gap in the state's current array of policy instruments is the absence of effective

                   means of allocating the public costs of coastal storms to those who incur them by occupying

                   hazardous coastal lands. Options 28 and 29, both of which constitute major departures from

                   current state policies, offer alternative means of addressing this gap. Option 28 is constrained by

                   its linkage to property insurance policies which are not held by all owners of coastal property.

                   Option 29 is more inclusive but will require significant further study and debate. Neither of these

                   options need stand alone. They are complementary to all the other policy instruments and are best

                   viewed as providing balance to a comprehensive set of policies that address all three of the state's

                   storm hazard mitigation goals.





























                                                                      A










                                                           PREFACE




            In July, 1992, Bob N  ave, then Director of the Division of Emergency Management, Florida Department

            of Community Affairs, prepared a draft issue paper on post-disaster redevelopment for discussion by

            the state's Interagency Management Committee. The premise of the issue paper was that the diverse

            array of statutes and administrative, rules adopted to guide development and redevelopment within

            coastal high hazard areas of the state were not operating effectively. Statutory provisions often worked

            in conflict with each other and no cohesive policy framework had been developed to guide coastal

            development.




            The discussion of the issues raised by Nave highlighted the significant costs that were accruing to the

            state as a result of current coastal development patterns. Both development and redevelopment often

            proceeded without adequate recognition of the need for hazard mitigation strategies; i.e., managing

            the natural and built environments in ways that address the hazards inherent in coastal storms.

            Adequate mitigation, it was argued, would reduce public costs by virtue of lower levels of storm

            damage to beaches, dunes, public facilities, and infrastructure, and would also reduce the public costs

            for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. This strategy, however, would likely involve

            increased regulation of land use and development making it problematic from both legal and political

            perspectives. An alternative, wrote Nave, is a market based approach, in which public funds would be

            withdrawn from coastal high hazard areas so that the private sector would bear a larger proportion of

            the true costs of coastal development. As these costs mount, less development would be expected


            to occur.




            It is unlikely that public policy would follow one approach exclusively over the other. The state's

            interests in the public welfare and in the protection of life and property argue against a full withdrawal

            from a regulatory approach. The specific policy mechanisms that are available under each approach

            may present different issues in feasibility and effectiveness. Moreover, the variety of different










                  environments within the state suggests that different approaches may work better in different

                  locations. Both approaches, therefore, raise issues of what can be done, where, and with what

                  expected results.




                  Given this background, the Interagency Management Committee, utilizing funds available through the

                  federal Coastal Zone Management Act, awarded a contract to The Florida State University to study

                  and analyze both the existing array of state policy initiatives as well as the possibilities for new policy

                  initiatives concerning coastal development and storm hazards. The project was also intended to

                  suggest a set of strategies that could lead to adoption and implementation through appropriate

                  legislation and administrative rules.




                  This is the final report of that project. The project period ran from May through December 1993 under

                  the direction of the co-principal investigators, Robert E. Deyle and Richard A. Smith, both of whom are

                  members of the faculty in Urban and Regional Planning. Assistance was provided by David M. Haight

                  in his role as planner-in-residence within the department, and by Dennis Smith, a graduate student in

                  urban planning. In addition to his other contributions, Dennis Smith is the primary author of Appendix

                  A.




                  Because of the complexity of the issues involved, the breadth of statutes, programs, and regulations

                  existing at the federal, state, and local levels of government, and the short period given to their study,

                  it is likely that we have missed considering some issue, or have misinterpreted the application of some

                  programs. Indeed, few are as familiar with the nuances of programs and regulations as those who work

                  with them on a daily basis, so there is little that we can add at this level. What we hope to accomplish,

                  however, is a review and analysis of current policy efforts within a framework that suggests a

                  comprehensive and coordinated approach at the state level to the issues of development and

                  redevelopment in coastal areas.



                                                                      AV










           We thank the many persons within federal, state, and local governments who, in dealing with the

           issues of coastal storms and coastal development on a daily basis, shared their insights, knowledge,

           and files with us. We also thank the members of the Coastal Management Program, Florida Department

           of Community Affairs, and especially the director of the program, Ralph Cantral, for their support and

           for the opportunity to study this issue.
















































                                                             xv











                                                            CHAPTER 1


                                                          INTRODUCTION





                                       THE NEED FOR COASTAL STORM HAZARD MITIGATION




                  More so than most other states, Florida is particularly vulnerable to damage from coastal storms.

                  This vulnerability is the result of a number of conditions that have come together, including an

                  extended coastline and proximity of all portions of the state to the coastal area; rapid population

                  growth, much of which is located in coastal regions; and geographical location within an area that

                  is particularly prone to coastal storms.' While no one of these conditions, by itself, significantly

                  increases Florida's risk from coastal storm damage, taken together they represent a serious threat

                  to the well-being of the state's population, to the safety of buildings and property, to the quality of

                  the state's natural resources, and to the integrity of state and local fiscal resources.




                  The damage that storms have wrought on coastal areas of the state can be represented in

                  frequency and costs of recent storms. Since 1982 there have been a total of seven storm events

                  that have qualified for a presidential disaster declaration, and these events have involved, in total,


                  34 of the state's 67 counties. Some counties have been involved in more than one such event.


                  Each of these storms, moreover, has involved significant public and private costs. Damage from

                  Hurricane Andrew has been estimated at $20 billion, making it the costliest natural disaster to date

                  in U.S. history (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992a). Less dramatic, but still

                  costly, are other storm disasters. The 1992 flooding involving the counties of Manatee, Sarasota,

                  DeSoto and Charlotte has been estimated to cost $7.6 million in federal public assistance disaster

                  funds and $1.9 million in National Flood Insurance Program claims (U.S. Federal Emergency

                  Management Agency, 1992c). The tornadoes and flooding that led to a disaster declaration in the

                  counties of Baker, Clay, Duval, Hillsborough, Nassau, Pinellas, and Union, in October 1992, has










             been estimated at $7 million (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992d).




             As high as these costs are, they underestimate the actual magnitude because they do not account

             for private expenditures, as when private insurance claims are paid or restoration and repairs are

             done without insurance. Nor do they account for repairs that are not done, as when buildings are

             left abando#@ed and derelict. They do not account for the revenues lost to business, or lost tourist

             dollars, and they do not reflect the costs in human suffering and grief that accompany major


             coastal storms.




             Coastal storms also impose significant direct and indirect costs upon the state and its local

             governments. Governments must prepare for and remain ready for storm disasters. Often this

             requires the maintenance of a response capacity to deal with disaster events, including the

             maintenance of emergency equipment and personnel, response plans, shelter facilities, and

             emergency services. Of major concern in preparation for a disaster is the capacity of the road and

             transportation facilities to evacuate coastal residents, and these facilities must be designed, built,

             and maintained.




             Other state and local costs resulting from coastal storms involve losses to the built environment,

             such as with damage to infrastructure and engineered facilities. Public costs may involve repair

             and/or replacement to roads and bridges, schools, water and sewer treatment facilities, etc. Public

             costs are also involved in the maintenance and restoration of beach and dune systems as well as to

             other natural resources that are subject to storm damage. Currently, there are no sound estimates

             of the vulnerability of the state's infrastructure to storm related damage. Incomplete estimates

             published by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (11990) suggest, however, that the

             potential for damage is severe. These estimates indicate that within the most vulnerable Category 1

             storm surge area there exist 27 major bridges and causeway systems connecting coastal islands to



                                                                2










                  the mainland, 132 small water supply treatment plants, 29 large water treatment plants (over 1

                  million gallons/day), 341 small wastewater treatment systems, 47 large wastewater treatment

                  plants (over 1 million gallons/day), 52 electric substations, 19 electric power plants, and 16

                  airports. Unaccounted for is a vast network of roads and bridges, community facilities, hospitals

                  and health centers, schools, public service facilities, and a variety of other facilities that constitute

                  the heart amd functioning of our communities.




                  Public policy has been committed to dealing with the costs and hardships imposed by coastal

                  storms. To date the state has put into place a variety of programs and legislative initiatives that

                  deal with the issues generated by these storms. These actions have involved the development of

                  new state programs and regulations, articulation with existing federal programs, and requirements

                  for new local actions that address storm and disaster related issues. These initiatives speak to a

                  variety of important issues, including 1) management of initial coastal development for the

                  purposes of reducing exposure to storm hazards; 2) preservation of beach and dune systems for

                  maintaining natural storm protection capabilities; 3) alteration of the coastal environment to help

                  reduce vulnerability to storms; 4) strengthening of buildings and facilities to reduce storm related

                  damage; and 5) post-storm redevelopment to help insure that communities are rebuilt in ways that

                  do not repeat many of the risks of initial development. Unfortunately, however, the various

                  statutes, rules, and programs available through federal, state, and local sources do not provide a

                  wholly adequate and effective set of policy responses to the problems of storm hazards. Indeed,

                  these programs "often work in conflict with each other, and do not form a cohesive policy

                  framework to guide development and redevelopment (in coastal areas). What is missing is an

                  integrated and coordinated state policy" that provides for a more effective response to the

                  problems of storm damage. (Nave, 1992).



                  These perceived inadequacies of current coastal storm hazard policies represent the basis for this


                                                                   3










            study. Our charge is to examine the current array of policy initiatives within the state, as they exist

            within the context of federal and local policies, and to propose suggestions for the development of

            an integrated and coordinated policy system. The charge is represented in the three major project

            tasks spelled out in the study proposal, as follows:



                    1      Whai strategies are available that could play a role in a coordinated program of

                           coastal sto rm hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment policies for the State


                           of Florida?


                   2)      How have the individual strategies been implemented and how effective have they


                           been?


                   3)      How can these strategies be implemented in Florida and what mix of strategies

                           could be integrated into an effective, comprehensive state program appropriate to

                           the unique physical, institutional, and legal setting of Florida's coastal high hazard


                           area?




                                               A PERSPECTIVE ON POLICY




            Addressing these questions and working toward the development of an integrated policy

            framework requires an analytic perspective and guide. This guide should serve the double purpose

            of providing a framework for the evaluation of current policy efforts, as well as providing the basis

            for the development of new ideas. We have developed this perspective by initially considering each

            of the three dimensions that characterize a policy analytical framework. The three dimensions are

            consideration of: 1) what is to be accomplished (i.e., desired outcomes); 2) the means that are

            available for achieving these outcomes (i.e., policy instruments); and 3) the context within which

            means are adopted and implemented. Within each of these three categories our perspective

            articulates and differentiates the major considerations. Thus, we specify the desired outcomes that



                                                             4











                  would constitute an integrated storm hazard policy for the state, specify the means that are

                  available to implement this policy, and examine the context within which the effectiveness and

                  feasibility of these means are conditioned. The outline of this perspective is presented in Table 1.1

                  and details of the framework are discussed below.




                  DESIRED OUTCOMES


                  Desired outcomes are articulated in terms of a set of goals and objectives. Goals are general

                  statements of intended outcomes; objectives tend to be more specific statements about outcomes

                  that are related to and derive from the more general goals.




                  Goals


                  There are multiple goals governing the issues of storm hazards in coastal areas that serve to both

                  justify and orient public policy intervention. These goals are variously expressed in state statutes

                  and rules, often independently but sometimes together. Three goals appear within the state

                  statutory and regulatory framework, most prominently in Chapters 161, 163, 186, 187, and 380

                  Florida Statutes. These goals are taken as the guiding principles of the project and are summarized


                  as follows:


                                 1       To protect and preserve coastal environmental resources.

                                 2)      To protect human life and property.

                                 3)      To limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural

                                         disasters.




                  We recognize that in any concrete circumstance goals may conflict. Thus, the goal of minimizing

                  public expenditures may be at odds with that of protecting coastal natural resources, etc. An

                  integrated policy framework should anticipate these conflicts and suggest the conditions under




                                                                   5












                                    Table 1.1: Outline of the Policy Analytical Framework



                            .1. Desired Outcomes


                                    a) Goals


                                    b) Objectives

                            2. Policy Instruments


                                    a) Means
                                            Regulation
                                                     Regulation of construction & site development
                                                     Regulation of land use


                                            Mandate
                                                     Planning mandates
                                                     Regulatory mandates


                                            Investment
                                                     Acquisition of coastal property
                                                     Development of capital facilities & infrastructure


                                            Incentive
                                                     Economic incentives
                                                     Education & information



                                    b) Temporal characteristics
                                            Development
                                            Redevelopment

                            3. Context


                                    a) Jurisdictions
                                            Federal
                                            State
                                            Local


                                    b) Environments
                                            Level of development
                                            Susceptibility to storms
                                            Vulnerability to damage








                                                               6












                  which one may take precedence over another. The existence of multiple goals also suggests that

                  particular policies about coastal hazards may serve different masters, thereby complicating the task

                  of evaluating the effectiveness of alternative policies.




                  Policy Obiectives


                  Policy objectives appear in various policy documents and administrative regulations, although these

                  have not been codified into any consistent set of objectives. For each of the goals noted above we

                  have identified a number of policy objectives as they appear in various state documents.

                  Nevertheless, additional objectives are possible and may be considered. The policy objectives


                  indicated below are suggested as important initial statements of what should be achieved.

                                 1) Protection of natural resources:


                                         a)      Preserve the natural storm protection features of the coastal


                                                 environment.


                                 2) Protection of life and property:

                                         a)      Alter the coastal environment to reduce vulnerability to storms.

                                         b)      Reduce the vulnerability of buildings and facilities to storm damage.

                                         C)      Manage the development and redevelopment of land to minimize

                                                 threats of storm damage.

                                 3) Minimizing public costs:

                                         a)      Reduce the vulnerability of public capital facilities and infrastructure

                                                 to storm damage.

                                         b)      Manage the development and redevelopment of land to minimize

                                                 public costs of disaster planning, response, and mitigation.

                                         C)      Allocate public costs of storm hazards to private sector users in

                                                 proportion to risk.




                                                                    7














            POLICY INSTRUMENTS


            Policy instruments are the mechanisms by which policy goals and objectives can be achieved. Two

            dimensions of policy instruments are their content and temporal characteristics. Content refers to

            the specific subject or policy strategy of the instrument. Temporal characteristics refer to the point

            within the planning and development sequence in which the instrument is put into effect.




            Content


            There are a variety of means available for effecting storm hazard goals and objectives and each

            means may serve a variety of objectives. We have organized the consideration of these means into

            four general subject categories, corresponding to the distinctions between regulation, mandate,

            investment, and incentive. Regulation refers to a government imposed requirement on the private

            sector for action or a requirement that action be constructed in a particular way. Government

            specified building codes represent one example. Mandate is similar to regulation but exists between

            higher order and lower order governments. For example, the State of Florida mandates that local

            governments prepare a comprehensive plan. In contrast, investment strategies attempt to influence

            outcomes through a "priming" mechanism. Governments commonly invest in infrastructure as a

            way of influencing the course and pattern of private development. The fourth category, incentives,

            is commonly thought of as options that are provided by government and made available to induce

            certain types of behavior by other public or private actors. While in some cases investments may

            operate as incentives for private action, not all investments are taken for these purposes. In

            contrast, incentives, such as tax relief, are available only if and when private sector actors

            participate in the specific behavior in question. The category of incentives also includes

            disincentives, such as when higher costs are imposed on private actors who engage in behavior

            that governments wish to discourage. The types of means available under each of the three

            categories are as follows.











                  Regulation. Two types of regulation are regulation of construction and site development, and

                  regulation of land use.

                         Regulation of construction and site develooment. This category of regulation pertains to the

                         construction and engineering of sites, and includes building codes, set-back and elevation

                         requirements, septic tank requirements, and others designed to regulate the characteristics

                         of construction and site development.

                         Re-gulation of land use. This includes regulations that govern the permissible uses of land

                         and the conditions under which the land can be developed. Common examples include the

                         land development regulations and zoning codes that are adopted to implement the local

                         comprehensive plan.




                  Mandate. Mandates are requirements imposed by higher levels of government on lower levels. Two

                  types of mandates are considered:  planning and regulatory.

                         Plannina mandate. Higher levels of government impose a requirement that lower levels of

                         government develop a policy or prepare a plan for a set of issues, but the content of the

                         policy or plan is left unspecified and the lower level of government is free to meet the issue

                         as it sees fit. Thus, states impose the preparation of a comprehensive plan on local

                         communities, or the federal government imposes the preparation of a hazard mitigation plan


                         on the states.


                         Regulatory mandate. Higher levels of government mandate that lower levels of government

                         impose specific regulatory mechanisms. Thus, the state may require local governments to

                         adopt particular minimum building and construction standards.



                  Investment. Investment refers to direct expenditure by governments, either for property interests or

                  the construction of infrastructure and facilities.

                         Acouisition of coastal r)ror)erty. This involves the control of property interests in land by a



                                                                   9










                    public agency resulting in the full or partial removal from the development market.

                    Acquisition may involve fee simple purchase, purchase of development rights, the purchase

                    of easements, and others.


                    Develooment of caoital facilities and infrastructure. Capital facilities and infrastructure are

                    provided by a public agency with the authority to define the conditions under which such

                    services and facilities will be used. Public agencies typically provide utilities, roads, water

                    and sewer services, parks, etc. and determine the location of these facilities.




            Incentive. Incentives are mechanisms constructed by government that are used to encourage

            appropriate behaviors by a lower level of government or private actors.

                    Economic incentives. Incentives include tax relief and development incentives, including

                    density bonuses and transfers of development rights that are made available by public

                    agencies in order to influence market behaviors. Disincentives may include added costs and

                    fees, such as impact fees. Incentives and disincentives may also be applied to other levels

                    of government.

                    Education and information. Public agencies may provide a variety of information, data, and

                    other sources of intelligence to community.members and other public agencies in order to

                    inform them of costs, risks, benefits, and opportunities associated with coastal storm


                    hazards.





            Time


            Policies relating to storm hazard mitigation contain a time dimension, characterized as either pre- or

            post-storm. Pre-storm policies that are designed to address hazard issues are those that focus on

            the initial development of land. Policies that address post-storm issues are concerned with those of

            redevelopment and relocation. Mitigation through development and redevelopment creates a

            continuing cycle of building and construction activities and often the same policy instruments can



                                                              10










                   be applied at each stage of the cycle. Nevertheless, the opportunities for realizing hazard mitigation

                   policy objectives may differ at each stage of this temporal sequence. During the development stage

                   the opportunity may exist to construct land use patterns over large tracts of coastal land,

                   effectively influencing both the intensity and density of land development with respect to hazard

                   issues. In contrast, during the redevelopment phase, fewer land parcels are likely to be involved

                   and existing use patterns and investments may make the realization of hazard mitigation objectives

                   more difficult. Thus, the same means may be more effective at one particular stage of the cycle as

                   a result of differences in the development context.




                   POLICY CONTEXT


                   Context refers to a variety of conditions that characterize the environment within which policy

                   instruments are applied and which will affect the feasibility and effectiveness of the instrument. For

                   example, tax incentives for promoting private sector redevelopment or relocation must respond to

                   the availability of suitable land for relocation and the local economic context within which

                   redevelopment takes place. An integrated policy perspective should take account of the type of

                   contexts within which alternative policy instruments are likely to be effective.




                   Our framework suggests that two contextual features are particularly important. These are the

                   government jurisdiction applying the policy instrument and the characteristics of the environment

                   within which the instrument is implemented.




                   Jurisdiction


                   Policy initiatives and actions may be applied at a variety of jurisdictional levels. While our concern

                   is with the evaluation and design of state policy, state actions occur within the context of federal

                   and local action. At each jurisdictional level there are different policy interests, resources, and legal

                   authority for adopting and implementing different policy instruments. Thus, federal policy is



                                                                       11











            important because of the large resources available to the federal government for effecting policy as

            well as the unique interests and authority that reside at the federal level. Local actions are

            particularly important because land use and development decisions are made, for the most part, at

            the local community level. The willingness and ability of local communities to deal with storm

            hazard issues as part of their control over development will have a significant impact on the design

            and impacts of policy.




            Environment


            There are a variety of man-made and natural environments within which storm hazards occur and

            within which policies are applied. Natural environments may vary along important dimensions such

            as sandy vs. non-sandy shore, topography, the presence of dunes, and the presence of vegetation,

            and these characteristics will affect the potential for shoreline erosion, flooding, storm surge, and

            wind damage from storms of different magnitudes. Similarly, population and land use activities are

            not uniformly distributed over the coastal area and variations in both the density and intensity of

            development give rise to differences in the potential for damage created by coastal storms.




            Three characteristics of environments are distinguished as particularly relevant: level of

            development, susceptibility to storms, and vulnerability to storm damage.




            Level of develooment. Development level characterizes the degree to which a coastal area is

            developed or undeveloped, as well as the characteristics of this development. These considerations

            will affect both the potential for storm related damage as well as the opportunities for hazard

            mitigation strategies. Where development is extensive, the opportunities to influence the density

            and intensity of land use for the purposes of hazard mitigation will necessarily be limited and these

            opportunities are more likely to concentrate in the redevelopment portion of our temporal sequence.

            Alternatively, where levels of development are low, greater potential exists to realize hazard



                                                              12











                  mitigation objectives during the initial land development process.




                  Susceptibility. Susceptibility to storms characterizes the probability that an area will experience a

                  storm of a given magnitude over a time period. We expect that communities with high probability

                  of a storm event may be more willing to address hazard mitigation objectives on a pre-storm basis

                  than areas-tn which the probability of an event is low.




                  Vulnerability. This concept relates to the likelihood of environmental damage from a storm of a

                  given magnitude. Vulnerability may be related to the level and characteristics of development, but it

                  also includes the potential for damage to natural systems. We expect that the potential for realizing

                  hazard mitigation objectives will also be greater in those environments with higher levels of

                  vulnerability.




                                                               OVERVIEW




                  The above framework creates the basis for our review and structures our perceptions and

                  evaluations about current coastal storm hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment policies. It

                  will also be used to structure our suggestions for new policy initiatives.




                  Our analysis begins with the statement of goals and objectives summarized in this introductory

                  chapter and poses the question as to how these goals and objectives can be achieved. Current

                  policies for realizing these policy objectives are reviewed and evaluated in Chapters 2-4 according

                  to our three part jurisdictional distinction. Thus, in Chapter 2 we review and evaluate the content

                  and operation of federal programs that affect storm hazard policies. In Chapter 3 we review and

                  evaluate the current status of state policy initiatives. In Chapter 4 we evaluate the policies of local

                  governments within the state through a content analysis of the coastal element of a selection of


                                                                   13










            local comprehensive plans. In each of these three chapters we maintain a correspondence with our

            framework in which policy initiatives are organized according to the four part distinction of

            regulation, mandate,' investment, and incentive and are discussed and evaluated according to the

            broader aspects of our framework.




            The consideration of new policy instruments is the subject of Chapter 5. In this chapter we review

            the initiatives for coastal storms and other natural hazards occurring in other states. These

            initiatives are evaluated for possible use in the Florida context.




            In Chapter 6 we bring the separate parts of the analysis together into a set of policy options for the

            State of Florida. The options derive from our evaluations of the Florida context and especially the

            characteristics of the coastal environment, how current policies at each jurisdictional level are

            operating and how they can be improved, and the information that we have collected regarding

            policy initiatives in other states. Our purpose in this final chapter is to suggest how state policy

            goals and objectives can be achieved through different policy instruments, organized at various

            jurisdictional levels.


























                                                              14












                                                    ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 1




                        Of the state's 67 counties, 35 have coastlines that front on either the Atlantic Ocean or the
                        Gulf of Mexico. These counties have approximately 1350 miles of general coastline and
                        8436 miles of tidal inlets, bays, and waterways. Approximately 78% of the state's
                        population lives in these 35 coastal counties. (Florida Department of Community Affairs,
                        1993)

























































                                                                 15










                                                       CHAPTER 2


                  A REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
                                       AND POST STORM REDEVELOPMENT
                             AND STATE PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION





                                                      INTRODUCTION




            State action for hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment exists within the context of

            federal legislation and programs. These programs, developed to pursue federal goals and interests,

            are operated within state and local jurisdictional boundaries. In some instances they operate with

            the state as an active partner, while in others the state is not a necessary participant, although

            opportunities for the state to become involved, directly or indirectly, may exist. The construction of

            an integrated coastal storm hazard mitigation policy for the state requires that state participation in

            federal storm hazard programs be identified and evaluated, with the aim of understanding how

            federal policies and programs can be leveraged in support of state policy objectives.




            Four bodies of federal legislation are relevant to state storm hazard mitigation and post-storm

            redevelopment policies. They are:

                   1) National Flood Insurance Act


                   2) Disaster Relief (Stafford) Act


                   3) Coastal Barrier Resources Act


                   4) Coastal Zone Management Act




            The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 involves planning mandates that provide

            federal funding for the development and operation of state coastal management programs that are

            unique to each state. Since program participation develops state policy rather than a set of

            activities that are articulated with federal programs, we will reserve treatment of the CZMA and the










                  state plan for the chapter dealing with state policies JChapter 3). In what follows is a brief

                  summary of each of the other federal programs and an analysis and commentary on how well each

                  pursues -- or can. be reconstructed to pursue -- state policy objectives.






                                              NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM







                  OVERVIEW


                  The National Flood Insurance Act (42 USCA ï¿½4001-4128, 1968) was adopted in order to provide

                  previously unavailable flood insurance protection to property owners in flood prone areas. The act

                  establishes the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency

                  Management Agency (FEMA).




                  The National Flood Insurance Program provides for the availability of insurance to property owners

                  located in flood prone areas, defined as communities that contain a 100 year floodplain. The

                  insurance is made available to owners of individual structures, but only within those communities

                  that elect to join the program. Community membership, moreover, is contingent upon local

                  government adoption and enforcement of a set of specified construction and land development

                  regulations that are designed to minimize the risk of loss to structures in the flood prone areas. The

                  minimum acceptable regulations are specified by FEMA (44 CFR ï¿½60).




                  The nature of the local community regulations depends on the flooding characteristics associated

                  with the designated flood prone areas. Four flood areas and associated regulations exist (44 CFR

                  ï¿½60.3, 60.5), as follows:

                          11     For river systems, a floodway is defined as the channel of the river and the adjacent



                                                                  17










                             land that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without increasing

                             the water surface elevation. Regulations must prohibit all building and development

                             within this area unless it can be shown that such building will not increase flood


                             levels.


                     2)      'A-zones' are defined as the area of the 100 year floodplain. Within this zone all

                             new or substantially improved residential structures must be elevated above the

                             base flood elevation, and this may be accomplished through the use of fill.

                             Commercial and industrial structures may be elevated or floodproofed.

                     3)      'V-zones' (termed the coastal high hazard area) are defined as the areas subject to

                             damage via wave action of up to 3 feet. Within these areas all new or substantially

                             improved structures are required to be elevated to allow for the passage of wind

                             driven water below them. All structures, moreover, must be built landward of the


                             mean high tide line. Insurance premiums are higher in these higher risk zones.

                     4)      'E-zones' are defined by the 1973 amendments (Flood Disaster Protection Act) and

                             are intended to reflect those areas subject to acute erosion caused by water action.

                             These zones are to be defined by FEMA, within which the local community must

                             require setbacks for all new development. The setbacks are intended to create a

                             safety buffer, consisting of natural vegetation or land elevation between the

                             development and water body, that can be used for green space, agriculture, outdoor

                             recreation, etc. When these E-zones have not been formally defined by FEMA and

                             the community indicates that these erosion hazards are present, the community is

                             obliged to "consider" flood related erosion in their local planning process and land

                             development decisions. (E-zones have not yet been defined for Florida or any other

                             state (National Research Council, 1990)).




             Insured structures that sustain damage requiring repairs valued at less than 50% of the current



                                                               18











                  market value of the structure may be made from insurance proceeds according to the original

                  design of the structure. Only structures that sustain damage that requires "substantial

                  improvement," equal to or exceeding 50% of the market value of the structure, are subject to the

                  design/construction standards that regulate new structures. Where substantial damage has

                  occurred or where a structure is subject to repeated flooding, FEMA may elect to negotiate a

                  purchase of the property and to transfer it to a state or local agency. Under this option (Section

                  1362), the public agency must agree to remove the structure and to hold the land, in perpetuity,

                  for recreation, open space, or other similar non-developed uses.




                  Structures may also be removed, through demolition or relocation, under the 1987 Upton-Jones

                  amendments (Section 544 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987). Under these

                  provisions, FEMA may pay an insurance and relocation claim on a structure prior to the actual

                  damage when an authorized state   or local authority certifies the structure in danger of imminent

                  collapse or subsidence from water related action in response to a request from the owner.

                  Relocated structures must be placed on a new site (but not necessarily a new parcel) beyond a 30

                  year erosion setback line defined by FEMA. If an owner does not participate in this

                  remova Urelocation option, subsequent collapse of a certified structure entities the owner to

                  reduced insurance benefits only. Furthermore, for all parcels of land on which this determination is

                  made, no further and subsequent assistance is available under the act.




                  ANALYSIS


                  The National Flood Insurance Act is principally of interest to state storm hazard mitigation and post-

                  storm redevelopment policy because of its focus on both construction standards and land use in

                  flood hazard areas. Through a system of incentives and investment the program attempts to

                  achieve three main objectives that correspond to policy objectives noted for Florida. The objectives

                  of the NFIP include:



                                                                  19










                    1       The construction of buildings to design standards that will reduce the risk of

                            damage from flooding.

                    2)      The discouragement of further development in flood hazard areas.

                    3)      The removal /relocation of existing threatened structures from flood hazard areas.




            Virtually all Florida communities participate in the insurance program (U.S. Federal Emergency

            Management Agency, 1992e) and this provides the potential for near universal floodplain

            regulation. The design of the program involves FEMA directly with local communities and insured

            properties; the state is a minor part of this federal-local relationship. Nevertheless, given the

            program's potential to achieve a number of state policy objectives, it can be an important

            component of the state's policy instruments. There also are significant opportunities for state

            action that promote and extend the federal program in pursuit of these state policy objectives.

            Thus, Florida has taken some additional steps to enhance the program by requiring program

            participation for all communities that wish to be included in the state's hazard mitigation plan

            prepared under the federal Disaster Assistance Act (Chapter 252 FS), and by requiring construction

            to the standard specified in NFIP within the state's coastal building zone, irrespective of whether

            the local jurisdiction is a participant in NFIP (Chapter 161 FS). At issue, however, is how well the

            three potential benefits of the program are realized in Florida and the degree to which the state can

            utilize the program in pursuit of hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment objectives. Our

            perceptions are given below.




            Imorovina Construction Standards to Minimize Flood Damane


            While the standards under NFIP are written as minima, there is little doubt that they are

            considerable improvements over the standards generally in effect in flood prone areas prior to the

            implementation of the program. In spite of a general improvement, however, there are severe

            limitations. The standards adopted by the program apply only to newly constructed buildings within



                                                             20










                  flood hazard areas or to buildings that, as a result of flood related damage, require repairs that are

                  at least 50% of the current market value of the structure (i.e., substantial improvements). Thus,

                  many older structures, not initially covered by the higher building standard, are able to avoid

                  meeting the higher standard by virtue of the magnitude of the repairs that may be required. FEMA's

                  standard of substantial improvement, moreover, is based on a single incident. Thus, older

                  structures may undergo successive improvements and repairs over time, each of which is under the

                  50% improvement threshold, and not meet the newer construction codes. Cumulatively, such

                  structures can achieve 100% improvement. Unfortunately, data do not exist on the proportion of

                  flood insurance claims that have involved substantial damage (Speights, 1993), and no assessment

                  of the impact of this program on the upgrading of structures is possible.




                  It is also not clear that when structures do require substantial improvements that the standards will

                  be maintained. Currently, the insurance program is not designed to fund the additional costs of

                  repair of a structure to the higher construction standard and this can cause serious hardship to

                  homeowners. Thus in Dade County, after Hurricane Andrew, local officials prevailed upon FEMA to

                  use a standard of replacement value rather than market value to define the threshold for substantial

                  damage. The effect was to reduce the number of structures classified as substantially damaged

                  and, therefore, the number of structures that were subject to being repaired under the requirements


                  for new construction.




                  Florida has taken a number of steps to promote and enhance the operations of the NFIP, and the

                  minimum standards of construction are supplemented under Florida legislation in a number of

                  important ways. Chapter 161 FS defines the Coastal Building Zone (CBZ; see Chapter 3 for a

                  discussion of the CBZ.) Local communities that contain a CBZ are obliged to adopt a series of state

                  specified building standards and to incorporate these standards into the local building code

                  irrespective of their participation in the flood insurance program (i.e., regulatory mandate).


                                                                    21










            Furthermore, the statute defines "substantial improvement" as any repair or improvement that

            exceeds a cumulative total of 50% of the market value of the structure over a five year period.

            This definition contrasts with the FEMA standard and extends it by a considerable degree. This

            more stringent requirement holds only for structures within the CBZ however; the state has not

            sought to mandate a similar cumulative condition over a larger area of the coastal zone. Current

            policy by Florida Department of Community Affairs encourages local communities to adopt a five

            year period for accumulating repair costs but no data exist on the number of communities that have

            adopted this standard (Speights, 1993).




            Other supplements to the requirements of FHIP that are defined within Chapter 161 FS are the

            Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and the 30 year erosion setback line (this line is within

            the CCCL). The CCCL is defined for the areas of coastal counties that contain a sandy shore. All

            new construction within this area must receive a construction permit from the state and must meet

            specific construction conditions as well as exist landward of the setback line. These standards are

            designed to protect the beach and dune system and go beyond those required by NFIP alone.

            Unfortunately, however, the state does not impose a substantial improvement condition over those

            existing structures that suffer from storm related damage. Such structures may be rebuilt on their

            existing foundations without reference to the permitting or setback requirements. (See Chapter 3

            for a fuller discussion of the CCCL and permitting requirements.) The 30 year setback line also

            represents an independent supplement to the FHIP requirement that FEMA define E-zones within

            which building setbacks are required to protect against the effects of erosion. Again, however,

            these setbacks, as defined under Chapter 161 FS, exist only in areas with a sandy shore. Since

            FEMA has not yet defined E-zones it is impossible to comment on how the state defined setback

            will compare.







                                                            22












                  Discouragina Further Develooment


                  In spite of the potential for widespread floodplain management, the flood insurance program

                  represents only moderate potential for affecting the type and density of development in flood

                  hazard areas. Participating communities must adopt restrictions on development only in the

                  floodways of riverine systems; no such restrictions are required for larger floodplains including

                  coastal areas.. Under this system, the only mechanism for discouraging development in coastal

                  areas is the rather indirect one created by the imposition of higher development and construction

                  costs required to meet NFIP standards. But these standards may be relatively minimal and the costs

                  are not always an important part of the development and construction calculus. This is particularly

                  true in coastal areas where the value of the land may make additional construction costs a

                  relatively small part of the total development cost. To the contrary, the NAP has been criticized for

                  making development easier in areas where it may not have otherwise occurred. The existence of a

                  system of insurance has made it more attractive to finance development in areas in which the risks,

                  without insurance, may have been too great.




                  The flood insurance program also attempts to discourage floodplain development through a

                  disclosure/notification mechanism. The authorizing statute (42 USCA ï¿½4104a) mandates that

                  federal bank regulatory agencies require the financial institutions under their authority to notify the

                  purchaser or lessee of land of flood hazards to the property in conjunction with any associated

                  financial transaction. In addition, the program regulations (44 CFR ï¿½60.22) contain language

                  recommending that local communities adopt a similar disclosure requirement. Unfortunately, we

                  have no information about how well the federal notification requirement has worked. Similarly, no

                  centralized source of information exists for the State of Florida regarding the number of

                  communities that have adopted a local notification requirement or what effects a requirement has

                  had on development (Speights, 1993). In our discussion of the Community Rating System (CRS,

                  discussed below) we note that only 22% of a sample of Florida communities indicate the adoption


                                                                  23









            of a notification pro.gram (but the sample is small and not all communities within the state

            participate in the CRS program.)




            More effective for discouraging development may be the additional development controls that

            communities can impose within flood prone areas. Local communities are given incentives to adopt

            both consteUction and land use regulations that are more stringent than the required minima as

            specified by the act. FEMA has outlined additional construction and land use regulations (44 CFR

            ï¿½60.21-60.22) that communities are encouraged to consider as part of a comprehensive floodplain

            management program. These additional community regulations speak to planning, land use and land

            development, and building construction standards, including the requirement for consistency

            between state, local, and regional comprehensive plans and floodplain management programs (44

            CFR ï¿½ 60.22(c) 0 6)). FEMA encourages communities to adopt more stringent building and

            development regulations and offers a program, the Community Rating System (CRS), whereby local

            flood insurance rates are reduced according to the degree to which the community adopts higher

            standards. This prospect of lower rates is an incentive for community participation in the CRS.

            Florida's growth management laws further promote regulation of development within floodplains.

            Chapter 163, Part 11 FS and Rule 9J-5 FAC governing the preparation of local comprehensive plans,

            require local governments to address floodplain management in their future land use, conservation,

            and coastal management elements. Additionally ï¿½ 163.3202 FS and Rule 9J-24.003 FAC require

            local governments to adopt land development regulations to implement floodplain management

            plans. The latter rule requires that floodplain regulations control the type, location, density, and

            intensity of land uses that local governments allow within the flood prone area. Because of these

            requirements, state officials claim that local governments within Florida have already undertaken

            program activities that extend beyond the minimum required by FHIP and may be well positioned to

            qualify for insurance rate discounts under the CRS program (Florida Department of Community

            Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, nd).



                                                             24











                  While it is true that state statute and administrative regulations require local communities to

                  address issues of floodplain development, the expectation that Florida's communities already have

                  in place an effective system of development regulation in these flood areas appears overstated. The

                  requirements for the appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan are stated in terms of goals,

                  objectives, and policies. Frequently the goals and objectives are vague and general, and the policies

                  adopted by communities are weak, ambiguous, or inappropriate. These conclusions derive from a

                  review of a sample of city and county coastal management elements, the results of which are

                  reported in Chapter 4. Communities are also required to adopt a set of land development

                  regulations that implement these policies. These regulations were due within one year of the

                  adoption of the comprehensive plan. The State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), however,

                  has no authority to comprehensively review these regulations and their status as effective

                  mechanisms for regulating floodplain development is unknown.




                  If the Community Rating System is intended to be an effective extension of the basic flood hazard

                  protection of the act, then it is instructive to understand the level and extent of community

                  participation within the state. Currently, only 106 out of a total of 204 (52%) coastal cities and

                  counties participate in the program as determined by a comparison of coastal communities with a

                  list of 144 CRS participants maintained by DCA. The level of participation within CRS varies

                  considerably, however, with some communities having adopted more comprehensive and rigorous

                  floodplain management programs than others.




                  Comprehensive data on the magnitude and nature of participation in the CRS program are available

                  but we have not been allowed to view these data.' We have, however, secured a small set of 41

                  community applications to the CRS program from DCA. They cover a small number of both coastal

                  and non-coastal communities, but are not representative of the distribution of all communities

                  within the state. Moreover, since the reports whereby the accuracy of community applications are



                                                                  25










            evaluated were not made available, it is not possible to determine which of the CRS activities

            contained in each community's application are actually in place. Nevertheless, a tabulation of these

            activities, shown in Table 2.1, gives a crude idea of the distribution of these floodplain

            management programs within local jurisdictions. Table 2.1 also compares these distributions with

            those at the national level, as provided by FEMA (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency,

            1992g). The codes associated with each activity are those given by the program; their definitions

            are as follows (Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, nd;

            U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992g):




                    Public Information Activities


                    310    Elevation certificate: maintain FEMA's elevation certificates and make copies
                           available upon request.

                    320    Map determinations: respond to requests for information on Flood Insurance Rate
                           Map zone and flood data.

                    330    Outreach projects: advise residents about the flood hazard, flood insurance and
                           flood protection measures.

                    340    Hazard disclosure: ensure that potential purchasers of flood prone properties are
                           aware of the hazard.


                    350    Flood protection library: maintain a library of references on flood insurance and flood
                           protection.

                    360    Flood protection assistance: provide direct advice to property owners desiring to
                           protect themselves from flood damages.

                    Mapping and Regulatory Activities

                    410    Additional flood data: develop new flood elevations, delineations and other
                           regulatory flood hazard information.

                    420    Open space preservation: preserve floodplain areas for conveyance and storage of
                           flood waters.


                    430    Higher regulatory standards: adopt regulations which protect future development at
                           higher standards (e.g., freeboard, compensatory storage); protect beaches and
                           dunes; and protect floodplains with low density zoning.

                    440    Flood data maintenance: make the community's floodplain maps more current,
                           useful and accurate.


                                                            26










                          450    Stormwater management: regulate new developments outside the floodplain to
                                 minimize adverse effects of development in flood-prone areas.

                          Flood Damage Reduction Activities

                          510    Repetitive loss projects: develop and implement a plan to reduce damages in
                                 repeatedly flooded areas.

                          520    Acquisition and relocation.: relocate buildings and convert flood-prone properties to
                                 open space.


                          530    Retrofitting: document retrofitting measures taken to protect buildings from flood
                                 hazards.


                          540    Drainage system maintenance: maintain the capacities of drainage channels and
                                 detention facilities in developed areas.

                          Flood Preparedness Activities

                          610    Flood warning program: provide flood warnings to the public and develop a
                                 response plan.

                          620    Levee safety: maintain levees not recognized by the NFIP and develop emergency
                                 response plans for them.

                          630    Dam safety: refers- to state dam safety program.


                  Table 2.1 shows that both nationally and for Florida, only a small number of management programs

                  are adopted by a majority of communities. Two of these majority activities (codes 310 and 320),

                  while important to the flood insurance program, are data storage and reporting activities and are

                  not active efforts to control development. A small number of CRS activities appear to us as

                  particularly important in the context of storm hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment

                  because they involve local programs and regulations that affect directly floodplain development and

                  redevelopment. Important examples include 430 (higher regulatory standards) and 520 (acquisition

                  and relocation). In each instance the percentage of Florida communities adopting appropriate

                  programs is relatively small, and less than the national proportions, and this is in spite of the local

                  comprehensive plan requirements (Chapter 163 FS and Rule 9.1-5 FAC) that address these issues.

                  These findings, moreover, are consistent with the relatively low levels of adoption and use of





                                                                  27











             Table 2.1: Participation in the Community Rating System, Florida and U.S.


             Activity                                             % of applicants
                                                                  Florida           us


             Public  Information Activities


               310   Elevation certificate                        97.5              100
               320 Map det    *erminations                        95.0              92
               330 Outreach projects                              30.0              53
               340 Hazard disclosure                              22.5              40
               350   Flood protection library                     90.0              77
               360   Flood protection assistance                  25.0              45

             Mapping and Regulatory Activities

               410 Additional flood data                           7.5              20
               420   Open space preservation                      30.0              42
               430   Higher regulatory standards                  22.5              59
               440   Flood data maintenance                       12.5              41
               450 Stormwater management                          52.5              37

             Flood   Damage Reduction Activities

               510   Repetitive loss projects                     37.5              11
               520 Acquisition and relocation                       0,              13
               530 Retrofitting                                     0               3
               540 Drainage system maintenance                    92.5              82

             Flood   Preparedness Activities

               610 Flood warning program                          32.5                 5
               620 Levee safety                                    2.5                 0
               630 Dam safety                                       0               45






             hazard mitigation techniques found by Burby and Dalton (1993) in a comparison of Florida, North


             Carolina and Texas communities.




             Land Use Chanaes through Removal and Relocation


             The NFIP also contains a number of incentives to encourage land use change through removal and

             relocation. Section 1362 of the act provides for structures that are repeatedly damaged by flooding


                                                                    28











                   to be purchased by FEMA (acquisition). Title is then given to the state or the local community who

                   accept responsibility for demolishing the structure and holding the land in non-developed uses.

                   Additionally, structures can be demolished or relocated where they fall under the condition of

                   imminent collapse specified by the Upton-Jones amendments. In this instance incentives are

                   offered to make it attractive for landowners to participate in the removal /relocation.



                   Within Florida the purchase of structures and parcels by FEMA and the subsequent preservation of

                   these parcels in non-developed uses by local governments has been negligible. To date, only one

                   parcel, located in Longboat Key, has been purchased (in 1988) under the Section 1362 program

                   (Wilson, 1993). A number of conditions operate to reduce the potential usefulness of this program.

                   It applies only to structures that are insured under NFIP and this is a relatively small proportion of

                   the total number of structures within the CHHA. Exact figures for the CHHA are unavailable

                   (Speights, 1993), but data made available by DCA for 1988 and organized by flood hazard versus

                   non-flood hazard area show that only 26% of the households in flood hazard areas are insured.

                   Other conditions that seem to limit the program include relatively small program budgets, a

                   preference for contiguous parcels and the high price of such parcels in a coastal environment. From

                   the perspective of the local community, the incentive of securing title to the land does not appear

                   to outweigh the costs of demolition and the lost tax revenue (Wilson, 1993). Florida has moved to

                   incorporate the Section 1362 program within   its regulatory system by specifying that if a coastal

                   construction permit cannot be approved for an otherwise eligible structure, the state will

                   recommend that the property be acquired under the program (ï¿½ 1613-41.005 (9) FAC). This option

                   has not occurred, however, for the reasons cited, including a perceived lack of interest on the part

                   of local governments to accept title to Section 1362 properties (Green, 1993). It is unlikely,

                   therefore, that this program will ever become an important component of post-storm

                   redevelopment policy within the state.





                                                                    29










            Use of the Upton-Jones provisions   has also been very limited (National Research Council, 1990),

            and no claims under this program have occurred in Florida. Moreover, Florida officials are not

            sanguine about the potential for this program within the state (Speights, 1993). The erosion

            conditions along Florida's coast are not likely to produce many conditions of imminent collapse as

            specified by the legislation and the incentive offered to landowners may not be sufficiently

            attractive to-induce participation (National Research Council, 1990). Even if the program were to

            operate, however, the removal of structures is likely to occur on a small scale and piecemeal basis

            so that large scale and long range planning for the future use of both these and Section 1362 sites

            is impracticable.




            The public ownership of land is not well stimulated by the incentives offered through NFIP.

            However, the attractiveness of direct investment through acquisition of flood prone parcels has

            been addressed in a report written  by the DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1986),

            but until recently, acquisition for the purposes of hazard mitigation was not recognized as a formal

            criterion. The State of Florida has recently taken the initiative, however, through the ELMS III bill

            (CS/CS/HB 2315,1993), in providing for acquisition for the purposes of hazard mitigation in the

            Conservation and Recreation Lands program (CARL). Additionally the Florida Communities Trust

            (FCT) program provides for cost sharing for acquisition by local jurisdictions when the purchase is

            in support of the local comprehensive plan, and specifically including the coastal management

            element of the plan. This would also allow for acquisition for the purposes of hazard mitigation.

            (See Chapter 3 for a fuller discussion of state acquisition programs.)




            Acquisition of properties in the CHHA by local communities, while made substantially easier by the

            ELMS bill, may still not occur because of the impediments to local action. These impediments are,

            chiefly, the adoption of acquisition as a strategy for hazard mitigation at the local level, the local

            share of acquisition costs and the loss of tax revenues on acquired properties. In Chapter 4 of this



                                                              30











                   report we review selected content of a sample of local coastal management elements and find that

                   44% of the sampled communities include objectives or policies that use acquisition for hazard

                   mitigation. In our. analysis of the Community Rating System program, however, we found no

                   communities that indicate an operational acquisition program. Acquisition for the purposes of

                   hazard mitigation, therefore, does not appear to be a much sought after alternative.




                   OTHER INITIATIVES


                   The ability of states to play a larger role within the flood insurance program and to address the

                   three objectives of encouraging construction standards that reduce the risk of damage,

                   discouraging floodplain development, and promoting removal and relocation of threatened and

                   damaged structures, are enhanced under new legislation that has been introduced into the U.S.

                   Senate by Senator Kerrey (National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993, S. 1405). The bill

                   addresses some of the shortcomin    gs of the current act and focuses the flood insurance program

                   more directly on mitigation activities, thereby providing states and communities with the ability to

                   address flood hazards prior to their occurrence. By including states as a major actor in the design of

                   mitigation strategies, the bill creates new opportunities for state leadership.




                   Among the provisions of the bill is the establishment of a funding program for state and local

                   community mitigation activities that are designed to reduce the risk of flood and erosion damage to

                   insured structures (Title IV). To be eligible for funding a state or community is required to develop

                   an approved flood and erosion risk management plan that is more protective against flood and

                   erosion losses than the minimum FEMA requirements. The plan is to include a comprehensive

                   strategy for mitigation activities. The latter may include regulation instruments (elevation,

                   relocation, demolition, or floodproofing requirements); investment instruments (acquisition of

                   property for public use that has been substantially damaged by floods); and incentive instruments

                   (the provision of technical assistance by states to localities). Funding also is available for planning


                                                                       31










            assistance grants under which these mitigation plans may be developed. Federal cost sharing is

            proposed on the basis of a 75% federal share, thereby creating the further opportunity for the state

            to readily leverage federal funds for state and local projects.




            Since acquisition is included within the set of eligible mitigation strategies, the little used Section

            1362 program is repealed (ï¿½404). Other parts of the proposed bill include statutory authorization

            for the CRS program (Title 111), restrictions on the availability of insurance within the 36 and 60

            year erosion zones (ï¿½406) and the addition of funds to cover the costs of bringing a substantially

            damaged structure up to code when repaired (ï¿½602).






                                            DISASTER RELIEF (STAFFORD) ACT







            OVERVIEW


            The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 was enacted as a means of providing assistance by the federal

            government to states and communities in dealing with the issues associated with emergencies and

            major disasters. These issues include those of damage to property and the impacts on individual

            and family welfare. The act was amended in 1988 to provide for a broadening of disaster relief

            programs, to encourage the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance

            plans, and to encourage states and localities to adopt hazard mitigation measures, including land

            use and construction regulations, as a means of reducing disaster related losses. Federal assistance

            is meant to be supplemental and to extend beyond the levels at which states and localities are able

            to respond on their own resources.




            The process of assistance is initiated by a declaration by the President, after application from the



                                                             32











                   Governor of the state. The application/declaration may be for either an emergency or disaster.

                   Emergencies are non-storm related events that exceed local government capacities to react (riots,

                   sudden population influx, etc.) and involve a lesser degree of assistance than the storm related


                   disaster event.




                   Under the declaration of a disaster, there are two types of relief that may be provided, depending

                   on the severity of the damage: individual and public assistance. The program for individual

                   assistance provides aid for the repair of damaged homes and businesses, for temporary housing,

                   and for a variety of individual and family needs (medical, transportation, unemployment, food,

                   legal services, crisis counseling, etc.). Given the personal and emergency nature of this aid, this

                   aspect of the program has little implication for storm hazard mitigation and post-storm

                   redevelopment.




                   The public assistance program provides aid to state and local governments, and to private nonprofit

                   organizations who operate government type facilities (schools, utilities, medical and custodial

                   facilities, etc.). Public assistance aid is classified as either emergency or permanent. The former

                   includes efforts to save lives, to protect property, and to maintain the operation of essential

                   community services. Permanent aid relates to work for restoring facilities to their pre-disaster

                   design so that they can continue in their intended use and functions. Eligible facilities include roads

                   and bridges, water control facilities, public buildings and equipment, utility systems, parkand

                   recreational facilities, and others. This aspect of the program has important implications for storm

                   hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment because it affects what may be rebuilt, where,


                   and how.




                   Assistance to a public body for the restoration of a facility is a function of the extent of damages;

                   facilities are considered repairable when damages do not exceed 50% of the costs of replacing the



                                                                     33










            facility to its pre-disaster condition. Hazard mitigation measures may be added to the process of

            repair or restoration on a site specific basis and are eligible costs. If the facility is not repairable

            (i.e., repair costs exceed 50% of replacement), a replacement for the facility may be approved.

            FEMA maintains other options as well. Where the facility is subject to repeated heavy damage they

            may require restoration at a new location, with eligible costs including those for land acquisition,

            site preparatio n, and demolition. When relocation is required, no future funding for the facility at

            the original site will be approved. The local community may also argue that restoration of a

            damaged facility will not serve the public welfare and that an alternative project should be

            approved. This can consist of new facilities, expanding other facilities, or funding hazard mitigation


            measures.





            Public assistance funding is regulated by the FEMA-State agreement. This agreement sets out the

            understandings, commitments, and conditions for assistance, including the proportion of funds that

            are to come from federal vs. state and local sources, and imposes binding obligations on all parties.

            Generally, federal funds will cover 75% of eligible costs. The State of Florida will cost share the

            remaining 25% on a equal basis with localities. Beyond cost sharing, the act also provides for

            community disaster loans to any local government that has suffered a substantial loss of revenue

            as a result of a major disaster and which requires such funds, up to 25% of its pre-disaster budget,

            in order to continue to perform its governmental functions.




            A major component of the act is the requirement for hazard mitigation planning. Hazard mitigation

            surveys are performed by an interagency task force immediately following the declaration of a

            disaster in order to identify hazard evaluation and mitigation measures that must be incorporated

            into the recovery process. The state is then required to prepare and implement a hazard mitigation

            plan for the disaster area (termed 409 plan). The plan should include an evaluation of the natural

            hazards in the designated area and the methods to be used for dealing with these hazards, through



                                                               34










                  mitigation, so as to reduce or avoid long term vulnerability. The plans are to be continually

                  monitored and updated and they should be structured in such a way as to help states and localities

                  develop hazard mitigation capabilities as a part of their normal governmental functions. States are

                  also encouraged to develop a basic mitigation plan prior to a disaster event so that the plan can be

                  expanded or updated to address the specific issues arising from each particular disaster. The state

                  is given primary responsibility for developing and updating the plan, involving local governments

                  and others as necessary. The status of this plan and its implementation is, in theory, considered by

                  FEMA when evaluating a state's application for subsequent disaster declarations.



                  The act also provides for a hazard mitigation grant program (Section 404) in which hazard

                  mitigation project grants are made to states (and through them, to local governments and private

                  non-profit organizations) for projects identified in the state hazard mitigation plan. The Section 404

                  grant program provides funding for mitigation projects to the limit of 10% of the cost of public

                  assistance permanent work. The federal government will pay 50% of this amount. Eligible projects

                  need not be site specific and may be of any nature that will result in protection to public or private

                  property and include construction, acquisition, relocation, development of mitigation standards, and

                  development of comprehensive mitigation programs.




                  ANALYSIS


                  Unlike the National Flood Insurance Program, the Disaster Relief Act provides an important and

                  central role for the state in the organization and delivery of disaster assistance. The state is the

                  agent responsible for preparing and submitting the disaster application; is the grantee for disaster

                  assistance funds; participates in the organization and delivery of disaster relief, including cost

                  sharing with localities for the non-federal share of costs; is responsible for the preparation of hazard

                  mitigation plans for both the state and declared disaster areas; and is responsible for setting

                  priorities and implementing funding for mitigation projects under the Section 404 hazard mitigation


                                                                   35










            grant program. By virtue of its roles in this process the state is in a unique position to use the

            disaster assistance program to leverage post-disaster redevelopment policy objectives. Our analysis

            of state behaviors suggests, however, that little has been done to pursue state objectives through

            this program.




            Public Assistance Proaram


            The public assistance program represents one instance in which the state can influence how public

            facilities are rebuilt after a disaster, thereby utilizing an investment instrument to further state

            policy goals. Public assistance funding may be used to restore damaged structures, to replace them

            when damage estimates exceed 50% of replacement, remove them to a new location, or to fund

            alternative projects. Little information exists on the distribution of these alternatives in practice, but

            informants suggest that most public assistance funds are utilized to return damaged facilities to

            their pre-storm condition and functions. Utilizing the state's leverage to remove or relocate public

            facilities to new locations -- both to secure their future safety as well as to utilize them as

             priming" mechanisms for inducing other development trends -- apparently is not a characteristic of

            this program.




            Hazard Mitigation Plans


            The state is required to develop, in conjunction with the local areas and other interested parties, a

            hazard mitigation plan for the declared disaster area. The state is also encouraged to develop a

            state-wide plan into which the separate plans for disaster areas would be integrated as they occur.

            Moreso than a policy for the use of public assistance funds, this planning mandate represents a

            unique opportunity for the state to focus disaster assistance in a manner that promotes and

            pursues its policy interests.




            Unfortunately, the state has seriously avoided using the leverage of the mandated plan to promote



                                                              36










                   state policy objectives. Currently, there is no state hazard mitigation plan, although a plan does

                   exist in draft form with anticipated completion by 1994 (Florida Department of Community Affairs,

                   1993c). The draft follows the minimum content as specified by FEMA, with coverage across four

                   items:


                           1      An evaluation of the natural hazards of the state.


                           2)     A description and analysis of state hazard management policies, programs, and

                                  capabilities to mitigate hazards.

                           3)     A statement of hazard mitigation goals and objectives, and proposed strategies,

                                  programs, and actions to reduce long term vulnerability to hazards.

                          4)      A method of implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan.




                   In responding to minimal FEMA criteria, however, the draft state plan does not provide an effective

                   guide for statewide hazard mitigat ion. Rather than a plan that can guide future action, the current

                   document is little more than a report that specifies the natural hazards that threaten the state,

                   some generally worded goals and objectives for hazard mitigation, and some mitigation

                   recommendations that are unevenly drawn across the different natural hazards. Most of the latter

                   recommendations have appeared in the separate Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Reports

                   completed by FEMA for the separate disasters and do not derive from a careful analysis of hazards

                   and the capabilities and opportunities for dealing with these hazards. Beyond the failure to

                   adequately connect problems with resources, the plan does not develop criteria by which to place

                   mitigation strategies in a priority order nor does it relate adequately to other state goals, objectives,

                   and priorities. Without establishing priorities, there can be no serious attempts at implementation.

                   Thus, the report contains a short section on implementation that does little more than specify the

                   composition and general responsibilities of the various teams and committees involved in hazard

                   mitigation, including the responsibilities of the state hazard mitigation officer, rather than

                   mechanisms for the implementation of policy.



                                                                     37










            We believe that the plan should be a document that, at a minimum, carefully studies the nature of

            the subject problems and then analyzes and evaluates alternatives for dealing with the problem(s)

            and achieving the desired outcomes established as state policy goals and objectives. Indeed, the

            opportunity for preparing a state hazard mitigation plan represents a significant opportunity to

            rethink the state policy objectives noted in Chapter 1 and to expand them in ways that are unique

            to hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment. Having associated goals and objectives with

            means, the plan should then specify a set of policies and implementation devices for putting the

            policies into effect, including the relative priority of each policy. The plan should also consider

            periodic evaluation and update in light of new information and analysis on how well implemented

            alternatives have worked. The plan should be a policy statement of a decision making body with

            the power and legal authority to commit resources in pursuit of the plan.




            Legislation that is currently before the U.S. Senate in the form of the "Natural Disaster Mitigation,

            Relief, and Insurance Act of 1993" provides some formal guidance for the construction of

            mitigation plans. The act would require each state to develop a mitigation plan that includes

            schedules for improving the state's ability to reduce the hazards of future disasters. The plan

            should include, at a minimum, a process for verifying compliance with multi-hazard building codes

            and insuring that these standards are enforced; identify areas within the state that have risk from

            disasters and categorize these areas on the basis of degree of risk; establish priorities by risk and

            location of the types of structures that may be in need of hazard mitigation; and identify the types

            of mitigation, in the form of building codes, non-structural mitigation, or retrofitting, that will be


            most cost effective.




            Most of these critical elements of a useful plan are missing from the state hazard mitigation plan

            and have been identified by FEMA as necessary revisions before the plan can be approved (U.S.

            Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992f.) FEMA has commented on the failure of the plan



                                                             38










                   to rationally tie the nature of the problem to stated goals and objectives, to identify priorities in

                   hazard mitigation, and to adequately relate priorities to implementation strategies. FEMA's critique

                   of the plan recognizes that it is an inadequate guide for public action, and encourages the state to

                   "take a broad, statewide approach towards implementing policies and programs directed at

                   reducing future hazard related losses ... (that will) ... allow the state, following future disasters, to

                   implement priority programs and projects, regardless of the type of disaster incurred." (U.S. Federal

                   Emergency Management Agency, 1992b:7)




                   We have also reviewed a number of mitigation plans that have been produced after specific

                   disasters and our assessment of these individual plans is substantially similar: they represent

                   reports rather than plans, with no thoughtful attention given to the evaluation of alternative

                   mitigation strategies and their implementation in pursuit of state policy goals and objectives. While

                   the disaster specific plans discuss the issues of disaster and hazard mitigation within particular

                   local jurisdictions, so that the hazard mitigation recommendations are specific to the local context,

                   no formal authority is associated directly with the plans.




                   Also at issue is the use of these plans at the local level. Rule 9.1-5.012 FAC, dealing with the

                   content of the coastal management element of the local government comprehensive plan has, in

                   the past, specified that local governments incorporate the recommendations of the interagency

                   hazard mitigation report into the hazard mitigation policies of the coastal management element.

                   Action by the 1993 legislature has modified this language, however, specifying only that where an

                   interagency hazard mitigation report exists, local governments may incorporate its

                   recommendations into the local comprehensive plan (CS/CS/HB 2315, Section 13 [ELMS III Bill]).

                   This permissive language means that local governments may be free to ignore the lessons and

                   recommendations (although informants involved in the process of constructing this language

                   suggest that the intent was to allow communities to make changes to the local comprehensive plan


                                                                       39










            with respect to the hazard mitigation report without involving a formal plan amendment process

            (Flack, 1993)).




            Hazard Mitioation Grant Program


            A third significant opportunity for the state to promote hazard mitigation objectives is through the

            hazard mitigation grant program. Section 404 grants represent the major mitigation funding

            program available on a non-site specific basis. Since project funding is tied to the state hazard

            mitigation plan, it represents a major incentive to states and localities to take seriously the

            preparation and implementation of the hazard mitigation plan and then to pursue mitigation projects

            identified by the plan.




            The amount of funding that is available through federal cost sharing is substantial; estimates exist

            of $15-18 million available to the state from Hurricane Andrew alone (Hutchins, 1993). The cost


            sharing basis of this program, requires the state and/or local jurisdictions to match this amount on a

            dollar for dollar basis. Funded projects must be a part of the state hazard mitigation plan. Without

            an adequate state hazard mitigation plan, however, it is not reasonable to expect that hazard

            mitigation grant funds will be effectively used. Neither the state nor the involved local jurisdictions

            appear to have identified the most important mitigation projects and placed them within a funding

            plan. To date, the state has not applied for any of the funds available from earlier disasters

            Koutnik, 1993) and a considerable degree of hazard mitigation initiative has been lost.




            In addition to the impediment of the state hazard mitigation plan, another factor in the inadequate

            use of this program may be the state's posture on cost sharing with local communities. Cost

            sharing is an incentive mechanism and should be constructed to induce the desired actions in the

            intended parties. Currently the state will pay from 10 to 25% of project costs, requiring the local

            jurisdiction to pay the remaining share, for a total of 50% non-federal share (Koutnik, 1993). State



                                                             40











                   funds are to be taken from general revenue, however, so that the magnitude of the potential match

                   will vary and cannot be depended upon by a local community. This arrangement appears to be an

                   inadequate incentive and may be particularly burdensome on the local community in light of the

                   financial strain caused by the disaster event. Furthermore, the inability of the state to commit to

                   cost sharing reduces the incentive and opportunities for long range mitigation planning. More

                   useful to tft state and its local communities is a program in which the state, through the

                   preparation of an adequate statewide hazard mitigation plan, identified those projects with the

                   greatest potential for satisfying state mitigation policy objectives, and utilized state funding to

                   promote those identified projects.







                          COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 AND 11990







                   OVERVIEW


                   The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) was enacted in 1982 (and amended by the Coastal

                   Barrier Improvement Act of 1990) in response to the goals of minimizing the loss of human life,

                   wasteful expenditures of federal revenues, and damage to natural resources associated with

                   coastal barriers. The act establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) which is an

                   identification and inventory of undeveloped sections of barrier islands, and removes federal

                   subsidies for infrastructure and other public purposes in these places as a means of reducing

                   development incentives. Under the act, federal expenditures for roads, bridges, infrastructure,

                   community development, disaster relief (except assistance necessary to save lives and to protect

                   public health and safety), flood insurance, and others are prohibited. Exceptions are made for the

                   repair and maintenance of facilities that are critical links in a larger system. These prohibitions do

                   not apply to coastal barriers not incorporated within the CBRS. The act does not interfere with


                                                                      41










            state and local rights to regulate development in CBRS units within their jurisdictions, and the act

            does not prohibit development in CBRS units that occurs with non-federal funds.




            The Department of Interior is responsible for designating undeveloped coastal barriers and

            distinguishing them from developed coastal barriers and "otherwise protected" areas (e.g., state

            and federal lands, wildlife refuges, etc.). Three criteria have been used for including parcels within

            the CBRS: 1) less than one walled and roofed building per five acres of fastland; 2) absence of

            urban infrastructure (vehicle access, water supply, wastewater disposal, etc.); and 3) not part of a

            development of 100 or more lots (Godschalk, 1987). Minimum parcel sizes generally include at

            least one quarter of a mile of ocean-facing shoreline. These criteria have resulted in the designation

            of 33 individual CBRS units in Florida, encompassing 119 miles of shoreline (U.S. Department of

            Interior, 1988).




            Executive orders 11988 (floodplain management, 1977) and 11990 (wetlands protection, 1977)

            were issued by President Carter and are conceptually similar to the CBRA, although not as powerful

            both in concept and in substance. Their effect is to limit federal actions and expenditures in

            floodplain and wetland areas, but not to prohibit such actions altogether. Both executive orders

            mandate consideration by all federal agencies of actions that would encourage development in

            floodplains or wetlands, respectively. Federal agencies are to refrain from programming, financing,

            or permitting development in floodplain hazard areas except where no other practical alternative

            exist. Where actions are taken in the floodplain, agencies are directed to pursue them in ways that

            seek to minimize flood damage and which protect, preserve, and restore floodplain values. This

            same measure of protection is given to wetlands, which are not to be destroyed unless no practical

            alternative exists. Where construction in these areas is unavoidable, federal agencies must insure

            that damage is minimized. (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989).





                                                             42










                  Like the CBRA, the limitations on federal actions and subsidies within floodplain and wetland areas

                  are intended to discourage development in these areas and to protect these natural resources. The

                  prohibitions are not encompassing, however, and refer only to federal actions. State, local, and

                  private development actions are unaffected unless they use federal funds.




                  ANALYSIS


                  CBRA and the Executive Orders are infrastructure investment policy instruments that do not

                  directly involve the state. The degree to which state policy objectives are realized is only fortuitous,

                  and since there is no role for the state in the program, it is difficult to see how the programs can be

                  leveraged for state interests. On the other hand, the federal programs can be taken as models for

                  state action, using, to the extent possible, the precedent and experiences of the federal actions to

                  inform state policy instruments. The model inherent in the federal program is the withdrawal of

                  investment, i.e., withdrawal of state subsidies for infrastructure within defined coastal areas


                  thereby affecting the development potential of these areas as well as saving the costs of replacing

                  infrastructure that is at risk. A literal interpretation of the model limits state expenditures to units of

                  the CBRS; a more expansive development of the model would define those areas of coast that are

                  of unique concern to the state and impose these limitations thereupon. To the degree that

                  development is reduced state policy objectives will be realized.




                  Two issues to be addressed include: 1) the degree to which CBRA does provide a useful and

                  effective model for state action; and 2) the degree to which this model has been implemented by


                  the state.





                  Evaluations of CBRA

                  Since CBRA only limits federal expenditures in CBRS units, the overall impact on development will

                  depend on the behaviors of other actors affecting development. This includes the actions of state


                                                                   43










            and local governments in limiting public spending; Private insurance companies in not filling the gap

            created by the unavailability of national flood insurance; banks and development agencies in

            deciding the conditions under which they will make available real estate loans and mortgages;

            conservation organizations in deciding whether or not to acquire land within the CBRS; and private

            developers in deciding whether they are able to develop land within the CBRS under greater hazard

            risk and infrastructure costs (Godschalk, 1987). Clearly, some of these decisions will be made in

            conflict with the intent of CBRA, leading to greater development. Godschalk has forecast that

            private development companies with major land holdings in CBRS units will "focus on high-density,

            luxury condominium projects, where they can make a profit ... even with higher infrastructure costs

            and where homeowners' associations can deal with negotiating insurance contracts and

            maintaining infrastructure." (11987:21) He also suggests that CBRA would generate greater

            pressure for more dense development of areas designated as developed coastal barriers plus

            provide incentives for redevelopment to make way for new, higher density projects. Leitman (11990)

            has made similar predictions in reviewing the Gulf County, Florida comprehensive plan which

            encompasses the CBRS unit at Cape San Bias.




            Because of the number of favorable decisions that must come together, the success of CBRA has

            been limited. In a recent report of development in 34 selected CBRS units (U.S. General Accounting

            Office, 1992), the GAO found that new development had occurred on nine units since 1982 and

            that at least one of the nine could no longer qualify for CBRS designation. Each of these nine units

            had an attractive coastal setting, and eight of them were readily accessible by road or bridge. Some

            units included in the study remained undeveloped, mainly because of their relative inaccessibility.

            Similarly, some examples of units that were intended to be developed but where development was

            stopped or slowed because of the unavailability of federal flood insurance or infrastructure

            subsidies are provided. A major conclusion of the report, however, is that other CBRS units that are

            accessible and/or suitable for development may undergo development similar to that of the nine



                                                              44











                  developing units.



                         "While the availability of accessible coastal land is limited, populations of coastal units are
                         expected to increase by tens of millions by the year 2010. This population increase will
                         further -spur market demand providing an incentive for developers, owners, and investors to
                         assume the risks associated with owning and building in these storm prone areas. Stronger
                         protective measures may be needed if further development is to be discouraged." (U.S.
                         General Accounting Office, 1992:24)



                  The Florida Model


                  Florida has adopted the model suggested by CBRA, but only weakly and in an inconsistent fashion,

                  failing to provide the safeguards and additional protective measures called for in the GAO report.

                  Two aspects of state regulation speak to this issue: Executive Order 81-105, and portions of

                  Chapter 380 FS codified as the Coastal Infrastructure Policy (see Chapter 3 for a more complete

                  discussion of these regulations.) While some portion of this policy structure is directed to barrier

                  islands (although not necessarily to units of the CBRSJ the main focus is on the coastal high


                  hazard area.




                  Executive Order 81-105 was issued by Governor Graham in 1981 and prohibits the use of state

                  funds "to subsidize growth or post-disaster redevelopment in hazardous coastal areas." The

                  Executive Order, however, has been a difficult policy instrument to enforce. As an executive order

                  it applies only to the operations of executive agencies and cannot supersede statutory

                  requirements. The order has also been beset by problems in interpretation. The geographical focus

                  of the order is not clearly defined nor are many of the important terms, and this has allowed for

                  inconsistent application by the different state agencies. The order, moreover, was not intended to

                  be a permanent policy instrument; it was to remain in effect only until local governments

                  implemented policies that were at least comparable (Florida Department of Community Affairs,

                  1991).




                  Given both the enforcement difficulties of an executive order and its interim nature, it is important


                                                                  45











            that the provisions be reinforced by statute. Unfortunately, this has occurred in only meager ways.

            Florida's Coastal Infrastructure Policy, incorporated as Chapter 380.27 FS 0 985) prohibits the use

            of state funds for the purposes of constructing bridges or causeways to unbridged barrier islands

            only; the prohibitions are limited in both geographical focus and application. On the issues of

            infrastructure and coastal areas in general, state policy has been abdicated in favor of local policy.

            Chapter 380.21 FS declares that state land and water management policies, to the maximum

            extent possible, should be implemented by local governments. Furthermore, Chapter 380.27 FS

            provides that after a local government has an approved coastal management element as part of the

            local comprehensive plan, no state funds can be used to increase the capacity of infrastructure

            unless such expenditure is consistent with the approved coastal management element of the local

            plan. This requirement has reduced the ability of the state to implement projects in pursuit of state

            policy. As such, leadership for defining appropriate projects is given to the local jurisdiction, and

            the important areas of coverage provided for in the Executive Order, and which are in need of

            statutory protection, are left unaddressed.




            The issue of the state assuming an unambiguous leadership position for coastal development policy

            is neither clarified nor reinforced in other statutes and rules. The State Comprehensive Plan

            (Chapter 187 FS) speaks to the issue of state investment by using state funds to subsidize

            development in coastal high hazard areas, but falls short of specifying a prohibition; it states merely

            that it is policy to avoid such expenditures. The plan treats the issue of transportation

            improvements that encourage or subsidize development in the same way. The general theme is

            repeated in the policies regulating local comprehensive plans (Chapter 163 FS and Rule 9J-5 FAC),

            in which local communities are required to address certain coastal issues. In practice, however,

            communities have been given considerable freedom as to how to address these issues and many

            are addressed only weakly or not at all (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1991). This

            perception is reinforced in Chapter 4 where we review our analysis of the content of the coastal



                                                            46











                  management element of a sample of local comprehensive plans. This analysis suggests that state

                  policy interests are not well realized by placing decision authority at the local level. Consequently,

                  the considerable leverage that is inherent in state infrastructure investments is lost.







                                                              SUMMARY




                  Our review of the operation of federal programs has highlighted the degree to which these

                  programs help the state to realize state policy objectives for storm hazard mitigation and post-storm

                  redevelopment. To a degree the extent to which state interests are served by these federal

                  programs is coincidental; they are organized and implemented according to the interests of the

                  federal government, Throughout, however, there are significant opportunities for state

                  participation. Using the federal programs as either opportunities or models for involvement holds

                  the potential to leverage them in the pursuit of state objectives. The degree to which the state

                  relies on federal programming to realize state objectives, and the degree to which the state

                  leverages this federal programming in further pursuit of state policy objectives are important issues

                  in the design and construction of state storm hazard mitigation policy.




                  NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD INSURANCE PROGRAM


                  The National Flood Hazard Insurance Program is organized chiefly on a federal-local dimension

                  utilizing incentive and investment strategies to stimulate local action. The formal state role is a

                  relatively small one, consisting mainly of the provision of support and technical assistance to local

                  communities. Florida has managed to adopt and reinforce some aspects of the program in order to

                  increase its program impacts and these were noted above. Nevertheless, other opportunities to

                  enhance the operations of the program exist, and are mainly of four types (Association of State

                  Floodplain Managers, 1992). These are: greater community participation in NFIP, increased



                                                                  47










            purchase of insurance by property owners, strengthened content of community floodplain

            regulations, and state adoption of floodplain regulations. Activities of the first three types are

            discussed below. Direct regulation by the state is considered in Chapter 3.




            An obvious area of opportunity is in encouraging increased community participation in NFIP.

            Community participation in NFIP is important, independent of the extent to which property owners

            purchase insurance policies, because community participation results in the adoption of floodplain

            management policies that affect all floodplain development -- whether insured or not. Currently,

            however, participation is near universal among the state's communities so that little additional

            benefit exists in new initiatives. We mention this alternative simply for conceptual completeness.

            Within this context, however, we suspect that there are relatively low levels of individual purchase

            of flood insurance within coastal areas. This is based on the assessment that only 14.5% of all

            households within the state carry flood insurance (as of 1988) and that this proportion increases to

            only 26% of all households when only those living in FEMA designated special flood hazard areas


            are considered.




            A more important area of state policy is in influencing the content of local community floodplain

            regulations. FEMA specifies the minimum content for community regulations, given in terms of

            building and construction standards, but provides additional incentives for communities to adopt a

            more comprehensive floodplain management program. The incentive for doing so is the Community

            Rating System program and the insurance discounts that property owners within the participating

            communities receive to their flood insurance policies. Participation in the CRS program has the

            potential to extend community regulation beyond building and construction standards, to include

            land use regulation, investments through acquisition and capital facilities, and incentives in the

            form of education and information programs, economic assistance, and others. Given the

            requirements of the local comprehensive plan to address issues of development, mitigation, and



                                                             48










                  redevelopment in floodplains and coastal areas, there has been the expectation that Florida's cities

                  would fare well in their rate of CRS participation and in the strength of the floodplain management

                  programs included within their CRS programs. Unfortunately, neither expectation appears realized.

                  Only 52% of coastal communities participate in the CRS, and the content of this participation does

                  not appear to be stronger than that which exists at the more general, national level. Indeed, in

                  many instances the adoption of important management techniques appears to be less frequent in

                  Florida than nationally.




                  State mandates that extend community participation beyond the minimum required by FEMA and

                  which effectively convert comprehensive plan requirements to tangible policies and programs that

                  can be incorporated within a local CRS program have the potential to leverage the flood insurance

                  program to greater advantage. They are, therefore, likely to have important effects both in realizing

                  state interests, in providing a greater degree of safety to residents and property owners in flood

                  hazard areas, and doing so at a reduced cost.




                  DISASTER RELIEF ACT


                  The Disaster Relief Act involves the state in a number of important ways, including participation in

                  the process of public assistance funding, and the preparation of a general statewide hazard

                  mitigation plan (as well as hazard mitigation plans for the separate disaster areas.) How the state

                  fulfills these mandates represents opportunities for realizing hazard mitigation policy objectives. In

                  addition, the state's share of public assistance funding represents an opportunity to influence how

                  these funds are spent for hazard mitigation and the state hazard mitigation plan represents a

                  significant opportunity to establish hazard mitigation priorities. The plan also provides the

                  opportunity to participate in the Section 404 hazard mitigation grant program whereby these

                  priorities may be implemented. Unfortunately, the state has done little to fulfill its mandated

                  responsibilities and to take advantage of the opportunities that these mandates create.



                                                                  49










            The most important component of state policy for hazard mitigation and use of federal hazard

            mitigation resources is the state hazard mitigation plan. To date, drafts of the plan appear to be

            written only to satisfy the minimal requirements of FEMA and to take advantage of the hazard

            mitigation grant funds made available after Hurricane Andrew. This attitude is short sighted and

            fails to use the opportunity to develop a meaningful statewide hazard mitigation plan that

            adequately addresses the problems caused by storm events.




            COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT


            The Coastal Barrier Resources Act helps to realize state policy objectives through the withholding

            of federal investments in critical coastal areas. More importantly, however, the program represents

            a model for state action. The model is that of limiting state funded infrastructure investments in

            coastal areas in which the state expresses a policy interest. A narrow interpretation of the model

            suggests limiting funding in units of the CBRS in order to reinforce the federal regulation, while a

            more expansive interpretation of the model suggests that the state focus on a wider area of

            interest. The more expansive interpretation may be made necessary by a perception that CBRA is

            having an unanticipated consequence on development outside the units of the CBRS such that

            development restrictions within the CBRS serve to place greater development pressures on those

            areas of barrier islands not under this regulation.




            The interest in focusing beyond the CBRS has already been expressed by the state in its attention

            to the larger coastal high hazard area. What the state has not done, however, is to define a set of

            incentives and mandates that consistently pursue the stated policy objectives. Rather than a

            consistent and mutually reinforcing set of incentives and regulations, there exists a partial system

            of regulation characterized by the overriding policy of local land use control; state policy has been

            abdicated in favor of local decision making. Beyond this, the impediments to the success of CBRA,

            in terms of influencing the decisions made by other actors in the development process, have not



                                                            50












                 . been addressed.







                                                                         I
































































                                                                   51












                                               ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 2



                   DCA and FEMA contract with a private organization to evaluate the local community
                   application. This firm, ISO, while holding public information, will not make it available, even
                   for public analysis purposes. We encourage the DCA to correct this situation.





















































                                                           52












                                                              CHAPTER 3


                          A REVIEW OF CURRENT FLORIDA STATE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
                                    GOVERNING COASTAL STORM HAZARD MITIGATION





                                                             INTRODUCTION




                  Florida has a diverse array of policies and programs that contribute to mitigating the costs and risks

                  posed by coastal storms. Some have been designed specifically to protect coastal environmental

                  resources, public safety, and property from storm damage, or to minimize the public costs of coastal

                  storm damage, while others have contributed to these goals while focused on other primary policy

                  objectives. Table 3.1 summarizes these policies and programs.




                  The state directly regulates coastal construction and site development through four programs that have

                  the potential to reduce coastal storm hazards: 1) & 2) two coastal construction permitting programs

                  operated by the Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) in the Department of Environmental Protection

                  (DEP) which regulate structures above and below the mean high water line along open, sandy

                  shorelines; 3) dredge and fill regulations administered by the DEP Division of Water Management; and

                  4) regulations governing the location and installation of onsite sewage disposal systems administered

                  by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The State Department of Community

                  Affairs (DCA) also serves in an oversight and guidance role for local coastal construction standards

                  mandated under the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985. DCA provides technical assistance and

                  limited formal review of these local government regulatory programs.




                  Regulation of land use is almost entirely a function of local governments who have the authority to

                  restrict types of land uses and the density of development through promulgation of local land

                  development regulations (LDRs) such as zoning and subdivision ordinances. The state does not directly








                 Table 3.1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments



                                                                               Legal
                 Policy Instrument                                          Authorization                     Summary



                 Regulation of Construction
                  and Site Development


                 Coastal armoring permits                                   ï¿½161.041 FS               A permitting program administered by the
                                                                                                      Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
                                                                                                      Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) regulates construction and
                                                                                                      major reconstruction of rigid erosion control structures along open
                                                                                                      sandy coasts that are designed to protect upland buildings and
                                                                                                      facilities from erosion. Temporary structures permitted during
                                                                                                      declared shoreline emergencies.

                 Coastal construction control                               ï¿½ 161.053 FS              Permits are required from DBS for excavation or
                  line (CCCL) permits                                                                 construction within an area demarcated by Coastal Construction
                                                                                                      Control Lines (CCCLs) in counties with predominantly sandy shores
                                                                                                      fronting on the open sea. Permit conditions include construction
                                                                                                      standards and dune protection and restoration requirements.

                 50-foot coastal construction                               ï¿½ 161.052 FS              Permits are required from DBS for construction
                  setback permits                                                                     within a 50-foot setback from the MHWL in those areas not covered
                                                                                                      by the CCCL permit program that have a sandy shore on the open
                                                                                                      coast. Permit conditions are comparable to those imposed under the
                                                                                                      CCCL permit program.

                 30-year construction                                       ï¿½ 161.053 FS              DBS prohibited from allowing construction of any
                  setback                                                                             structure other than a shore protection structure, which will be
                                                                                                      seaward of the "seasonal high water line" within 30 years after the
                                                                                                      date of application for a CCCL permit. Single-family residential
                                                                                                      structures are permitted seaward of this line for lots platted prior to
                                                                                                      October 1985 under certain conditions.


                 Regulation of dredge and                                   Part V11,                 Permits are required from DEP for dredge and fill
                  fill activities                                           Chptr 403 FS              activities in, on, and over state surface waters,
                                                                                                      including wetlands and mangroves. Applicants must demonstrate no
                                                                                                      significant impacts on surface water quality or various wetland
                                                                                                      values.


                                                                                                                                                                  (continued)




                                                                                              54











                 Table 3.1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments
                                                                                 Legal
                 Policy Instrument                                            Authorization                          Summary


                 Regulation of onsite                                         ï¿½381.0065 FS              Regulations  administered by the Department of
                  sewage disposal systems                                                               Health and  Rehabilitative Services (HRS) specify minimum lot sizes
                                                                                                        and siting standards for septic tanks and drainfields, including
                                                                                                        minimum setbacks from the MHWL of tidal water bodies.



                 Reaulation of Land Use


                 Local land development                                       ï¿½ 125.66 FS               Land development regulations (LDRs) of individual
                  regulations                                                 ï¿½ 166.041 FS              local governments can contribute to storm hazard
                                                                              Chptr 177 FS              mitigation by regulating types and densities of land uses.

                 State land development                                       ï¿½380.05 FS                Where an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) is
                  regulations for Areas of                                                              designated and the affected local government(s)
                  Critical State Concern                                                                fail to adopt plans and LDRs approved by the state, the State
                                                                                                        Administration Commission may adopt LDRs to be implemented
                                                                                                        within the ACSC.



                 Planning Mandates


                 Local comprehensive planning                                 ï¿½ 163.3178(2)             Requires local governments to designate a coastal
                  requirements governing                                      FS                        high hazard area (CHHA); limit development and
                  coastal high hazard areas                                   ï¿½9J-5.012(3)              public expenditures within the CHHA; relocate
                  hazard mitigation, and post-                                FAC                       infrastructure and direct population away from
                  storm redevelopment                                                                   the CHHA; adopt policies for storm hazard mitigation; prepare a post-
                                                                                                        storm redevelopment plan; identify regulatory and management
                                                                                                        techniques for post-storm redevelopment; and establish a process for
                                                                                                        identifying and ranking coastal properties for acquisition by the state.



                 Reaulatory Mandates


                 Adoption of local building                                   Part III                  Local governments required to include construc-
                  codes for construction within                               Chptr 161 FS              tion design standards in local building codes
                  the Coastal Building Zone                                                             for areas that include and extend further landward of the CCCIL and
                                                                                                        50-foot setback. Also applies to areas with vegetated shorelines
                                                                                                        based on position of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
                                                                                                        (FEMA) velocity zone.                                          (continued)








                 Table 3. 1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments
                                                  Legal
                 Policy Instrument                                           Authorization                         Summary


                 State minimum building code                                 Part VII                  Local governments with building construction
                                                                             Chptr 553 FS              regulatory responsibilities are required to adopt
                                                                                                       one of four model building codes for application throughout their
                                                                                                       jurisdiction except as modified by the requirements governing the
                                                                                                       Coastal Building Zone.



                 Acquisition of Coastal Property


                 Conservation and Recreation                                 ï¿½253.023 FS               Funds from sale of state bonds are used to
                  Lands (CARL) Program and                                   ï¿½259.101 FS               acquire environmentally unique and irreplaceable
                  Preservation 2000                                                                    lands of which a specified percentage- must be coastal lands.
                                                                                                       Projects are designed to protect rare and endangered species, historic
                                                                                                       or archaeologic resources, or to provide recreational opportunities.
                                                                                                       Recent statutory amendments added consideration of storm hazard
                                                                                                       potential to the acquisition criteria.

                 CCCL takings purchases                                      ï¿½ 161.053 FS              DBS occasionally purchases a property when denial of a CCCL permit
                                                                                -                      would constitute a "takings" requiring compensation. At present
                                                                                                       there is no dedicated sources of funds for such purchases.

                 Florida Communities Trust                                   Chptr 380 FS              The Florida Communities Trust operates a matching
                                                                                                       grants program available to local governments with approved
                                                                                                       comprehensive plans for acquiring land so as to further
                                                                                                       implementation of the coastal, conservation, or recreation and open
                                                                                                       space elements of the local comprehensive plan. The Trust may also
                                                                                                       acquire land directly and hold it for up to five years.

                 Conveyance of conservation                                  ï¿½704.06 FS                State statutes authorize the conveyance of
                  easements and development                                  ï¿½ 193.501 FS              conservation easements and development rights
                  rights                                                                               by private property owners to state or local governments or qualifying
                                                                                                       private nonprofit organizations for protecting lands with significant
                                                                                                       natural resource or recreational value.


                                                                                                                                                                    (continued)











                                                                                              56











                 Table 3.1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments

                                                   Legal
                 Policy Instrument                                             Authorization                           Summary


                 Develooment of Capital Facilities
                  and Infrastructure


                 Beach erosion control assistance                              ï¿½161.091 FS                 State funds from the Beach Management Trust Fund
                  program                                                                                  are authorized to be used to pay up to 75% of the costs of beach
                                                                                                           erosion control projects including beach restoration and
                                                                                                           renourishment, construction of hard erosion control structures, and
                                                                                                           dune construction and revegetation.

                 County beach and shore                                        Part 11,                    Authorizes boards of county commissioners to
                  preservation programs                                        Chptr 161 FS                develop and implement comprehensive beach and
                                                                                                           shore preservation programs. Counties may do so through creation of
                                                                                                           special benefits districts within which ad valorem taxes are based on
                                                                                                           benefit categories. Other mechanisms may also be used including
                                                                                                           creation of municipal service taxing units.

                 Governor Graham Executive                                     E.O. 81-105                 Limits expenditures of state funds for new infra-
                  Order                                                                                    structure or post-storm redevelopment on hazardous coastal barriers.
                                                                                                           Elaborated in 1986 to prohibit use of state funds to expand
                                                                                                           infrastructure or economic development in any designated unit of the
                                                                                                           Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System.

                 Barrier island bridge policy                                  ï¿½380.27(l) FS               Prohibits use of state funds to construct bridges
                                                                                                           or causeways to coastal barrier islands which were not already
                                                                                                           accessible by bridges or causeways on October 1, 1985.

                 Coastal high hazard area                                      ï¿½380.27(2) FS               Prohibits expenditure of state funds that will
                  infrastructure policy                                                                    increase the capacity of infrastructure within coastal high hazard
                                                                                                           areas unless such expenditures are consistent with the coastal
                                                                                                           elements of local comprehensive plans.


                                                                                                                                                                           (continued)








                  Table 3.1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments

                                                                                      Legal
                  Policy Instrument                                                Authorization                             Summary

                  Economic Incentives

                  Financial assistance for                                         Chptr 380 FS                 The Florida Communities Trust operates a matching
                    focal coastal land                                                                          grants program available to local governments
                    acquisition                                                                                 with approved comprehensive plans for acquiring land so as to further
                                                                                                                implementation of the coastal, conservation, or recreation and open
                                                                                                                space elements of the local comprehensive plan.

                  Tax concessions for conveyance                                   ï¿½193.501 FS                  Local property appraisers are required to grant
                    of conservation easements                                                                   property tax relief for owners who have conveyed
                    and development rights                                                                      conservation easements or development rights to state or local
                                                                                                                governments or qualifying private nonprofit organizations.

                  State beach erosion control                                      ï¿½ 161.091 FS                 State cost-sharing of up to 75% of the costs of
                    assistance program                                                                          beach erosion control projects. Local or private match required.
                                                                                                                Project sponsors are required to provide permanent public access,
                                                                                                                including adequate parking areas.

                  Hurricane catastrophe fund                                       CS/HB 31-C                   A bill enacted in 1993 created a state hurricane
                    and grants                                                                                  reinsurance trust fund financed by insurers' (and ultimately insureds')
                                                                                                                premiums. Surplus funds may be used for grants to local
                                                                                                                governments to protect local infrastructure.

                  Emergency Management,                                            Chptr 93-128                 A fund to provide supplemental monies for state
                    Preparedness, and                                              Laws of                      and local emergency management programs.
                    Assistance Trust Fund                                          Florida                      Financed by surcharges on annual property insurance premiums.


                  Education and Information


                  Training for local building                                      ï¿½ 161.56(4) FS               The Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
                    inspectors and deemed-to-                                                                   sponsors training workshops for local building
                    comply manual                                                                               inspectors and preparation of a compliance manual for coastal
                                                                                                                building zone building codes.

                  Technical assistance for                                         ï¿½ ï¿½ 380.22 (4)               The 1993 ELMS bill directed DCA to develop a
                    local coastal land                                             & (5) FS                     technical assistance program to establish a
                    acquisition                                                                                 county-based process for identifying and setting priorities for state
                                                                                                                acquisition of coastal land.                                      (continued)




                                                                                                      58











               Table 3.1: Summary of Florida Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments

                                                                         Legal
               Policy Instrument                                      Authorization                       Summary
               State beach management plan                             ï¿½ 161.16112) FS         Developed by DBS, the plan identifies arld
                                                                                               characterizes all areas of the state's sandy shorelines that are subject
                                                                                               to erosion and identifies appropriate strategies for each area.

               CCCL public notice                                      ï¿½ 161.053(2) FS         Public hearings accompanied by formal public
                procedures                                                                     notice are required prior to setting CCCLs. CCCLs must be recorded
                                                                                               in public records of affected local governments and surveys of the
                                                                                               line provided to the clerk of the circuit court in each county.











            regulate land use except under limited circumstances where a local government fails to adopt LDRs

            consistent with development guidelines developed by the state for designated Areas of Critical


            State Concern.




            The state operates one major land acquisition program that has been used to directly acquire

            property interests in coastal lands, the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program. State

            funds are also provided to assist local governments in acquiring real property to further specific

            objectives of their comprehensive plans under the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Program. While

            the FCT Program is more accurately categorized as an economic and technical assistance program,

            the land acquisition program has been the focus of most of its efforts since its establishment in

            1991. State laws also define the authority of local and state governments to acquire less-than-fee

            interests in real property as well as establishing tax incentives for property owners to convey

            certain less-than-fee property rights such as conservation easements and development rights to

            public or nonprofit entities.




            The state also provides financing for beach restoration and renourishment projects. These projects

            can be viewed as both economic assistance and as state capital facilities investments. In addition,

            the state has adopted several policies governing state expenditures on growth-inducing

            infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas. There is some inconsistency among these policies, two

            of which provide for a singular statewide policy while the third is closely linked to parallel policies in

            the coastal elements of local government comprehensive plans.




            Within the past year, two state initiatives have been taken which will increase the costs of

            residential and commercial property insurance as well as providing funds that can be used by state

            and local agencies to accomplish some storm hazard mitigation objectives. The Emergency

            Management, Preparedness, and Assistance Trust Fund imposes a surcharge on insurance

                                                             60











                  premiums to provide supplemental funds for state and local emergency management programs. It

                  could serve as a model for more equitably financing state costs of responding to coastal storm

                  emergencies. The Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, a reinsurance fund for companies that write

                  property insurance policies in the state, is expected to raise property insurance premiums based on

                  relative risk associated with hurricane damage. It could serve as an economic disincentive to

                  occupying areas prone to coastal storm damage.




                  In the following sections, each of these major state policies and programs is summarized and

                  discussed in the context of storm hazard mitigation and specific application to post-storm

                  redevelopment situations. Several state agencies also play a role in the implementation of several

                  federal programs, most notably the National Flood Insurance Program and the Disaster Assistance

                  Program. For the most part, the state's role in these programs is administrative or involves the

                  provision of technical assistance. Details on federal programs were contained in Chapter 2.



                                      STATE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PROGRAMS




                  The Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) exercises regulatory control over construction activity

                  along the state's open sandy shores fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, or the

                  Atlantic Ocean, through three permitting processes under Chapter 161 FS. None of these programs

                  applies to "interior waters," such as the lagoon-side of a barrier island or mainland areas or islands

                  within a lagoon protected from the open sea by a barrier island or spit.




                  One program, authorized by ï¿½ 161.041 FS, regulates structures located below the mean high water

                  line (MHWL). This governs erosion control structures such as seawalls, jetties, breakwaters, and

                  groins, as well as beach nourishment and inlet construction and maintenance. While the statute

                  gives DBS authority to regulate any structure on state sovereign lands below the MHWL "of any



                                                                    61










            tidal water of the state,' the statute also authorizes DBS to exempt interior tidal waters

            (ï¿½ 161.041 (1) FS). DBS has made this exemption in Section 1613-41.004 FAC. The other two

            programs regulate construction landward of the MHWL. In counties with predominantly sandy

            shores fronting on the open sea, permits are required for excavation or construction within an area

            demarcated by Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCL) established by DBS pursuant to

             161.053 FS. In coastal counties not dominated by sandy shores, DBS administers a program for

            granting waivers or variances to a 50-foot construction setback from the MHWL imposed under

             161.052 FS for construction in those areas,that do have a sandy shore on the open coast.




            All three of DBS's permitting programs are focused on protecting the state's beach and dune

            system. These permitting programs help mitigate the impacts of storms by maintaining the natural

            protection from wave and water damage afforded by the beach and dune system. The program

            governing structures below the MHWL also controls the use of engineered structures to protect

            upland structures. This was deemed necessary because of the potential for improperly sited or

            designed structures to interfere with the natural longshore and onshore/offshore movement of

            sediments that maintain the beach and dune system (ï¿½ 1 6B-41.005 FAC). Each of these regulatory

            programs has specific provisions governing post-storm circumstances.




            REGULATION OF STRUCTURES BELOW THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE


            Overview


            Section 161.041 FS limits the circumstances under which new rigid erosion control structures can

            be constructed along open coasts to protect upland buildings and facilities from storm damage.

            Siting and design constraints are imposed to minimize the adverse effects of such structures on the

            beach and dune system, its natural recreational and storm protection values, and on sea turtle

            nesting.





                                                           62










                  DBS allows the construction of erosion control structures below the MHWL "only as a last resort to

                  protect an eligible structure which is threatened by erosion" from a five-year return interval storm

                  (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, 1993:1-2; ï¿½ 1613-

                  41.005(6)(b) FAC). "Eligible structures" include major nonconforming habitable structures, which

                  are residences, hotels, and commercial structures that were not built under a DBS permit or that do

                  not meet current structural requirements for coastal construction, but were not built in violation of

                  Chapter 161 FS (ï¿½ 1 6B-41.002(18) FAC). They also include public roads and safety facilities,

                  bridges, water and waste water treatment facilities, hospitals or other structures of state or

                  national significance. Owners of habitable structures built landward of the MHWL in conformance

                  with a DBS permit are not allowed to build a major erosion control structure, even if shoreline

                  recession eventually exposes them to erosion from a five-year storm (Devereaux, 1993).




                  The applicant for an erosion control structure must demonstrate that "there will be no significant

                  adverse impact and all other alternatives, including dune enhancement, beach restoration,

                  relocation of the structure, and modification of the foundation, are ... economically and physically

                  unfeasible" (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, 1993:1-2). DBS

                  prohibits coastal armoring in areas designated by the federal government as critical habitat for sea

                  turtles (Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1 990a).




                  The regulations limit the level of protection that an erosion control structure can be designed to

                  provide (ï¿½ 1 6B-41.005(6)(b) FAC). Coastal armoring may not be designed to protect against

                  hurricanes. Nonconforming major habitable structures may be protected from the erosion impacts

                  of up to a 1 0-year return interval storm and other eligible structures from a 25-year storm event.

                  "Designated hurricane evacuation routes, public safety facilities and historical sites of national

                  significance may be provided protection of up to a 50-year return interval storm event, if feasible"

                  0 1 613-41.007(l)(b)(1) FAC). Similar constraints on protection design level are also imposed on



                                                                   63










             major reconstruction of existing facilities. "Major reconstruction" is defined as "the repair,

             replacement, or rebuilding, of an existing rigid coastal structure which is no longer capable of

             providing its original level of protection or which would change the alignment, design or level of

             protection afforded by the original structure" 0 1 6B-41.002(32)).




             DBS also has the authority to require redesign, landward relocation, or removal of existing erosion

             control structures "whose alignment has been determined ... to interfere with the natural

             movement of sand resulting in significant adverse impact to the coastal system or adjacent

             properties" (ï¿½ 1 6B-41.005(l 0) FAC). According to DBS Director Kirby Green (1993), all permits for

             rigid structures require monitoring of impacts on the sediment transport system. In Virtually all

             cases where problems have been detected, the division has required modification of the structure

             rather than removal.




             Emergency permits may be granted in the event of a declared shoreline emergency as a result of

             storm-induced "erosion, beach or coastal damage or damage to upland structures and which

             endangers the health, safety or resources of the citizens of the state" (ï¿½ 1613-41.014(1 ) FAC).

             Activities allowed under such permits include "repairing, reinforcing or replacing an existing [erosion

             control] structure or constructing a temporary structure in order to prevent immediate collapse of a

             major structure, public road or bridge, water or sewage treatment facility, power or safety facility,

             or historical structure, or to reduce the rate of erosion [of property] during a storm, or relieve

             severe flooding conditions; and activities necessary to facilitate post-storm recovery" (ï¿½ 1613-

             41.014(4) FAC).




             Actions that have been allowed to "facilitate post-storm recovery" have included debris removal

             and, in some cases, on-shore placement of sand from an offshore bar created by storm-induced

             erosion (Green, 1993). The term "recovery" is interpreted narrowly to apply to the beach and dune



                                                              64











                  system rather than to man-made structures. Actions that have been allowed "to reduce the rate of

                  erosion of property during a storm" have included use of sand bags, beach bulldozing, and, in a

                  few cases, temporary construction of sheet-pile walls to protect a vulnerable building (Green,

                  1993).




                  Analysis


                  DBS's coastal armoring policies strike a balance between the state's policy goal of protecting

                  private property and public safety and the goal of protecting natural resources. The beach and dune

                  system is a natural resource with inherent aesthetic, ecologic, and recreational values that also

                  provides a natural buffer against the potential impacts of storm surge and waves. While rigid

                  coastal erosion structures such as seawalls or groins may protect an upland residence, motel, road,

                  or other facility from storm damage, the structure may also interfere with natural sediment

                  transport processes that maintain the beach and dune system both at that location and on adjacent

                  properties (Komar, 1976; Leatherman, 1991). Seawalls may interfere with the onshore and

                  offshore movement of sand and lead to a narrowing of the beach. Groins and jetties may interrupt

                  the longshore movement of sand parallel to the beach and cause accelerated erosion at downdrift

                  properties. Provisions for emergency shore protection permits allow for short-term, temporary

                  actions to protect life and property without compromising the long-term stability of the beach and

                  dune system. But, habitable structures built in conformance with a DBS permit (see next section)

                  are not eligible for protection by permanent coastal armoring structures.




                  REGULATION OF STRUCTURES ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE


                  Overview


                  Pursuant to ï¿½ 1 61.0530)(a) FS, DBS establishes Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCLs) on a

                  county basis along the sandy shores fronting on the Gulf, the Atlantic, or the Straits of Florida so

                  as to define that portion of the beach and dune system subject to the erosion effects of a 1 00-year



                                                                    65










             storm surge. Location of the line is determined from analysis of historical storm and hurricane tides,

             maximum wave uprush, shoreline morphology, and existing upland development (Chiu and Dean,

             1984; Chiu, 1993).,Portions of the sand coast may be exempted from the CCCL regulations if DNR

             determines that those areas are not subject to substantially damaging erosion (ï¿½ 161.0530 0) FS).

             CCCLs have been drawn along all portions of the coasts of the designated counties except for

             areas owned by the federal government (Chiu, 1993).




             In counties with no CCCL (Monroe County and the Big Bend counties from Pasco to Wakulla),

             excavation or construction within 50 feet of the MHWL is prohibited at any sandy-shored, riparian

             coastal location fronting the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic coast exclusive of bays, inlets, rivers,

             bayous, creeks, passes, and the like. The setback does not apply, however, to shore protection

             structures, e.g. seawalls, or to structures existing or under construction on June 27, 1970

             0 161.052 (3) FS). The 50-foot setback regulations apply to a total of about 18 miles of shoreline

             statewide, while the CCCL permit program covers approximately 800 miles of shoreline

             (Devereaux, 1993).




             No construction on or modification of beaches or dunes seaward of the CCCL or 50-foot setback is


             allowed except in conformance with a permit issued by DNR pursuant to ï¿½ 161.053(2) and (5) FS.

             Any habitable major structure (residence, motel, commercial building) that extends seaward of the

             CCCL or 50-foot setback must meet specific construction standards for wind, wave, hydrostatic

             and hydrodynamic loads, and erosion conditions designed to resist the predicted forces associated

             with a 1 00-year storm event (ï¿½ 1613-33.007 FAC). Construction and excavation must be located as

             far landward of the CCCL or 50-foot setback as possible (ï¿½ 1 6B-33.006(3) FAC). The proposed

             structure or excavation must also be located sufficiently landward of the beach and dune system

             "to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery

             following storm induced erosion" (ï¿½ 1613-33.0070) FAC). DBS may also require dune restoration as



                                                               66










                  a permit condition where it would be practical, economically feasible, and beneficial (Green, 1993).

                  Local governments are authorized under ï¿½ 161.053(4) FS to administer an approved permit program

                  in lieu of the state program, but none has taken the initiative to do so (Green, 1993).




                  Under the provisions governing both the CCCL permit program and the 50-foot setback, DBS may

                  allow construction closer to the MHWL consistent with a "uniform construction line" established by

                  existing development on adjacent lots (ï¿½ï¿½161.053(5)(b) and 161.052(2) FS), "if the existing

                  structures have not been unduly affected by erosion" (1 6B-33.006(3) FAC). DBS Director Kirby

                  Green has indicated (11993) that this uniform construction line caveat has not presented a

                  significant constraint to the division's regulation of new structures along eroding shorelines

                  because they have generally been able to show that the existing structures have been significantly

                  affected by erosion.




                  DBS encourages applicants to locate structures as far landward as possible (ï¿½ 1 6B-33.005(6) FAC).

                  Chapter 161 also imposes a 30-year setback on construction within the area defined by the CCCL.

                  Section 161.053(6)(b) FS prohibits DBS or a local jurisdiction operating a program in lieu of the

                  CCCL permit program from allowing construction of any structure other than a shore protection

                  structure, pier, or "minor structure" which will be seaward of the "seasonal high water line" within

                  30 years after the date of application for such a permit. The 30-year "erosion projection" line is

                  determined on a site-by-site basis (ï¿½ 1 6B-33.024(l) FAC) and can be no further landward than the


                  CCCL.




                  Exceptions to the 30-year setback requirement may be granted where enforcement would preclude

                  issuing a permit for a single-family dwelling on the parcel so long as 1) the parcel was platted

                  before the effective date of that provision (October 1, 1985); 2) the parcel owner does not own

                  another parcel immediately adjacent to and landward of that parcel; 3) the dwelling is located



                                                                   67










            landward of the frontal dune; and 4) the dwelling is situated as far landward on the parcel as

            practical without being seaward of or on the frontal dune (ï¿½161.053(6)(c) FS). Green (1993)

            estimated that DBS has granted about 15 to 20 such exceptions during the past five years. He

            predicted, however, that the number would increase in the future as more marginal land is

            proposed for development, i.e. most of the best-suited land has been developed.




            According to Devereaux (1993), permits authorizing construction of single-family residences

            seaward of the 30-foot erosion projection line in areas with relatively high average erosion rates

            (e.g. 8 to 10 feet per year) include a condition that requires the house be removed when the

            MHWL reaches the house. Applicants are required to provide financial assurance such as an

            irrevocable certificate of deposit or a letter of credit to cover removal or relocation. This

            requirement has not yet been tested in court, however; none of the applicable structures has, as

            yet, been required to move. Similar conditions are not imposed on other CCCL or 50-foot setback

            permits (Devereaux, 1993). However, ï¿½161.061 FS gives DBS jurisdiction to require removal of

            any structure below the MHWL, regardless of whether it was constructed in conformance with a

            valid state permit, if that structure constitutes a nuisance, i.e. endangers human life, health, or

            welfare or "proves to be undesirable or unnecessary."




            Post-storm reconstruction of storm-damaged structures is addressed by the statute and DBS

            regulations. Existing major habitable structures can be remodeled or repaired after a storm without

            complying with the 50-foot setback requirement, the CCCL permit conditions, or the 30-year

            setback so long as the modified or repaired structure remains within the confines of the existing

            foundation and no modification of the foundation is involved (ï¿½ï¿½161.052(6) and 161.05302) FS).


            Minor repairs to the foundation are allowed so long as the foundation footprint is not altered

            (Devereaux, 1993). A major habitable structure may be rebuilt within the confines of the original

            foundation or relocated further landward in compliance with the CCCL construction conditions



                                                              68










                     161.05303) FS). DBS has construed these provisions narrowly, stating in its regulations that

                   such repair or rebuilding will only be allowed "where the proposed construction is necessary to

                   prevent the imminent collapse or further damage to a structure" 0 1 6B-33-007 (4) FAC). The CCCL

                   regulations also prohibit repairs or rebuilding "that expand the capacity of the original structure

                   seaward of the thirty year erosion projection." Nonetheless, Green (11993) has indicated that there

                   have been Tro cases where a permit has been denied to rebuild on the existing foundation, even in

                   several cases where the foundation was on the active beach as a result of the storm.




                   Analysis


                   The permit requirements under the 50-foot setback and CCCL programs, including the 30-year

                   setback, achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives by 1) reducing the vulnerability of buildings and

                   facilities through location and construction standards and 2) preserving the natural storm protection

                   attributes of the beach and dune system. There is no comparable protection of buildings and

                   facilities along inland shores and areas with vegetated shorelines, including Monroe County and the

                   Big Bend counties.




                   On portions of the state's coast where significant shoreline recession occurs, the area subject to

                   regulation will become progressively narrower as the MHWL moves landward. These areas are

                   limited to active barrier islands and sites affected by inlets (Devereaux, 1993). In addition,

                   ï¿½ 1 61.053(6)(b) FS stipulates that the 30-year erosion projection line shall be no further landward

                   than the CCCL. These provisions have not limited location of the 30-year setback so far (Chiu,

                   1993), in part because the base annual erosion rate is multiplied by a factor of 2.5 in setting the

                   CCCL in areas with significant annual erosion (Green, 1993). DBS has been redrawing the CCCLs

                   using a new technical methodology since 1980. Once this process is completed for the last three

                   counties, Bay, Palm Beach, and Pinellas, DBS will probably resurvey selected areas of the coast

                   that have significant rates of shoreline change due either to erosion or accretion (Chiu, 1993).



                                                                    69










            The protection afforded by the 30-year setback will also gradually diminish over time on eroding

            coasts. Single-family structures built seaward of the 30-year erosion projection line do not have to

            be relocated until the MHWL reaches the structure. Storm-damaged structures can be repaired in

            place so long as the foundation remains intact. Only where the foundation is also damaged can

            DBS require location further landward and, therefore, presumably apply a recalculated 30-year

            erosion projection line for the site.




            In its 1993 report titled Beach Redevelopment DNR's Office of Policy and Planning recommends

            that Chapter 161.053 be amended so that DBS can require that private structures located within

            the 30-year erosion projection area be rebuilt to the same standards that would apply to new

            structures if the structure were damaged more than 50% of its replacement value (Florida

            Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, 1993a). This would essentially

            redefine the distinction between repairing and rebuilding a structure and lower the damage

            threshold over which standards for new structures would apply. This threshold could be lowered

            further by employing a damage basis of 50% of the market value of the structure rather than 50%

            of the replacement value, since the market value is often less than the replacement value. The

            market value threshold is typically applied under the National Flood Insurance Program, although

            following Hurricane Andrew, FEMA permitted use of the higher threshold based on replacement

            value (Speights, 1993; see Chapter 2).




            An alternative approach that could potentially promote relocation before structures are damaged

            would be to apply the MHWL relocation standard to all structures permitted under ï¿½ ï¿½ 161.052 and

            161.053 or to require relocation when a structure is within some threshold distance from the

            MHWL defined by a multiple of the average annual erosion rate. Section 161.061 FS appears to

            allow DBS to invoke the MHWL requirement for any structure that is below the MHWL. Imposing a

            relocation requirement based on a setback threshold would probably have to be based on



                                                             70











                  protection of the beach-dune sand  sharing system or an argument that the structure should be

                  moved when incursion on the sovereign beach is imminent.




                  In an analysis of post-storm redevelopment policy options for the CCCL permit program,

                  researchers with the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems note that there


                  are no restrictions on creating lots within the CCCL area that are too shallow to permit

                  development in compliance with state regulations (Metzger et al., 1993). They imply that local

                  government subdivision regulations should reflect the 30-year erosion setback and other CCCL

                  locational requirements.




                  REGULATION OF DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES


                  Overview


                  The State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulates dredging and filling activities in,

                  on, and over the wetlands and surface waters of the state through regulations promulgated as

                  Chapter 17-312 FAC under the authority of Part'vill Chapter 403 (recently moved to 373) FS. DEP

                  jurisdiction under Chapter 403 extends to all tidal waters of the state as well as natural lakes and

                  non-intermittent rivers, streams, and natural tributaries. Activities on state sovereign lands require

                  additional authorization by the State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund

                  pursuant to their powers under Chapter 253 FS (ï¿½403.922 FS).



                  The regulations focus largely on protection of water quality (ï¿½ 17-312.080 FAC), but other wetland

                  and surface water values are also considered including fish and wildlife, endangered species,

                  recreation, navigation, erosion, shoaling, and flow (ï¿½403.918(2) FS). Applicants are required to

                  demonstrate that the proposed activity will not violate state water quality standards. Additional

                  restrictions apply to dredging and filling activities in waters approved for shellfish harvesting and

                  those containing mangroves.



                                                                   71











             Analysis


             DEP's dredge and fill regulations constitute the only direct state control of development along

             nonsandy and interior coastal shorelines. Their focus on surface water quality contributes to

             preservation of estuarine and near-shore ecosystems and the recreational and commercial values

             associated with those systems. However, neither the statute nor the regulations explicitly

             addresses thestorm hazard buffer value of coastal wetlands with the exception of flooding

             impacts. Pursuant to the statutory directive to consider impacts on flow, DEP hydrologists do

             estimate the impact of wetland alterations on local flooding (Wonnacott, 1993). There are also no

             provisions in the regulations that govern wind load and flood elevation construction standards for


             habitable structures.




             The dredge and fill regulations apply to shoreline protection structures as well as docks, piers,

             marinas, and navigation channel dredging. So long as water quality conditions are not

             compromised, the regulations impose no explicit restrictions on the level of protection that can be

             provided to an upland structure through construction of a bulkhead or other shoreline protection

             structure. However, the statute restricts the installation of vertical seawalls and encourages use of

             more "environmentally desirable" shore protection such as riprap or gently sloping, vegetated

             shorelines 0403.918 (5) FS). The primary impact of these regulations in the context of storm

             hazard mitigation and post-storm redevelopment has been through control of onsite sewage

             disposal systems as illustrated by the March 1993 storm that hit the Big Bend area (see next

             section). At present there are no statewide statistics on the numbers of acres of regulated

             wetlands that have been altered under state dredge and fill permits. However, a database is being

             developed from permit files since the late 1980s that will allow such analyses (Wonnacott, 1993).









                                                               72














                  REGULATION OF ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS


                  Overview


                  The siting and design of onsite sewage disposal systems, such as septic tank-drainfield systems,

                  are regulated directly by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services @HRS) under

                  ï¿½381.0065 FS. The DEP may play a role in coastal settings, under regulations governing protection

                  of surface water quality in the state (ï¿½ ï¿½ 17-302.600 - 302.700 and ï¿½ 17-4.242 FAC), where

                  installation of an onsite sewage system requires a department permit, such as for filling a wetland

                  or surface water of the state.




                  The HRS regulations specify minimum lot sizes, maximum development densities (lots per acre),

                  and minimum setbacks of septic tanks and drainfields from potable wells and the mean high water

                  line (MHWQ of tidal water bodies   0 1 OD-6.046(7) FAC). The regulations also specify minimum

                  effective soil depth and maximum flood vulnerability of drainfields.




                  The sewage disposal system must be setback 75 feet from the MHWL (ï¿½ 1 OD-6.046(3) FAC).

                  Where a lot was platted prior to 1972, the minimum surface water setback is 50 feet, and the

                  minimum lot size requirements do not apply (ï¿½ 1 OD-6.046(7)(e) FAC). In the Florida Keys and

                  portions of south Dade County, where more than 60% of the surface and subsurface soils consist

                  of Key Largo limestone or Miami oolite, the MHWL setback is reduced for septic tank systems and

                  aerobic treatment systems using sand filter drainfields (ï¿½381.0065(12) FS). In Dade County,

                  however, local ordinances are enforced in lieu of the state regulations (Heber, 1993).




                  The effective soil depth' of a drainfield must extend 42 inches or more below the bottom surface

                  of the drainfield trench or absorption bed 0 1 OD-6.047(l) FAC), and the water table elevation at

                  the wettest season of the year must be at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the



                                                                   73










            drainfield trench or absorption bed. HRS will allow the use of "suitable fill material" to achieve the

            necessary vertical separation between the drainfield and the water table 0 1 OD-6.047(2) FAC). The

            existing lot elevation at the site of the proposed system installation must not be subject to flooding

            which occurs more than once every two years on average (ï¿½ 1 OD-6.024(25)(a) and 6.047(6) FAC).

            In addition, the absorption surface of the drainfield trench or absorption bed must not be subject to

            flooding based on 1 0-year flood elevations, although the department is authorized to grant a

            variance from this restriction under specified circumstances (ï¿½ 1 OD-6.0471 0 ) FAC).




            HRS is also authorized to grant variances to these siting and design requirements where 1) the

            hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; 2) no reasonable alternative

            exists for the treatment of sewage; and 3) the discharge from the individual sewage disposal

            system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or

            significantly degrade ground or surface waters (ï¿½381.0065(8)(a) FS). Their policy has consistently

            been to allow no less than a 25 foot setback from the MHWL of tidal water bodies (Heber, 1993).

            This reflects, in part, the fact that regulations prior to 1972 required a setback of only 25 feet.




            In a post-storm situation, if a system is damaged, it must be repaired or replaced to meet the same

            conditions that would apply to a new system on the lot (Heber, 1993). However, the

            grandfathering provisions that apply to lots platted prior to 1972 would also apply to a repaired or

            replaced system following a storm. Where storm-induced erosion affected the setback of the

            system from the MHWL, HRS's variance procedure might be employed if a new system could not

            be sited on the lot in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirements.




            DEP enters the picture only when they are required to issue a permit that is related to the

            installation of an onsite wastewater disposal system proximate to surface waters of the state

            (Dead man, 1993). This involves a confluence of DEP responsibilities under Chapter 403 (recently



                                                             74










                  moved to 373) FS governing protection of water quality and regulation of dredge and fill activities

                  in, on, and over the surface waters of the state.




                  All surface waters are classified Class III (Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy,

                  Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife) unless expressly classified otherwise (ï¿½ 17-

                  302.6000) FAC). Portions of the coastal waters of many counties are classified Class 11 (Shellfish

                  Propagation or Harvesting), e.g. parts of Dixie and Levy Counties but not Taylor, and most of the

                  coastal waters of Franklin County (ï¿½17-302.600(3)(b) FAC).1 Some coastal waters are also

                  designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) (ï¿½ 17-302.700(9) FAC). DEP is prohibited from

                  issuing a dredge and fill permit or water quality certification for any proposed activity or discharge

                  within an OFW or which significantly degrades, either alone or in combination with other stationary

                  installations, any OFW, unless the proposed activity or discharge is clearly in the public interest and

                  the existing ambient water quality within the OFW will not be lowered as a result except on a

                  temporary basis (ï¿½ 17-4.242(2) FAC).




                  The principal circumstances under which these regulations would govern siting or replacement of

                  an onsite sewage disposal system are those where a property owner must obtain a permit to fill

                  waters of the state under ï¿½ 17-312 FAC to 1) achieve the necessary linear setback from the MHWL

                  of a tidal water body or 2) achieve the required elevation of a drainfield above the water table

                  (Deadman, 1993). Where a DEP permit is not required, the agency exercises no jurisdiction over

                  installation of sewage disposal systems, except in the DRI review process.




                  Analysis


                  The March 1993 storm that hit the Big Bend area of the Florida west coast especially hard has

                  highlighted the role that onsite sewage disposal system regulations can play in a post-storm

                  situation, especially in areas of the state where the CCCL and 50-foot setback permit programs do


                                                                   75











             not apply. Reconstruction was precluded for approximately 97 of 345 affected properties because

             of inability to comply with these regulations (Boland, 1993; Heber, 1993; Raffington, 1993). In

             more than half these cases, redevelopment would also have been precluded because the habitable

             structure had originally been built illegally on state sovereign lands and could not be relocated to a

             site above the mean high water line (Florida Interagency Management Committee, Winter Storm

             Task Force, 1993).




             The area hardest hit by the storm lies in Taylor, Dixie, and Levy counties which are excluded from

             DEP's CCCL regulatory program because they do not have sandy shorelines. The majority of the

             oceanfront lots in the affected areas were platted before 1972. In many instances onsite sewage

             disposal systems were installed without state or local permits, either because installation predated

             state regulation or because the regulations were not effectively enforced (Heber, 1993). Many of


             the lots that were developed would not have met the state's regulatory requirements had permits

             been sought, and many of the remaining platted lots could not meet permit requirements now. In a

             number of cases both the habitable structure and the onsite sewage system were located on state

             sovereign lands (wetlands or in waters of the Gulf) (Florida Interagency Management Committee,

             Winter Storm Task Force, 1993). While state and local officials were aware of the situation, they

             had attempted to rectify problem cases as opportunities arose, e.g. when a building permit was

             sought to remodel a structure or when a structure was sold (Heber, 1993). Inconsistent local

             enforcement has evidently been an impediment to successfully following this strategy.




             In reviewing applications to replace damaged onsite sewage disposal systems in the affected area,

             HRS attempted to allow modifications to existing systems where possible, following its variance

             procedures under ï¿½ 1 OD-6.045 FAC. As a general rule, HRS required use of a no-discharge, black-

             water system, such as a composting or incineration toilet, and a gray-water drainfield that would

             be no closer than 25 feet to the MHWL (Heber, 1993). However, there were numerous instances



                                                                76










                  where the 25-foot minimum setback could not be achieved without placing fill below the MHWL or

                  within a state-regulated wetland. Thus many HRS variances were conditioned on receipt of a DEP

                  dredge and fill permit JFlorida Interagency Management Committee, Winter Storm Task Force,

                  1993).




                  DEP subsequently refused to allow placement of fill for the purpose of installing a drainfield

                  because the adjacent Gulf waters are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (Deadman, 1993).

                  Extension of public sewers to the affected area was proposed, but was determined to be

                  economically infeasible (Florida Interagency Management Committee, Winter Storm Task Force,

                  1993). Rebuilding would have been precluded on at least half the lots even with a centralized

                  sewage treatment plant because of infringements on state sovereign lands.




                  The circumstances that arose in this case are evidently not unique. There are other developed areas

                  of the coast, primarily in rural counties, where onsite sewage disposal systems have not been

                  properly sited, and where rebuilding following a storm could be precluded because of the HRS

                  setback requirements and DEP's policy of not granting permits to fill wetlands or below the MHWL

                  for siting wastewater drainfields. Analogous circumstances could also arise where a storm caused

                  significant erosion that precluded meeting the setback requirements. How the setback requirement

                  for an onsite sewage disposal system would interact with CCCL regulatory requirements in areas

                  with a sandy shore would vary with the site, but it is likely that under some circumstances the

                  sewage disposal system setback could be the determinative regulation.




                  Not all coastal waters are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. However, DEP would be

                  similarly reluctant to permit filling for installation of a sewage disposal drainfield on properties

                  adjacent to Class 11 or Class III coastal waters (Deadman, 1993). A determination might hinge on an

                  analysis of the probable impact on existing water quality.



                                                                   77











                                              REGULATION OF LAND USE




           Regulation of land use is almost entirely the prerogative of local governments who have the

           authority to restrict types of land uses and the density of development through promulgation of

           local land development regulations (LDRs) such as zoning and subdivision regulations. The state

           does not directly regulate land use except under limited circumstances where a local government

           fails to adopt LDRs consistent with development guidelines developed by the state for designated

           Areas of Critical State Concern.




           LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS


           Overview


           Local governments exercise control over land use types and densities through LDRs such as zoning

           and subdivision ordinances, dune protection ordinances, etc. These are generally authorized under

           Chapters 125, 166, and 177 FS. The state does not statutorily mandate adoption of specific LDRs.

           However, local governments are required under ï¿½ 163.3202 FS to adopt LDRs to implement their

           state-approved comprehensive plans. Thus the state indirectly influences the content of local LDRs

           governing coastal land use through the planning mandates concerning storm hazard mitigation that

           are set forth in Chapter 163 FS and Chapter 9J-5 FAC (see next section).




           Analysis


           Local LDRs governing coastal land use were not systematically analyzed in this study other than in

           our analysis of the implementation of the storm hazard mitigation planning mandates (see Chapter

           4). While Chapter 163 directs local governments to enact necessary LDRs to implement their

           adopted comprehensive plans, DCA has no authority to conduct a systematic, substantive review

           of the LDRs adopted by local governments to implement their comprehensive plans. DCA's

           regulations "do ... not mandate the creation ... of regulatory authority for other agencies nor ... [do



                                                          78










                  they] authorize the adoption or require the repeal of any rules, criteria, or standards of any local

                  agency" (9J-5.005(6) FAC). DCA only has the authority to bring suit in a state circuit court to

                  compel a local government to adopt "one or more land development regulations" (ï¿½ 163.3202(4)

                  FS) or to review the consistency of a specific LDR with the approved comprehensive plan if a

                  challenge is initiated by a "substantially affected person" (ï¿½ 163.3213 FS). A new subsection (6)

                  was added to ï¿½ 163.3202 by the 1993 ELMS bill which states that LDRs "may not be submitted to

                  the state land planning agency and are not otherwise subject to state review or approval




                  STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
                  AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN


                  Overview


                  When Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSCs) are designated by the State Administration

                  Commission pursuant to ï¿½380.05 FS, the Commission also adopts principles for guiding

                  developmen.t within the ACSC. "Once an area is designated by rule, affected local governments

                  have 180 days to submit land development regulations consistent with the principles set forth in

                  the rule. If the local government fails to submit regulations, or its proposals are insufficient, the

                  State ... [Dept. of Community Affairs) may propose regulations. If the agency's proposals are

                  adopted by the Administration Commission, the local government must apply the regulations"

                  (Christie, 1991:456). The ACSC designation can be repealed once DCA has approved LDRs and

                  plans adopted by affected local governments.




                  Analysis

                  Three of the four ACSCs that have been designated to date include coastal lands: 1) Apalachicola

                  Bay; 2) Big Cypress Swamp; and 3) the Florida Keys. Resource Planning and Management

                  Committees have been appointed to assess two areas for possible designation as ACSCs that

                  would include areas subject to coastal storm damage: 1) Charlotte Harbor and 2) the northwest

                  Florida coast. We have not analyzed the LDRs adopted for these areas as part of this study.


                                                                 79












                                        PLANNING AND REGULATORY MANDATES




            LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING MANDATES


            Overview


            Chapter 163 FS sets forth planning mandates for all of the counties and municipalities in the state.

            The 1985 amendments to the statute require local governments to submit comprehensive plans to

            DCA for review and approval pursuant to general criteria stipulated in the statute and more detailed

            criteria promulgated by DCA as rule 9J-5 FAC. Section 163.3178 FS lays out the general

            requirements for the coastal elements of local government comprehensive plans. Several of these

            requirements specifically concern storm hazard mitigation.




            Subsection (1) states that "it is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive

            plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal


            resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are

            subject to destruction by natural disaster." Plans must also include principles for hazard mitigation

            and protection of human life, redevelopment principles to be used to eliminate inappropriate and

            unsafe development, a list of regulatory and management techniques to mitigate storm hazards,

            and designation of "high-hazard coastal areas" that will be subject to the state's coastal

            infrastructure policy set forth in ï¿½380.27(2) FS (see later discussion in this chapter).




            Local comprehensive plans are also required to be "coordinated" and Mconsistent" with the State

            Comprehensive Plan (ï¿½ï¿½163.3177(4)(a) and 163.3177(9)(c) FS). The State Comprehensive Plan,

            initially adopted by the State Legislature in 1985, includes two formal policies concerning coastal

            storm hazard mitigation:

                   1       Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high-

                           hazard coastal areas 0 187.201 (9) (W FS).



                                                            80











                          2)      Avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased

                                  development in coastal high-hazard areas ... 0 187-201 (20) (b) 12 FS).




                   Rule 9.1-5 FAC details the minimum criteria by which local comprehensive plans are evaluated under

                   DCA's formal review process. Local governments are required to identify "coastal high hazard

                   areas" (CHHAs) and inventory and assess the capacity of the infrastructure within them 0 ï¿½ 9J-

                   5.012(2)(e)3 and (h) FAC). Coastal elements are to include goals, policies and objectives that

                   "[11imit public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal high hazard areas

                   and that "[d1irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard

                   areas" 09,1-5.012(3)(b) FAC).




                   Analysis


                   We present a detailed analysis of the implementation of the coastal storm hazard mitigation

                   planning mandates of Chapter 163 FS and 9J-5 FAC in Chapter 4 based on a survey of 18 coastal

                   counties and municipalities. Several of these planning mandates are also discussed later in this

                   chapter in the context of the state's coastal infrastructure policy.




                   MANDATED LOCAL REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION
                   WITHIN THE COASTAL BUILDING ZONE


                   Overview


                   The State Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 (Chapter 161, Part III, FS) created an additional

                   mechanism for mitigating coastal storm hazards through more uniform control of coastal

                   construction by local governments. The statute establishes minimum construction criteria for all

                   new and substantially improved major and minor structures within an area labelled the "Coastal

                   Building Zone." These were to have been incorporated in local building codes by ordinance by

                   January 1, 1987. DCA was designated to oversee the adoption of these local ordinances 0 161.56

                   FS) and to provide technical assistance to local building code enforcement personnel.


                                                                   81










             Most local governments enacted or   dinances which adopted the provisions of ï¿½ 161.550) FS by

             reference (Smith, 1993). All new and "substantially improved" major structures (including houses,

             mobile homes, multifamily, commercial, and public structures) located within the designated

             Coastal Building Zone were required to meet 1) the state minimum building code in effect in the

             jurisdiction; 2) federal mobile home construction and safety standards; 3) National Flood Insurance

             Program regulations or those of a local flood damage prevention ordinance, whichever is more

             restrictive; 4) wind velocity standards of 110 mph, except on the Keys where the standard is 115

             mph; and 5) foundation design and construction standards.




             The Coastal Building Zone is defined in general as "the land area from the seasonal high-water line

             landward to a line 1,500 feet landward from the coastal construction control line ... and,forthose


             coastal areas fronting the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay, or Straits of Florida and not

             [having a CCCLI ... the land area seaward of the most landward velocity zone (V-zone) line as

             established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and shown on flood insurance rate

             maps" 01611.540) FS).




             The zone ht more extensive on coastal barrier islands where it is defined as "the land area from the


             seasonal high-water line to a line 5,000 feet landward from the coastal construction control line

             or the entire island, whichever is less" (ï¿½ 161.55(5) FS). Where a CCCL has not been established,

             the Coastal Building Zone is defined as "the land area seaward of the most landward velocity zone

             (V-zone) boundary line fronting upon the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay, or Straits of

             Florida." The entire Florida Keys is also designated as being included in the Coastal Building Zone.




             The specific post-storm applications of this policy hinge on the definition of "substantial

             improvement." The term is defined in the statute as "any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of

             a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds, over a 5-year period, a cumulative total of 50%



                                                               82











                  of the market value of the structure either: 1) Before the improvement or repair is started; or 2) If

                  the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred" (ï¿½ 1 61.54(l 2)

                  FS).




                  Outside the Coastal Building Zone, local governments that choose to regulate building construction

                  are required to adopt one of four model building codes specified under the state "minimum building

                  code" (Part VII, Chapter 553 FS). These vary in their requirements for hurricane wind load

                  resistance (Saffir, 1992). Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program are

                  also required to adopt floodproofing and building elevation and design standards part of their local

                  building codes for areas designated as flood zones (A-zones) and coastal velocity zones (V-zones)

                  (see discussion in Chapter 2).




                  Analysis


                  There is an overlap in local and state jurisdiction between the seasonal high water line (SHWL) and

                  the CCCL. Within this zone, the more stringent state standards take precedence (Devereaux,

                  1993). DBS Director Kirby Green indicated (1993) that in most cases, local governments tell

                  applicants to secure the state permit first, but problems have arisen where the "substantial

                  improvement" threshold may pertain, because those determinations must be made by the local

                  government. DBS has no authority to apply a similar threshold. They are empowered to require

                  nonconforming structures to meet the state construction and setback standards for new structures

                  following a storm only where reconstruction involves major repair or modification of the original

                  foundation (ï¿½ï¿½161.052(6) and 161.05302) FS).




                  The time basis for calculating cumulative damage under the "substantial improvement" threshold of

                  Part III of Chapter 161 FS was originally interpreted as being over the life of the structure (Koutnik,

                  1993; Smith, 1993). In 1991, the State Legislature added the phrase "over a 5-Vear period" to



                                                                     83









             161.540 2) FS. This has the effect of reducing the number of cases where a repair,

           reconstruction, or improvement project will qualify as a substantial improvement and, therefore, be

           subject to the 1985 construction standards. Apparently the change was motivated by both a

           concern with administrative costs of documenting and monitoring improvements over the life of a

           structure and a desire by property owners to raise the substantial improvement threshold (Smith,

           1994). The change has evidently not raised any serious concerns among state personnel.




           The Coastal Zone Protection Act construction requirements were designed to be consistent with

           the CCCL and 50-foot setback permit regulations (Green, 1993). They included the wind load

           design standard of Section 1205 of the Southern Building Code Congress (SBCC) Standard Building

           Code (Smith, 1993). However, the DBS regulations (ï¿½ 1613-33 FAC) have subsequently been

           amended to employ more stringent wind design and flood elevation standards. The American

           Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) wind design standard (1990), which was recommended by the

           Hurricane Andrew Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team (U.S. Federal Emergency Management

           Agency, 1992a) as the national consensus, state-of-the-art wind design standard, is now employed

           by DBS for coastal construction permits above the MHWL. This standard calls for about 20%

           greater wind load resistance than the SBCC standard for structures less than 60 feet in height

           (Smith, 1994). DBS also uses a more conservative method for estimating 1 00-year storm flood

           elevations that are typically one to two feet higher than those developed by FEMA for V-zones on

           Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Devereaux, 1993). The Hurricane Andrew Interagency Hazard

           Mitigation Team Report reports that structures built to these standards on Key Biscayne suffered

           little or no damage compared to structures located outside the CCCL permit zone.




           DCA has no authority to enforce implementation of these building code conditions by local

           governments (Smith, 1993). Local governments were required to provide evidence of adoption of

           an appropriate ordinance to DCA by April 1, 1987, and DCA was required to provide a list of any



                                                          84











                  noncompliant local governments to the State Administration Commission. While the Administration

                  Commission was empowered to withhold state monies from local governments that failed to

                  comply with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Protection Act (ï¿½161.56(2) FS), no such

                  sanctions were imposed (Smith, 1993). One of the few localities that refused to comply was

                  Horseshoe Beach in Taylor County which.was one of the areas hard hit by the March 1993 storm

                  (Smith, 1993).




                  DCA's role has been primarily to provide technical assistance. They sponsor workshops for local

                  building inspectors conducted by the SBCC, and they financed preparation of an initial "deemed-to-

                  comply" manual by the SBCC as required by the statute (ï¿½ 161.56(4) FS). The manual

                  supplements the SBCC code, which is a performance code rather than a specification code, with

                  detailed specifications on how to meet the performance code for single- and multi-family

                  construction (Saffir, 1992). The S BCC recently published a revised version of the manual on its

                  own initiative titled Standards for Hurricane Residential Construction (Smith, 1993). The State


                  Board of Building Codes and Standards has adopted the SBCC standards as an approved option for

                  one- and two-family dwellings (Smith, 1993). However, the provisions of the manual are not

                  enforceable unless the local government adopts them as part of their building code (Saffir, 1992).

                  DCA also recently surveyed local building inspectors to determine how they are enforcing the SBCC

                  wind load standards. Some are requiring an architect's or engineer's seal on building drawings.

                  Others require submittal of calculations used to determine wind load resistance.




                  Despite the recommendations of the Hurricane Andrew Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, that

                  the ASCE wind load standard be employed in all hurricane-prone areas, there are apparently no

                  state initiatives under way to mandate changes in local building code hurricane standards (Smith,

                  1994). Amendment of Chapter 161, Part III, FS would only apply within the Coastal Building Zone.

                  Hurricane Andrew clearly demonstrated that wind damage can occur far landward of this zone



                                                                    85










            (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992b). Climatological data referenced in the ASCE

            wind load standard indicate that the majority of the state of Florida is subject to basic wind speed S3

            of 90 to 100 miles per hour (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1990). Impact over a broader

            geographic area would be obtained by amending the statutory statewide minimum building code

            (Part VII, Chapter 553 FS) (Smith, 1994).. In a recent review of hurricane-resistant building codes,

            Herbert Saffir,,one of the designers of the Saffir-Simpson hurricane index, recommends use of the

            ASCE standard statewide (Saffir, 1992). Saffir also cites the South Florida Building Code as the

            best model code for hurricane-resistant construction.




                                           ACQUISITION OF COASTAL PROPERTY




            Investments in land can contribute to coastal storm hazard mitigation policy goals in three ways: 1)

            protecting natural features that mitigate storm damage to upland property (e.g. beaches, dunes,

            and wetlands); 2) minimizing threats to public safety and property by removing vulnerable land

            from the development market; and 3) altering the pattern of development and thereby affecting

            choices about infrastructure investments that might otherwise induce further risk-prone

            development and increase the potential public costs of storm damage (Burby, Cigler, French, and

            others, 1991; Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989). Acquisition can also be used as a

            supplement to state regulation of site development along the coast. Where storm-induced damage

            renders a parcel unbuildable or precludes rebuilding of a damaged structure, the state can offer to

            purchase the land to avoid a takings claim.




            Appreciation of this potential is evidenced in Section 59 of the recently enacted ELMS bill

            (CS/CS/HB 2315) which adds ï¿½380.21(4) to the statutory declaration of legislative intent for the

            state coastal management program:



                    "The Legislature recognizes that land acquisition has great potential to support the


                                                              86











                         state's coastal management and regulatory efforts. Removing coastal properties
                         from the pool of developable acreage reduces the adverse land use and
                         environmental impacts the state coastal zone management program is attempting to
                         eliminate or diminish, while at the same time minimizing public expenditures and
                         reducing risk to life and property in storm-prone coastal areas."



                 Investments in land can include fee-simple purchase as well as purchase of part of the property

                 rights of a parcel such as through conservation easements or purchase of development rights. The

                 State of Florida has one major program for direct acquisition of coastal property, the Conservation

                 and Recreational Lands (CARL) Program administered by the Division of State Lands (DSL) within

                 the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), formerly the Department of Natural Resources

                 (DNR). The state also has a program to facilitate local land acquisition through the Florida

                 Communities Trust. Each of these programs is discussed in the following sections followed by a

                 discussion of state enabling statutes governing acquisition of less-than-fee interests in land.




                 CONSERVATION AND RECREATIONAL LANDS, SAVE OUR COAST,
                 AND OTHER STATE LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS


                 Overview


                 The principal mechanism available for direct state acquisition of coastal properties is the

                 Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) Program with funds allocated from the Preservation

                 2000 (P2000) bond sale program (ï¿½259.101(3) FS). The Save Our Coast (SOC) Program, which

                 was initiated in 1981 to purchase "the remaining undeveloped sections of the Florida coastline"

                 (Florida Joint Legislative Management Committee, 1992:7), has not funded any new projects since

                 1992 when the last of its uncommitted funds were combined with CARL monies to purchase the

                 final parcel of the Avalon tract (Buchanan, 1993). CARL has received the largest share (50%) of

                 the $300 million a year allocated from the P2000 bond sale program for 1991-1993. CARL

                 expenditures are also financed with about $45 million per year from documentary stamp taxes and

                 phosphate mining taxes (Gluckman and Henderson, 1991).





                                                                87










             Five other state land acquisition programs are allocated another 40% of the P2000 funds, but only

             the CARL Program has an explicit priority for acquiring coastal lands: one fifth of the P2000 CARL

             funds are earmarked for purchase of coastal properties (ï¿½259.101(3)(a) FS). However, coastal

             property might conceivably be purchased under any of the other programs under specific

             circumstances. The remaining 10% of the P2000 bond sale proceeds go to the Florida

             Communities Trust (FCT) Program which assists local governments in acquiring land to accomplish

             needs addressed in the conservation, recreation, open space, and coastal elements of their

             comprehensive plans (see next section).




             Prior to enactment of the ELMS III bill in the 1993 legislative session, none of the state land

             acquisition programs specifically targeted purchase of coastal lands for the purpose of storm hazard

             mitigation. The SOC Program was limited to acquiring beach frontage along the Gulf and Atlantic

             coasts for public recreation. Prope rties also had to "have coastal features that are desirable for

             retention in their present condition or are capable of being restored for environmental benefit"

             (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, 1993:11-3). In the last

             funding cycle, $5 million was set aside to fund smaller beach access projects through a 75%/25%

             state/local match program. The maximum project size was $250,000. About $2 million of that

             money was not spent for lack of projects (Buchanan, 1993).




             Projects for annual funding under the CARL program are selected from a priority list established by

             the Land Acquisition Advisory Council (LAAC) and approved by the Board of Trustees of the

             Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which consists of the Governor and Cabinet (Florida Department

             of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands, 1993). Projects must meet both the CARL

             acquisition criteria and those set forth in the P2000 enabling statute. The CARL Program criteria

             emphasize protection of high quality, environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands that contain

             native flora and fauna, endangered or threatened species, opportunities for natural resource-based



                                                              88










                  recreation, significant archaeologic or historic sites, and lands that will help enhance or protect

                  significant natural resources (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands,

                  1993).




                  Properties acquired with P2000 funds must also conform to one or more of the following statutory

                  acquisition criteria (ï¿½259.101(4) FS): 1) a significant portion of the land in the project is in

                  imminent danger of development, loss of significant attributes, or subdivision; 2) the value of the

                  land is likely to appreciate at a rate that favors immediate purchase; 3) a significant portion of the

                  land in the project serves to protect or recharge groundwater, protect other natural resources, or

                  provide space for natural resource based recreation; 4) the project can be purchased at 80% or less

                  of the appraised value; or 5) a significant portion of the land in the project serves as habitat for

                  endangered, threatened, or rare species or serves to protect natural communities which are

                  critically imperiled, imperiled, rare, or excellent quality occurrences.



                  These purposes were supplemented by Section 64 of the ELMS bill which adds project criteria

                  language to the statutory authorization for CARL purchases under P2000 (ï¿½259.101(4)) concerning

                  the value of acquiring coastal high-hazard parcels. "in the acquisition of coastal lands pursuant to

                  paragraph (3)(a) [i.e. ï¿½259.101(3)(a) FS which refers to ï¿½253.023 FS which is CARL], the

                  following additional criteria shall also be considered: The value of acquiring coastal high-hazard

                  parcels, consistent with hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment policies, in order to

                  minimize the risk to life and property and to reduce the need for future disaster assistance...




                  There is also a direct link between the state's coastal construction regulatory program and coastal

                  land acquisition. DEP is directed under Chapter 161 FS to make recommendations to the Governor

                  and Cabinet for the purchase of lands seaward of the CCCL, in fee-simple or less-than-fee, under

                  the CARL or Outdoor Recreation Land acquisition programs 0 161.0530 4) FS). Pursuant to this



                                                                   89










             mandate, DEP's Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) has recommended state purchase of

             properties when the CCCL lines are being drawn and, in a few cases, where CCCL permits have

             been sought and there has been no alternative other than permit denial (Green, 1993). DBS also

             contracted an inventory of privately owned, undeveloped coastal properties in coastal counties with

             sandy beaches in 1990 and 1991.




             Analysis


             Two issues emerge from an assessment of the CARL Program: 1) the extent to which it has and

             can be effective in achieving storm hazard mitigation goals; and 2) the extent to which it can be

             applied in a post-storm situation to acquire property that owners may be more willing to sell as a

             result of storm impacts.




             Incorporating storm hazard mitigat ion as an objective of state land acquisition initiatives may be

             difficult because of potential conflicts between such an objective and the other acquisition criteria

             that have been applied under CARL and P2000. If storm hazard mitigation is to be an acquisition

             objective, parcels with high rates of erosion or that are more subject to flooding or storm surge

             should probably be ranked highly. However, DSL staff and the LAAC view highly erosive sites as a

             management liability (Brock, 1993). When DBS staff were preparing acquisition recommendations

             from their 1991 inventory of undeveloped coastal properties, they also ranked highly eroding

             parcels lower because of their management problems (Flood, 1993). Furthermore, if a parcel lacks

             natural resource value or is not threatened by development, it would not generally be considered

             for a CARL purchase (Brock, 1993). Thus an area of developed beachfront property that was

             severely damaged in a storm and could not be rebuilt in compliance with applicable regulations

             would not be a viable candidate for CARL funding under P2000.




             Despite the absence of any acquisition criteria focused on storm hazard mitigation, the SOC and



                                                                90










                  CARL programs have undoubtedly contributed to mitigating some of the impacts of coastal storms.

                  Acquisition of large parcels of coastal land has removed them from the development market and

                  contributed to the preservation of the protective features of beach, dune, and wetland systems.

                  The SOC program acquired 22 miles of beach frontage along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and 52

                  miles of marshland frontage along the Gulf coast in 26 projects totalling more than 73,000 acres

                  over the period from October 1982 through January 1993 (Florida Department of Natural

                  Resources, Office of Land Use Planning and Biological Services, 1992). Most projects extended at

                  least as far landward as the nearest public street or highway, but some had depths of as much as

                  1/4 to 2 or 3 miles (Buchanan, 1993). An additional 5,171 feet of shorefront has been obtained

                  through the beach access initiative that began in 1988 (Florida Department of Natural Resources,

                  Division of Recreation and Parks, 1993). This effort included 46 projects developed jointly with

                  county or municipal sponsorship. While these projects clearly removed potentially hazardous

                  property from the development market, the acquisition criteria did not "emphasize post-disaster or

                  hazard mitigation ... or providing an alternative for marginally developable shoreline lots" (Florida

                  Environmental Land Management Study Committee, 1993: 98).




                  Comparable data on total miles of shoreline protected under CARL and its predecessor, the

                  Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, are not available (Brock, 1993). However, review of

                  the 84 projects on the 1993 LAAC priority list reveals several that will contribute to storm hazard

                  mitigation objectives, although in some cases only a small portion of the acreage to be acquired has

                  storm hazard mitigation potential. Four projects in the Florida Keys (Monroe County), which have

                  been undertaken primarily to preserve rare and endangered species and ecosystems or to protect

                  nearby water quality, will remove property from the development market that is highly vulnerable to

                  storm damage. Several other projects will protect varying lengths of beach and dune systems while

                  also protecting valued shoreline and upland ecosystems. Others will remove low-lying areas from

                  development that are not regulated under the state's CCCL permitting program because they are in


                                                                  91










            regions of the state without sandy shores or are bayside areas characterized by saltmarsh or

            mangrove swamp. One such project, the Big Bend Coast Tract in Taylor and Dixie counties,

            encompasses much of the area damaged by the March 1993 storm, although the areas proposed

            for acquisition exclude the developed areas of Dekle Beach, Horseshoe Beach, etc.




            CARL projects,tend to be large parcels on the order of hundreds to thousands of acres (Gluckman

            and Henderson, 1991). Because of CARL's general concern with preserving rare and endangered

            natural resources, there is a sense among members of the DSL staff and the LAAC that the amount

            of money spent on coastal properties should be balanced to some degree with monies invested in

            other types of natural communities (Flood, 1993). Greg Brock (11993), environmental administrator

            for the CARL Program within DEP's Division of State Lands, noted that some 80% of CARL funds

            have been spent on projects with some coastal attributes. He suggested that through the combined

            efforts of the SOC and CARL prog   rams the large parcels of statewide significance have been

            acquired or are on the current priority list. Remaining projects are more likely to be of regional or

            local significance and, therefore, of lower priority for the CARL Program.




            The consensus among those close to the state's land acquisition programs is that the ELMS bill

            revisions to the P2000 criteria for CARL coastal land purchases will have, at best, a marginal effect

            in terms of promoting acquisition of parcels for the purpose of storm hazard mitigation. James Farr

            of the Florida Coastal Management Program (1993) noted that the P2000 acquisition criteria are an

            overlay to those in the CARL enabling legislation, i.e. they do not redefine the CARL acquisition

            criteria, they merely add to them. Furthermore, the constitutional authority governing issuance of

            the P2000 bonds restricts use of the money to acquiring "lands, water areas and related resources

            ... in furtherance of outdoor recreation, natural resources conservation and related facilities" (ï¿½ 17


            Article IX, Constitution of 1885 as amended). Thus, hazard mitigation could not be the sole

            criterion for acquiring a coastal property. Farr also did not think the political constituencies that



                                                             92











                  have supported P2000 would support use of those funds for parcels where the primary value was

                  hazard mitigation.




                  The damage wrought by a coastal storm may alter a parcel to the extent that a CCCL or 50-foot

                  setback construction permit cannot be obtained or may convince the property owner that the site is

                  too risky to build or rebuild upon. Following a coastal storm, acquisition may offer a means of 1)

                  contending with potential takings problems; 2) achieving the broad objective of removing vulnerable

                  property from the development market; and 3) acquiring parcels previously identified as part of a

                  larger project. However, the CARL Program as currently structured is not well-suited to such an

                  application.




                  Using P2000 CARL funds to finance post-storm acquisitions would probably not be consistent with


                  the selection criteria used by the LAAC in setting priorities for purchases (Brock, 1993). If the lots

                  could no longer be built upon because of regulatory restrictions, the properties would not be

                  vulnerable to development. If the storm damage were sufficient to render the parcel unbuildable,

                  the remaining property probably would have low natural resource value as well. Finally, unless a

                  significant number of adjoining parcels were sufficiently damaged to warrant acquisition, the state

                  would be left holding a number of small parcels that could be difficult to manage and furthermore,

                  would not necessarily be suited to providing increased public recreation opportunities.




                  The lengthy decisionmaking process employed in the CARL program is also seen as an impediment

                  to employing it in a post-storm situation (Murley, 1993). In the opinion of DNR staff, none of the

                  state's land acquisition programs is able to react quickly enough to take advantage of opportunities

                  that might arise immediately following a severe coastal storm (Florida Department of Natural

                  Resources, Office of Policy and Planning, 1993). James Murley, Executive Director of 1000 Friends

                  of Florida, has suggested (1993) that a mechanism is needed to allow a more expedited acquisition



                                                                  93










            process under post-storm conditions for parcels already identified, i.e. through county inventories

            (see discussion under FCT Program).




            There are provisions in Chapter 253 FS for expedited acquisition under the CARL Program. Section

            253.027 sets forth procedures for emergency acquisition of archaeological properties. Section

            253.02505) permits the Board of Trustees to "waive or modify all procedures" to purchase lands

            made available from sales by the federal Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) or to purchase lands

            that "will be developed or otherwise lost to potential public ownership, or for which federal

            matching funds will be lost, by the time the land can be purchased under the program within which

            the land is listed for acquisition." However, such purchases are limited to 15% of the funds

            allocated under P2000 and the lands to be purchased must already be on the LAAC's acquisition

            list, or a "significant portion of the lands must contain natural communities or plant or animal

            species which are listed by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as critically imperiled, imperiled, or

            rare, or as excellent quality occurrences." Brock (1993) agreed that this clause might be applied in

            a post-storm situation but noted that it has, as yet, not been used, even for RTC parcels.




            According to Green (1993), DBS developing a procedure for negotiating purchase of parcels prior to

            actually denying a coastal construction permit. However, DBS does not have an accessible source

            of funds because such properties usually do not meet CARL acquisition criteria. The only such

            acquisitions to-date have been following a judicial takings judgment. These were financed with

            interest accrued in the Beach Management Trust Fund. However, the State Legislature directed this

            interest back to the General Fund several years ago, so DBS presently has no funds to cover either

            takings purchases or negotiated purchases prior to a permit denial. Green indicated that if the

            interest were allowed to accrue to the Beach Management Trust Fund it would generate about

            $500,000 to $700,000 per year which would be enough to cover takings purchases. The

            implications are that additional monies would be needed to effect the negotiated purchase strategy.



                                                              94










                  It appears, therefore, that any initiative to acquire coastal property for storm hazard mitigation, in

                  either a pre-storm or post-storm situation, will probably require a dedicated funding source that is

                  not constrained by the constitutional limitations of Article IX which has served as the authority for

                  all land acquisition bond issues since 1963. It would also require a different political orientation

                  towards land acquisition that would accept a different rationale for using public funds to remove

                  land from the private market. Finally, it would require a management philosophy that did not view

                  parcels that are vulnerable to storm damage as a liability to be avoided.




                  The 1991 undeveloped beach property survey conducted by DEIS could serve as the starting point

                  for an initiative to identify parcels for an acquisition program targeted at reducing storm hazards by

                  removing vulnerable property from the development market. Parcels identified in that study as

                  having 500 feet or more of contiguous undeveloped shoreline could be analyzed to determine their

                  vulnerability to storm damage (flooding, storm surge, and erosion) and the potential impact

                  acquisition might have on altering development patterns and reducing the amount of property and

                  numbers of lives at risk. A project team with the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban

                  Problems at Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University is developing an

                  analogous process for assessing developed parcels that are damaged by coastal storms (see

                  Metzger et al., 1993).




                  In addition, the 1993 ELMS bill establishes a mechanism for local governments to identify coastal

                  properties to be acquired to achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives. Section 7 of the bill adds

                  language to the local government comprehensive planning statute (ï¿½ 161.3178(8) FS) directing

                  each county to establish a process for identifying and ranking coastal properties for acquisition by

                  the state, including hazard mitigation as one of the criteria. Parallel language in Section 60 of the

                  ELMS bill, adding ï¿½380.22(4) and (5) FS, directs DCA, as lead agency for the state coastal

                  management program, to establish a county-based process for identifying and setting priorities for


                                                                   95










             acquiring coastal properties in coordination with the Land Acquisition Advisory Council (LAAC) and

             the Interagency Management Council (IMC) so these properties may be acquired as part of the

             state's land acquisition programs [emphasis added]. Coastal storm hazard mitigation is explicitly

             recognized as one of the criteria to be used in this prioritization process in the amendment of

             ï¿½380.22(5)(a) FS: "In addition to other criteria ... the following criteria shall be considered when

             establishing priorities for public acquisition of coastal property: (a) The value of acquiring coastal

             high-hazard parcels, consistent with hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment policies, in

             order to minimize the risk to life and property and to reduce the need for future disaster


             assistance."




             James Murley, Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Florida and chair of the ELMS III coastal

             working group, said that he had envisioned the counties and their municipalities ranking coastal

             land acquisition for both pre-storm and post-storm circumstances (Murley, 1993). The IMC and

             LAAC would act as brokers to assist local governments in identifying the appropriate state land

             acquisition program for accomplishing these objectives. James Farr of the Florida Coastal

             Management Program staff in DCA suggested that since the LAAC only is involved in the CARL

             Program, the IMC's role would likely be to act as the broker for other state acquisition programs

             and could, perhaps, help in ranking the aggregated county lists for CARL and FCT (Farr, 1993).




             THE FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST


             ,Overview

             The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) is a nonregulatory agency established within DCA in 1991 to

             assist local governments in implementing the conservation, recreation, open space, and coastal

             elements of their comprehensive plans (Florida House Committee on Natural Resources, 1993). A

             land acquisition grants program operated by the Trust constitutes the other major means available

             for acquiring coastal lands to achieve state storm hazard mitigation policy objectives. This program



                                                                96











                  qualifies both as an instrument for investing in coastal property and as an economic incentive

                  program since it requires local match for state funds.




                  Chapter 380 FS directs the FCT to correct undesirable development patterns, restore degraded

                  natural areas, enhance resource values, restore deteriorated or deteriorating urban waterfronts,

                  reserve lanft for later purchase, participate in and promote the use of innovative land acquisition

                  methods, and provide public access to surface waters by providing technical and financial

                  assistance to local governments in the state (ï¿½ ï¿½380.502(3)(a); 380.507 FS). The Trust's principal

                  initiative has been to operate a land acquisition grant program with funds allocated from the P2000

                  bond sales. All P2000 funds must be used only for acquisition of lands by local governments or the

                  state "to help implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the coastal, the conservation or

                  recreation and open space elements of the local comprehensive plan" (ï¿½380.510(7) FS as amended

                  by Section 70 of the 1993 ELMS Bill). The FCT governing body, which consists of the secretary of

                  DCA, the executive director of DNR, and three members of the public appointed by the Governor

                  and confirmed by the Senate, has limited grants to local governments whose comprehensive plans

                  have been found to be in compliance with state requirements or who have entered into a stipulated

                  settlement agreement with DCA to bring their plan into compliance (Florida Communities Trust,

                  1993c).




                  The evaluation criteria for projects funded under the P2000 program are extensive (ï¿½9K-4.008

                  FAC). They primarily target: 1) furtherance of growth management objectives of the comprehensive

                  plan, including the location and distribution of residential and urban densities, rectifying land use

                  conflicts, and providing outdoor recreation opportunities within the urban service area; 2)

                  furtherance of the natural resources conservation, coastal protection, and outdoor recreation

                  elements of local comprehensive plan, including protection of plant communities, animal species

                  and habitats, ground and surface water quality and quantity, and outdoor recreation opportunities;



                                                                   97










            and 3) other "innovative, unique, and outstanding elements" such as alternatives to fee-simple

            acquisition, protection of unique natural feature's or historic, archaeologic, or cultural sites,

            neighborhood parks, urban core parks, and greenway networks.




            The Trust is explicitly authorized to provide by grant or loan up to 100% of any local government

            land acquisition costs approved pursuant to the statute. However, the Trust may require local

            funding participation in projects (ï¿½380.507(7) FS). The Trust itself may also acquire interest in

            lands including fee simple and less-than-fee interests (ï¿½380.507(6) FS), but it may hold those

            interests for no more than five years during which time it is expected to sell those interests toa

            local government, state or federal agency, or non-profit organization (ï¿½380-508(4)(e) FS). Half of

            the P2000 money must be matched by the local government. An additional tenth of the P2000

            funds are to be used for matching grants on an equal basis for acquisitions within designated Areas

            of Critical State Concern (ï¿½259.101(3)(b) FS). The Trust governing body requires all applicants to

            provide some match except for counties with populations of 50,000 or less and cities with

            populations of 5,000 or less (ï¿½9K-4.0031(6) FAC).

            As noted in the preceding discussion of the CARL Program, the 1993 ELMS bill creates a

            mechanism for local governments to identify and rank coastal properties for acquisition through

            state land acquisition programs. The bill does not, however, directly amend the P2000 authorizing

            legislation concerning the FCT program. Thus there is no formal legal linkage between the ranking

            lists to be developed by local governments and the criteria to be used in awarding FCT grants.




            Analysis


            Seven of the 21 local land acquisition projects funded under the first round of FCT P2000 grants in

            1991 could be considered coastal projects. All but two primarily involved acquisition of wetlands

            along coastal estuaries, with the intent to preserve valuable natural communities, animal species

            habitat, or buffer lands to protect estuarine water quality. One of the two projects that acquired



                                                            98











                   property on the open coast was a project in the Keys that purchased 28.5 acres and 3,300 feet of

                   beach frontage for public recreational use and sea turile habitat. The second, the BoycefWetstone

                   project in Pasco County, constitutes the only initiative that explicitly identified storm hazard

                   mitigation as a project objective: 1800 acres of property fronting the Gulf were acquired to protect

                   natural resources and the natural barrier they provide against hurricane damage as well as to help

                   limit density in the coastal high hazard area, increase public access to the shoreline, and preserve

                   native species. In the second round of FCT P2000 grants, 5 of 26 funded projects can be

                   characterized as coastal. Two were undertaken to protect coastal wetlands and associated upland

                   habitats. The other three were undertaken to provide additional public recreation opportunities or

                   beach access - These ranged in size f rom 1. 14 to 13.2 acres.




                   Small projects have generally not fared well in the FCT evaluation process, including small public

                   access projects (Farr, 1993). The  21 projects approved during the first application cycle ranged in

                   size from 4 to 2,700 acres with an average of 539 acres and a median of 128 acres. Only one of

                   the projects was less than 10 acres in size (Florida Communities Trust, 1992). In the second

                   funding cycle, average project size was 225 acres. Projects ranged in size from 1.1 to 1400 acres

                   with a median of 108 acres. Three of the 26 projects were less than 10 acres (Florida Communities

                   Trust, 1993b).




                   James Farr is taking the lead for implementing the ELMS bill provisions governing development of

                   local government priorities for coastal land acquisition and the brokering role of the IMC. He has

                   indicated that 16 counties and one municipality (Boca Raton) have formal land acquisition programs

                   most of which are modelled on the program developed by Volusia County. Most are conservation-

                   oriented; a few include beach access as a priority, and none of them deals with coastal storm

                   hazard mitigation.





                                                                     99










             Despite the apparent intent of the ELMS III Committee (Murlev, 1993), the ELMS bill does not

             actually alter the criteria to be used in evaluating P2000-funded FCT land acquisition projects to

             include coastal storm hazard mitigation. The only explicit language that adds storm hazard

             mitigation to acquisition criteria applies to the CARL Program rather than the FCT (Section 64

             amendment of ï¿½259.101(4) FS).




             Section 64 of the ELMS bill does revise ï¿½259.101(3) FS which governs the allocation of P2000

             funds to the FCT, but only to state broadly that "To the extent allowed by federal requirements for

             the use of bond proceeds, the trust shall expend Preservation 2000 funds to carry out the purposes

             of part III of chapter 380." Coastal storm hazard mitigation is not among the purposes delineated

             for the trust in Part III of Chapter 380. Section 70 of the ELMS bill also revises ï¿½380.510(7) FS

             which delineates the uses for which P2000 funds allocated to the Trust may be spent to explicitly

             include acquiring "lands to help implement the goals, ob 0ectives, and policies of the coastal the

             conservation or recreation and open space elements of the local comprehensive plan." There is,

             therefore, no explicit language that would suggest that storm hazard mitigation is a legitimate use

             of FCT P2000 funds.




             ACQUISITION OF LESS-THAN-FEE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY


             Overview


             Acquisition of less-than-fee interests in land encompasses the conveyance of conservation

             easements and development rights by property owners to government entities and private,

             nonprofit organizations. Ideally, less-than fee interests can be acquired for a price substantially

             below that of fee-simple interest, thereby extending the purchase power of land acquisition funds.




             The ELMS [it Committee recommended (Recommendation 171) that the State Legislature

             "encourage State, regional, and local acquisition programs to utilize less-than-fee acquisition



                                                              100











                   techniques for preservation purposes ... [including] purchase of conservation easements and the

                   purchase and resale or leaseback of land with restrictions" (Florida Environmental Land

                   Management Study Committee, 1993: 109). While the ELMS bill that was subsequently enacted by

                   the legislature contains no new explicit agency directives concerning less-than-fee simple

                   acquisition, existing statutes do at least provide authority to accomplish some of the types of

                   transactions envisioned by the ELMS Committee and in some cases specifically promote

                   consideration of less-than-fee alternatives.




                   The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) is explicitly authorized to acquire less-than-fee interests in

                   land (ï¿½380.507(6) FS) as is the CARL Program (ï¿½253.023(3) FS). The Division of Beaches and

                   Shores in the Department of Environmental Protection is directed by statute to make

                   recommendations to the Governor and Cabinet for the purchase of both less-than-fee and fee-

                   simple interests in lands seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line 0 161.053(14) FS).

                   State laws also define the rules by which less-than-fee interests may be created and acquired,        the

                   allocation of ad valorem property tax relief to property owners who have conveyed conservation

                   easements or development rights, and the enforcement of the conditions attached to the transfer

                   of a conservation easement or development right: section 704.06 FS governs the creation,

                   acquisition, and enforcement of conservation easements, while the conveyance of development

                   rights and development restriction covenants is governed by ï¿½ 193.501 FS.




                   Acquisition of Conservation Easements. A conservation easement is defined as "a right or interest

                   in real property which is appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominantly in their natural,

                   scenic, open, agricultural, or wooded condition; retaining such areas as suitable habitat for fish,

                   plants, or wildlife; retaining the structural integrity or physical appearance of sites or properties of

                   historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance; or maintaining existing land uses

                   and which prohibits or limits any or all of the following: (a) Construction or placing of buildings,


                                                                       101











             roads, ... on or above the ground.... (b) Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other

             vegetation. (c) Excavation, dredging, or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock, or other material

             substance in such a manner to affect the surface. (d) Surface use except for purposes that permit

             the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition. (e) Activities detrimental to

             drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control      (ï¿½704.06(l) FS as amended by

             ELMS bill).




             Conservation easements may take the form of a "restriction, easement, covenant, or condition in

             any deed, will, or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the property"

             (ï¿½704.06(2) FS). They may be acquired by any governmental entity or by certain private nonprofit

             organizations "in the same manner as other interests in property ... except by condemnation or by

             other exercise of the power of eminent domain." To qualify as a private nonprofit that may acquire

             a conservation easement, the organization's purposes must include "protecting natural, scenic, or

             open-space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or

             open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or

             preserving sites or properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance"

             (ï¿½704.06(3) FS as amended by ELMS bill).




             Conservation easements constitute "perpetual, undivided interests in property" (ï¿½704.06(2) FS).

             They "run with the land," are "binding on all subsequent owners," and they must allow the holder

             "to enter the land in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to assure compliance"

             (ï¿½704.06(4) FS). The holder of a conservation easement is absolved from any liability for any

             damage or injury that may be suffered by any person on the property or as a result of the condition

             of the property encumbered by a conservation easement" (ï¿½ 704.06(l 0) FS).




             Acaui sition of Development Rights. The conveyance of development rights is restricted to lands



                                                              102










                  that are "environmentally endangered" or "utilized for outdoor recreation or park purposes."

                  "Environmentally endangered" land is defined in the statute as land which "has unique ecological

                  characteristics, rare or limited combinations of geological formations, or features of a rare or limited

                  nature constituting habitat suitable for fish, plants, or wildlife, and which, if subject to a

                  development moratorium or one or more conservation easements or development restrictions

                  appropriate to retaining such land or water areas predominantly in their natural state, would be

                  consistent with the conservation, recreation and open space, and, if applicable, coastal protection

                  elements of the comprehensive plan adopted by formal action of the local governing body ... or

                  land subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental regulation and defined as submerged

                  lands in regulations adopted pursuant to s. 403.817" (ï¿½ 193.501 (6) (h) FS).




                  The fee-simple owner may convey the development right of such land to a county, authorized

                  municipality, or the state Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The owner

                  may also covenant with the county, authorized municipality, or state Board of Trustees that the

                  land 1) will be subject to one or more conservation restrictions or 2) will be used only for outdoor

                  recreation or park purposes (ï¿½ 193.501 (1) FS). The conveyance or covenant must run for no fewer

                  than 10 years.




                  Conservation restrictions are defined as "a limitation on a right to use the land for purposes of

                  conserving or preserving land or water areas predominantly in their natural, scenic, open, or

                  wooded condition" (ï¿½ 193.501 (6)(b) FS). They may also include limitations on the use of land

                  comparable to those that can be applied under a conservation easement as listed in ï¿½704.060) FS,

                  including the construction of buildings, roads, or other structures, dumping of soil or waste

                  material, removal or destruction of vegetation, excavation of soil or rock, etc.



                  State law (ï¿½ 193.501 FS) provides for a reduction in property taxes when a property owner



                                                                  103










            conveys development rights or grants a conservation easement on real property. These provisions


            are discussed in the section on economic incentives.




            Analysis


            It appears that the current statutory authorization for conveyance of development rights or

            development restriction covenants could not be used to obtain development restrictions on property

            within the coastal high hazard area for the sole purpose of storm hazard mitigation without some

            revision of the statute because of the limited applicability to environmentally endangered lands and

            lands used for outdoor recreation and park purposes. Hazard mitigation achieved through

            conveyance of a conservation easement would also have to be tied to the protection of natural

            resource, open space, or agricultural values. These constraints are similar to those that limit the

            applicability of the CARL and FCT acquisition programs to coastal storm hazard mitigation, i.e.

            storm hazard mitigation policy objectives would be secondary to natural resource preservation or

            the provision of recreational opportunities.




            Even if storm hazard mitigation objectives were made a legitimate basis for conveying conservation

            easements or development rights, there is some question as to how cost-effective it would be to

            acquire such less-than-fee interests in coastal properties. Despite statutory authorization to acquire

            less-than-fee interests under the CARL Program, no such transactions have been made to date

            (Brock, 1993; Farr, 1993). Purchase of a conservation easement is evidently being considered for

            several CARL project parcels in central Florida where continued silviculture may be compatible with

            project objectives of watershed protection. The South Florida Water Management District has

            evidently acquired flowage easements and may have also done some fee-simple/leaseback

            acquisition (Murley, 1993).




            These applications are consistent with the observations of the ELMS III Committee which



                                                              104











                   suggested that "[Lless-than-fee acquisition techniques ... would be especially worthwhile for lands

                   adjacent to CARL projects and existing public lands, where they can provide a buffer between

                   environmentally sensitive areas and the sites of potential development" (Florida Environmental Land

                   Management Study Committee, 1993:109). However, Greg Brock, coordinator of the CARL

                   Program in the Division of State Lands, has observed that less-than-fee acquisition is generally

                   inappropriate where active management, such as controlled burning, is necessary to maintain the

                   natural resources that are being preserved (Brock, 1993). Thus a conservation easement may not

                   be sufficient if action is required to restore or enhance existing dunes or other natural storm hazard

                   mitigation attributes. Brock also noted that acquisition of easements is usually incompatible with

                   efforts to provide opportunities for public recreation.




                   Purchase of development rights would appear to be a strategy that would be consistent with

                   objectives of limiting development densities within the coastal high hazard area. It is generally

                   acknowledged, however, that less-than-fee property rights often cost almost as much as fee-simple

                   ownership, especially in areas where development pressure is great (Brock, 1993; Gluckman,

                   1994; Owens, 1983). This would suggest that less-than-fee acquisition would have limited

                   application in most coastal areas of the state.




                   One option identified by the ELMS III Committee that does not appear to be authorized under state

                   law is the purchase and resale or leaseback of land with restrictions by a state entity. This option

                   represents a compromise between purchase of fee-simple property or development rights, both of

                   which may be capital intensive, and severe regulatory restrictions on development, which may be

                   held to be takings. The FCT is authorized to acquire land in fee-simple and hold it for up to five

                   years, but it must eventually resell or otherwise convey it to a state or local agency or a qualified

                   nonprofit organization (ï¿½ ï¿½380.507(6) and 380.508(4)(e) FS). There is, therefore, no apparent

                   authorization for the FCT to resell or lease land to the private sector with development restrictions,



                                                                     105










            such as specific setbacks, density restrictions, etc. that might contribute to achieving state storm

            hazard mitigation objectives.




                             DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE




            State and local government agencies can influence the achievement of storm hazard mitigation

            policy objectives in several ways through investments in capital facilities and infrastructure.

            Investments in hard or soft engineered structures can be made to alter the coastal environment so

            as to reduce the vulnerability of upland property and facilities from storm damage. However, the

            beach erosion control projects themselves constitute public infrastructure which will require long-

            term maintenance. State and local decisions to finance the construction of other infrastructure,

            such as roads, water and sewer lines, and treatment facilities can have a major impact on the rate

            and direction of development in coastal areas. Once such infrastructure is in place, it also

            represents a long-term public liability that may be subject to coastal storm damage.




            While hard structures, such as seawalls, breakwaters, groins, and jetties may have some

            undesirable impacts on the littoral sand sharing system, soft engineering, in the form of beach and

            dune restoration and renourishment, is generally considered less likely to disrupt the recreational

            and natural storm protective features of coastal shorelines. Beach erosion control projects may be

            initiated at the state or local level in Florida, and federal funds may be available to offset a

            significant proportion of the costs. Most projects in the state are jointly funded by the federal

            government, the state, and one or more local government sponsors.




            BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAMS


            Overview


            The State of Florida, through the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Beaches and



                                                            106










                  Shores (DBS) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, administers a

                  program for paying up to 75% of the costs of beach erosion control projects with funds from the

                  Beach Management Trust Fund. In most instances, these projects also qualify for federal funding

                  under the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (33 USC 426). The federal share is typically 50%. State

                  law also authorizes boards of county commissioners to develop and implement comprehensive

                  beach and shore preservation programs. These initiatives primarily consist of beach restoration and

                  renourishment projects, sometimes referred to as "soft engineering," which serve to alter the

                  coastal environment so as to reduce the vulnerability of upland structures and property to coastal

                  storm damage. Such projects may also reduce the vulnerability of public facilities and infrastructure

                  and help preserve the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment. The availability

                  of state and federal funds can be viewed as economic incentives for local governments to

                  participate in providing the benefits of beach erosion control projects. At the same time, the

                  funding formulas for the federal and state beach erosion control assistance programs, which require

                  a local share, provide a means for allocating the costs of storm hazard mitigation more equitably

                  among those who benefit. Counties are also authorized under state law to create special districts

                  for beach preservation programs in which ad valorem tax rates are based on different benefit


                  zones.





                  Section 16 1. 101 FS authorizes DBS to propose beach erosion control projects in areas determined

                  to be "critically eroding." Approval for such projects must be granted by the Board of Trustees,

                  which consists of the Governor and Cabinet, and by the State Legislature. DBS is directed by

                  statute to prepare a recommended list of projects as part of a comprehensive, long-term beach

                  management plan, based on criteria enumerated in the statute (ï¿½ 161.161 (2) FS). The objectives of

                  such initiatives include erosion control, beach preservation, beach restoration, beach

                  renourishment, and hurricane protection (ï¿½ 161.091 FS). Eligible activities include, among others,

                  beach restoration and renourishment, sand transfer and stockpiling, construction of jetties, groins,



                                                                   107










            breakwaters, revetments, and sand traps, and dune construction and revegetation (ï¿½ 1 6B-36.004

            FAC).




            While the entire Comprehensive Beach Management Plan has not yet been completed, the beach

            restoration component of the plan was initially completed in 1988 and has subsequently been

            revised (Gr9bn, 1993). It identifies beaches where restoration projects may be economically and

            environmentally justified and serves as the blue print for expenditures from the Beach Management

            Trust Fund (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, 1993). The

            plan recommends against state participation in beach restoration in areas with insufficient public

            access and parking. However, it also includes recommendations for dealing with beach erosion in

            areas not appropriate for state-funded beach erosion control projects. Thus the plan also serves an

            educational and technical assistance role for local governments and private property owners who

            may consider beach erosion control projects without supplemental state or federal funding.




            The Beach Management Trust Fund is funded from general tax revenues through annual

            appropriations. These are presently made based on legislative review of a specific list of proposed

            projects. DBS regulations state that the maximum state share of a beach erosion control project is

            75% regardless of whether the project is federally funded (ï¿½ 1613-36.005 FAC). According to DBS

            Director Kirby Green 0 993), where part of a beach restoration or renourishment project benefits

            only private riparian owners, the state share is based on a measure of the public benefit of the

            project. Projects which have been approved have predominantly been those receiving federal

            funding. In such projects, the state share is usually about 30% (Green, 1993). Approved nonfederal

            projects typically require that private funds cover the equivalent of both the federal and local shares

            (Green, 1993). Regardless of the funding sources, DBS regulations require that the project sponsor

            provide "permanent public access ... at approximate half mile intervals, including adequate vehicle

            parking areas" (ï¿½ 1 6B-36.003 FAC).



                                                           108











                   The Board of Trustees must also designate an "erosion control line" for each approved project to

                   delineate the landward boundary of state sovereign lands (ï¿½ ï¿½ 161.151; 161.161(4) FS). Title to all

                   lands landward of the line are vested in the riparian owners whose lands either abut the erosion

                   control line or would have abutted the line if it had been located directly on the line of mean high

                   water on the date the Board of Trustees' survey was recorded (ï¿½ 161.191 (1 ) FS). Once the erosion

                   control line is established along any segment of the shoreline, the common law principles governing

                   avulsion and chronic erosion and accretion generally no longer operate to alter the proportions of

                   upland property lying landward of the line unless the public agency responsible for maintaining the

                   erosion control project fails to do so   161.191 (2); 161.211 FS).




                   Under circumstances of a "shoreline emergency" declared by the Governor, DBS is authorized to

                   pay up to 100% of the construction and maintenance costs of a beach erosion control project

                   where the state is the upland riparian owner (ï¿½ 161.101 (7) FS). Where upland riparian property is

                   not state-owned, DBS is authorized to "spend whatever state funds are available to alleviate shore

                   erosion" in a shoreline emergency (ï¿½ 16 1.111 FS). While such projects may be considered post-

                   storm redevelopment initiatives, the majority of state-supported beach erosion control projects are

                   the result of long-term planning and evaluation and are more correctly viewed as pre-storm

                   mitigation initiatives.




                   Part 11, Chapter 161 FS authorizes boards of county commissioners to develop and implement

                   comprehensive beach and shore preservation programs for which they may establish special-

                   benefits districts. The statute also directs county commissioners who establish such programs to

                   define benefit categories or zones within which property owners will receive comparable benefits

                   from the beach and shore preservation program 0161.29 FS). An ad valorem tax can be levied

                   within the district for not more than 2 years to defray organizational and administrative costs

                     161.31 (4) FS). An additional ad valorem tax can be levied on all taxable property within a district



                                                                     109










             to cover capital, operation, and maintenance costs. This tax is to be in proportion to the benefits

             each property will derive from the beach and shore preservation program (ï¿½ 161.37 FS). Counties

             may establish beach preservation districts by other means as well, including creation of municipal

             service taxing or benefit units pursuant to ï¿½ 125.010 )(q) FS.




             Analysis


             Beach erosion control projects that establish a wider sand beach provide increased recreational

             benefits as well as erosion control benefits. While the erosion control benefits primarily accrue to

             owners of adjacent upland property, improved recreational opportunities benefit a larger segment of

             the population if adequate public access is provided. Recognition of the differential distribution of

             benefits from such projects underlies the willingness of both the federal government and the state

             to contribute to the costs of beach erosion control projects, even when the abutting property is

             entirely or primarily privately owned. The minimum local cost-share of 25% was adopted by the

             State Legislature in recognition that "local beach communities derive the primary benefits from the

             presence of adequate beaches" (ï¿½ 161.101 (1) FS).




             To the extent that beach erosion control projects contribute to storm hazard mitigation objectives,

             it can be argued that the federal/state/local cost-sharing formulas provide a measure of allocating

             some of the costs of storm hazard mitigation to the private sector in proportion to the benefits they

             derive from their location in areas subject to coastal storm damage. The provisions of ï¿½ 161.29 FS

             for the imposition of local ad valorem taxes in proportion to the benefits derived from paying the

             local share of a beach erosion control project offer a means for further allocating the costs to those

             who benefit most from such projects. However, experience with the creation of county special

             districts for beach erosion control projects suggests that such a method has not been politically

             popular. William Stronge, who has prepared beach preservation district proposals for several

             municipalities in the state, reports that Captiva Island has established a beach preservation special



                                                             110











                   district based on benefit zones (Stronge, 1993). They did not, however, do it under the

                   authorization of Part 11, Chapter 161 FS. Longboat Key has created a special taxing district in which

                   beachfront property owners are taxed to cover 80% of the costs of a beach renourishment project

                   while the remaining 20% of the project costs are paid by other property owners in the city

                   (Smalley, 1993). Several other jurisdictions have created special taxing districts that consist solely

                   of beachfront property owners (Freshour, 1993; Huber, 1993; Jones, 1993).




                   While the primary intent of beach erosion control projects is to protect public beaches, private

                   property, and public facilities and infrastructure from coastal erosion and storm damage, the project

                   itself is also a capital facility. Both "hard engineered" erosion control structures, such as seawalls,

                   jetties, groins, breakwaters, and revetments, and "soft engineered" projects, such as beach and

                   dune restoration, remain subject to both long-term chronic erosion and the effects of coastal

                   storms. In areas with a coastal sediment deficit, such as downdrift of an inlet, beach restoration

                   projects will generally require regular renourishment (National Research Council, 1990). DBS

                   regulations stipulate that projects must include a maintenance program of at least 10 years 0 1613-

                   36.002(3) FAC). Thus public financing of beach erosion control projects may increase the amount

                   of public infrastructure subject to coastal storm damage. The formal project review criteria

                   contained in DBS's regulations do not require an analysis of the net costs and benefits of investing

                   in beach erosion control infrastructure to protect upland private property and public facilities and

                   infrastructure (ï¿½ 1613-36.008 FAC). However, such an analysis may be implied by the economic

                   analyses proposed in the beachfront post-storm redevelopment policy developed by the FAU/FIU

                   Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems (Metzger et aL, 1993).




                   Several authors have suggested that beach and dune restoration projects may encourage coastal

                   development (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989; Schmahl and Heatewole, 1989). The same

                   may be said of "hard engineered" erosion control structures such as seawalls and revetments. We










            have found no data to document the extent to which undeveloped land has been the beneficiary of

            state-supported beach erosion control projects. However, the state's decisionmaking criteria for

            financing such projects imply that priority will be granted to projects that protect threatened

            property that is already developed (ï¿½ 161.161 (2) FS). Furthermore, DBS ranks areas as critically

            eroding where substantial upland development is threatened by erosion and potential flooding and

            storm damage.




            There appears to be some inconsistency in state policy governing the precedence of relocation

            versus beach restoration as strategies for contending with severe beach erosion problems. The

            State Land Development Plan calls for relocation options to be exhausted before beach

            renourishment or shore protection projects are undertaken (Florida Department of Community

            Affairs, 1989). However, there are no parallel criteria reflected in either the enabling statute

            0 161.091 FS) or DBS's regulations 0 1613-36 FAC) for beach erosion control projects, nor is

            relocation discussed as an option in the state Beach Management Plan (Florida Department of

            Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, 1993). The beachfront post-storm

            redevelopment policy proposed by the FAU/FIU Joint Center (Metzger et al., 1993) presents

            relocation as the strategy of last resort, when beach restoration is not economically justified, rather

            than a strategy that should be followed before undertaking beach restoration. The FAU/FIU Joint

            Center approach implies that restoration will be economically justified where benefits exceed those

            accruing to upland property owners. This seems consistent with the policy objectives stated in

            Chapter 161 FS and, therefore, more appropriate than the unconditional rule included in the State

            Land Development Plan.




            STATE COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY


            Overview


            Florida has had a formal policy concerning the use of state funds for public infrastructure in areas



                                                            112











                   prone to coastal storm damage since 1981 when Governor Bob Graham issued Executive Order 81 -

                   105. Analogous policies were articulated in several pieces of state legislation in 1985 which

                   generally linked state decisions on coastal infrastructure to the provisions of the coastal elements

                   of local comprehensive plans. The 1985 initiatives included limits on state financing of bridges to

                   coastal barrier islands and a statement of.state coastal infrastructure policy (ï¿½380.27 FS), a formal

                   policy in the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187 FS), and mandates governing preparation of

                   the coastal element of local comprehensive plans (Chapter 163 FS). These were further elaborated

                   by DCA in the 9J-5 FAC rules for preparing local plans.




                   The state's coastal infrastructure policies have the potential to reduce development in areas prone

                   to coastal storm damage and thereby contribute to achieving state policy objectives of minimizing

                   threats to public safety, property, and natural resources. If less development occurs in such areas,

                   the public costs of planning for, responding to, and mitigating storm damage will also be reduced,

                   and there will be less public investment in infrastructure that is directly at risk of storm damage. If

                   private funds take the place of state funds withheld through these policies, public costs of disaster

                   planning and response will remain, but the costs of damage to infrastructure will have been shifted

                   to those in the private sector who choose to occupy hazardous coastal areas.




                   Governor Graham's Executive Order directed state agencies to limit expenditures of state funds and

                   federal grants on coastal barriers to "those coastal areas which can accommodate growth, where

                   there is need and desire for economic development, or where potential danger to human life and

                   property from natural hazards is a minimum" (Graham, 1981). The order further stated that "[sluch

                   funds shall not be used to subsidize growth or post disaster redevelopment in hazardous coastal

                   barrier areas." The affected state agencies included the departments of Commerce, Health and

                   Rehabilitative Services, Transportation, and Veteran and Community Affairs, and the Governor's

                   Office of Planning and Budgeting.



                                                                      113










            Implementation of the Executive Order was complicated by enactment of ï¿½380.27 FS in 1985

            which includes two specific policies governing expenditure of state funds in coastal infrastructure.

            Section (1 ) states that no state funds are to be used to construct bridges or causeways to coastal

            barrier islands' which were not already accessible by bridges or causeways on October 1, 1985.

            Section (2) links state agency capital expenditure decisions to local comprehensive plans: "After a

            local gove, n, i ent has an approved coastal management element pursuant to s. 163.3178, no state

            funds which are unobligated at the time the element is approved shall be expended for ... projects

            which increase the capacity of infrastructure unless such expenditure is consistent with the

            approved coastal management element."




            The barrier island bridge policy remains in effect and is implemented by the State Department of

            Transportation (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1993a). The Section (2) policy has been

            interpreted as applying to all forms of financial assistance including grants and loans as well as

            direct appropriations (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1992). This policy does not apply,

            however, until the coastal element of a local government's comprehensive plan has been approved.

            About 9 out of 195 local governments required to prepare coastal elements did not have their

            comprehensive plans approved as of January 1994 (Conger, 1994).




            The provisions of Chapter 163 FS, which govern preparation of the coastal elements of local

            comprehensive plans, promote a policy similar to that contained in the 1981 Executive Order. The

            geographic scope, however, is somewhat different: while the Executive Order targets coastal

            barriers, the Chapter 163 directives focus on "high-hazard coastal areas." The relevant sections of

            Chapter 163 and the regulations promulgated pursuant to them are summarized in the earlier

            section of this chapter entitled "Local Coastal Planning Mandates." Infrastructure is defined in

            these regulations to include sewage disposal systems, potable water systems and wells, solid

            waste disposal sites or retention areas, stormwater systems, utilities, piers, docks, wharves,



                                                              114











                  breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, bulwarks, revetments, causeways, marinas, navigation channels,

                  bridges, and roadways (ï¿½9J-5.003(43) FAC). Elsewhere in the rule governing the inventory of

                  existing infrastructure (9J-5.012(2)(h) FAC), local governments are directed to include " beach

                  renourishment projects."




                  Prior to enactment of the ELMS Bill during the 1993 legislative session, "coastal high hazard areas"

                  were defined as W-5.00304) FAC) "[AIll areas within the local government's jurisdiction where

                  public facilities have been damaged or undermined by coastal storms, Federal Emergency

                  Management Agency designated V zones, areas seaward of the coastal construction control line ...

                  and inlets which are not structurally controlled."




                  Section 7 of the ELMS bill amends ï¿½ 1 63.3178(2)(h) FS to read: "high-hazard coastal areas, ... for

                  uniformity and planning purposes herein, are defined as Category 1 evacuation zones. However,

                  application of mitigation and redevelopment policies, pursuant to s. 380.27(2), and any rules

                  adopted thereunder, shall be at the discretion of local government."




                  Governor Graham's subsequent letter to the state agencies (Graham, 1986) spelled out how the

                  agencies should behave until approved local comprehensive plans are in place. The letter stipulated

                  the following:

                          1)      "State funds for infrastructure and economic development should be denied for any

                                  barrier island without a bridge or causeway."

                          2)      "The State should not pay to expand infrastructure or economic development in any

                                  designated unit of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System."

                          3)      "[Algency heads shall not permit payment by the state for new or expanded

                                  infrastructure projects seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines, in Federal

                                  Emergency Management Agency designated V zones, in areas damaged or



                                                                   115










                             undermined by coastal storms, or at inlets without structural controls." Agency

                             heads are also constrained from authorizing projects in areas further landward that

                             are within the Coastal Building Zone defined under Part 111, Chapter 161 FS. They

                             may only do so where "the potential danger to human life and property from natural

                             hazards is minimal and consideration has been given to hazard mitigation standards,

                             including flood-proofing and evacuation." Exceptions are allowed "where a crucial

                             need is found to alleviate dangerously overcrowded roads or replace defective

                             waste water facilities violating water quality standards."

                     4)      State funds can be used to repair or replace storm-damaged facilities only where

                             "such action is in the overall long-term p@ublic interest and hazard mitigation ... is

                             fully evaluated." However, no increase in capacity of the facility is allowed.

                     5)      State expenditures in coastal areas must also be consistent with the approved

                             resource and mana   gement plans and comprehensive plans of the individual state

                             agencies.




            Analysis


            The achievement of state policy objectives concerning investments in growth-inducing

            infrastructure in hazardous coastal areas is largely contingent on local policy under ï¿½380.27 FS,

            with the exception of the barrier island bridge   policy and those instances where the federal

            government provides direct financial assistance to local governments or special districts. In

            jurisdictions without approved comprehensive plan coastal elements, the 1981 executive order

            technically remains in effect. While issues have been raised concerning the transition from the

            executive order to implementation of ï¿½380.27(2) FS, the major issues concern the vast differences

            in achievement of storm hazard mitigation objectives that result from decentralization of the state's

            coastal infrastructure policy.





                                                                116










                   Coastal Island Bridge Policy. The barrier island bridge policy (ï¿½380.27(l) FS) provides clear,

                   although narrow, direction to the Department of Transportation to limit state infrastructure

                   spending irrespective of local comprehensive plans. According to DCA's most recent Coastal

                   Infrastructure Policy Report, the policy has effectively prevented the expenditure of state funds for

                   constructing new bridges or causeways to unbridged barrier islands (Florida Department of

                   Community Affairs, 1993a). However, decisions on state funding for expansion of existing bridges

                   or causeways, or construction of bridges or causeways to barrier islands already connected to the

                   mainland, remain tied to the provisions of local comprehensive plans under ï¿½380.27(2) FS.

                   Construction of bridges to interior islands is also subject only to the constraints imposed under

                   ï¿½380.27(2) FS. Chapter 163 FS does not require local governments to adhere to such limits, so

                   local comprehensive plans need not prohibit funding of bridges or causeways to unbridged islands.




                   DCA 0 993a) has recommended that the barrier island bridge policy be extended to include "all

                   unbridged coastal islands." This would expand the scope of the policy to include sheltered islands

                   that do not directly front on the open waters of the Gulf, the Atlantic, Florida Bay, or the Straits of

                   Florida. Limitation of the current policy to islands that qualify as barrier islands does not provide

                   equal protection to all hazardous coastal islands. In areas such as the southwest coast, for

                   instance, the storm surge and wind damage vulnerability of many sheltered islands is not

                   significantly different from that of barrier islands that front the Gulf.




                   DCA 0 993a) has also recommended that the barrier island bridge policy be further expanded to

                   cover all infrastructure on all unbridged coastal islands. This approach essentially discards the

                   principles of home rule that underlie the linkage of state coastal infrastructure policy to local

                   comprehensive plans set forth in ï¿½380.27(2) FS and E.O. 81-105, but only for islands. Following

                   such a strategy would not provide similar constraints on state infrastructure spending on mainland

                   coastal areas that could be subject to similar levels of hazard from more severe storms, e.g.



                                                                     117










            Category 3 or higher, nor would it offer consistent policy for those areas of the state where there

            are not extensive coastal islands, such as the Big Bend area.




            Eederal Consistency with the State's Coastal Infrastructure Polia. Two cases reviewed by DCA in

            its 1991 report on implementation of the state's coastal infrastructure policy (Florida Department of

            Community Affairs, 199 1 ) suggest that the current policy has no direct influence over federal loans

            or grants made directly to local governments for infrastructure improvements or expansions within

            hazardous coastal areas that are not within federally designated Coastal Barrier Resources System

            (CBRS) units. While E.O. 81-105 addresses federal grants administered by state agencies, neither

            the executive order nor the provisions of ï¿½380.27 FS address direct grants or loans from the

            federal government to local governments.




            In the two cases reviewed by DCA (1991), a local government or special improvement district had

            sought a loan from the federal Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA) to expand infrastructure to

            serve an area interpreted by DCA as including the coastal high hazard area. In one case, DCA's

            comments were evidently ignored, and in the second, DCA subsequently withdrew its comments

            because of the lack of formal state policy on which to base them. In each case, the local

            government's comprehensive plan had not yet been adopted, but this evidently was not an issue.

            While DCA claims that its comments "were not given much weight" in the first case, the FmHA

            subsequently denied both loan applications for other reasons. Nevertheless, each project went

            forward. In the first case, St. John's County sold revenue bonds to extend water and sewer lines

            to areas of two coastal barrier islands. In the second, a nonprofit water supplier financed expansion

            of water supply treatment plant and distribution system serving portions of Taylor County's coast

            through other means.




            While the lack of an effective state policy governing direct federal assiseance for infrastructure



                                                             118











                  projects within the CHHA appears to be demonstrated by these cases, it may be the state could

                  argue that such actions would be inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 163 FS and should be

                  constrained under the federal consistency requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management

                  Act. However, to make such an argument, the state needs to add Part 163 FS to the networked

                  statutes that comprise Florida's federally approved coastal zone management program. If any

                  additional initiatives are taken to define a formal and consistent state coastal infrastructure policy,

                  these should also be included in the statutes comprising the state's coastal zone management


                  program.




                  These cases also illustrate the limited extent to which denial of federal and state financial


                  assistance can actually influence infrastructure investment decisions: in both cases, the projects

                  went ahead, financed by other means. Local governments have a variety of options for financing

                  infrastructure including local option tourist development tax funds, motor fuel taxes, local option

                  gas taxes, transportation capital funds, and transportation improvement funds, as well as general

                  revenues (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1990). Infrastructure can also be financed

                  locally by community development districts, special districts, and by developers, utilities, and non-

                  profit associations. However, where these alternative sources are relied upon, those who choose to

                  take the risks of occupying coastal areas prone to storm damage are paying a more equitable share

                  of the costs of developing such areas.




                  Transition from the Executive Order to Section 380.27(2) FS. There is evidently some uncertainty

                  over what conditions must be met before the 1981 Executive Order, as amended by Graham's

                  1986 letter, is no longer to be heeded. The opening of Graham's 1986 letter refers to the need for

                  policies to guide agency actions during the "phase-in period of new growth management

                  measures." However, the closing of the letter states that "Whese policies ... shall remain in effect

                  until local governments implement plans, programs, and regulations that conform with or exceed



                                                                 119












           the measures outlined above."




           A conflict could conceivably arise where the coastal element of a local comprehensive plan has

           been approved, thus invoking the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) FS governing infrastructure

           expenditures by state agencies, but the provisions of the local plan and its implementing

           regulations do not "conform with or exceed" the stipulations of E.O. 81-105. An agency that

           followed the executive order to the letter might deny funds that would be allowed under

           ï¿½380.27(2) FS. However, DCA 0 993a) observes that an executive order does not have the force

           of law and if conflict occurs between an executive order and a statute, the statute should prevail.

           DCA has suggested elsewhere, however, that the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) are permissive, i.e. that

           state agencies are authorized to provide state funding for infrastructure projects in the CHHA

           where there is an approved coastal element, but the agencies retain discretion to withhold that

           state funding under the Executive  Order (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1990).

           Whether this discretion would be retained depends on how the conditions governing phasing out of

           the executive order are interpreted.




           DCA suggests in its most recent Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report that it is up to the Governor's

           Office to interpret and determine when Executive Order 8 1 - 105 should be phased out (Florida

           Department of Community Affairs, 1993a). Evidently no such initiative has been taken (Knight,

           1994). Furthermore, there is no formal process established for monitoring or coordination of coastal

           infrastructure policy decisions by the various state agencies, nor is there a means for assuring

           consistency among state agencies in making such decisions. While the State Coastal Management

           Program within DCA is charged with preparing an annual report on the status of the state's coastal

           infrastructure policy, they have no means of formally monitoring such decisions (Knight, 1994).




           Impacts of Linkina State Infrastructure Policy to Local Plans. Aside from the confusion over



                                                           120











                  transition from following the directives of E.O. 81-105, reliance on the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) FS

                  will lead to vastly different impacts on 1) minimizing coastal storm hazard risks to public safety,

                  private property, and natural resources; 2) minimizing public costs of planning for, responding to,

                  and mitigating coastal storm damage; and 3) reducing the vulnerability of public facilities and

                  infrastructure. The principal issues concerning the decentralization of the state's coastal

                  infrastructure policy center on 1) differences in the extent to which the two policy instruments

                  (ï¿½380.27(2) FS and E.O. 81-105) achieve state policy goals concerned with storm hazard

                  mitigation and post-storm redevelopment and 2) inconsistency among local government policies in

                  their treatment of coastal infrastructure policy.




                  Differences in achieving storm hazard mitigation goals. The scope of E.O. 85-101 and that of

                  ï¿½380.27(2) differ in several respects including the following: 1) focus on post-storm

                  redevelopment; (2) treatment of federal ly-designated Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)

                  units; and 3) the geographic reach encompassed by the policy.




                  The executive order and ï¿½380.27(2) FS differ greatly on the matter of guiding state agency

                  decisions under post-storm circumstances. While the executive order explicitly includes post-storm

                  redevelopment in its constraints on state agency expenditures for coastal infrastructure,

                  ï¿½380.27(2) FS only governs "projects which increase the capacity of infrastructure." Thus as the

                  provisions of E.O. 81-105 are phased out, state agencies will only be constrained from supporting

                  post-storm replacement of infrastructure where the replaced facilities are intended to have

                  increased capacity that might induce further growth that is consistent with that called for in a local

                  government's comprehensive plan.



                  CBRS units are segments of barrier islands designated as "undeveloped" by the U.S. Department of

                  Interior pursuant to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982. CBRA prohibits new federal


                                                                  121










            expenditures or financial assistance within designated CBRS units for most types of infrastructure,

            community development, post-storm redevelopment, and non-emergency disaster relief as well as

            the issuance of new flood insurance for any new construction or substantial improvement of a

            structure (see discussion in Chapter 2). Governor Graham's 1986 letter extended the reach of the

            1981 executive order by explicitly stating that "[t1he state should not pay to expand infrastructure

            or economic development in any designated unit of the federal Coastal Barrier Resource System."

            The state has also nominated areas for inclusion in the CBRS system as a means of providing

            partial protection to areas on the state's land acquisition priority lists (Brock, 1993).




            Full reliance on the provisions of local comprehensive plans to achieve the state's coastal

            infrastructure policy objectives under ï¿½380.27(2) FS leaves federally-designated Coastal Barrier

            Resource System (CBRS) units in the lurch except to the extent that the barrier island bridge policy

            under ï¿½380.27(l) FS operates to prevent bridges from being built to islands containing CBRS units.

            Neither Part 163 FS nor Chapter 9.1-5 FAC contains any explicit reference to CBRA in specifying

            the scope and content of local comprehensive plans. The State Land Development Plan' includes an

            operating policy that restricts new development on federally designated CBRS areas that "will need

            to utilize infrastructure traditionally subsidized by federal and state funds unless the development or

            local government can demonstrate their independent financial ability to construct, operate, and

            maintain such facilities throughout the expected lifetime of the development" (Florida, Department

            of Community Affairs, 1989:45). The policy implies that state funds should not be used for

            infrastructure within CBRS units, but also makes it clear that the state will not restrict the right of

            local governments to choose to subsidize such infrastructure itself.




            In its most recent Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report, DCA reports that none of the 19 coastal

            counties containing CBRS units includes policies in their coastal element limiting expenditures on

            infrastructure within CBRS units (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1993a). Our review of



                                                               122











                  18 county and municipal comprehensive plan coastal elements revealed only one jurisdiction with a

                  plan containing an explicit policy concerning development within designated CBRS units: Bay

                  County's plan states that the capacity of infrastructure shall not be increased on CBRS units "over

                  current capacity except to serve existing and committed uses" (Bay County, 1991). The City of

                  Naples plan also evidently includes a policy that applies special zoning designations for the CBRS

                  unit (Keewaydin Island) within its jurisdiction (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1990).




                  There is, therefore, nothing in either federal or state law that prohibits the expenditure of local

                  government or private funds for infrastructure within CBRS units. However, phasing out of E. 0. 81 -

                  105 will leave decisions about state spending within CBRS units linked to the provisions of local

                  comprehensive plans, except to the extent that state agencies choose to rely on the provisions of

                  the State Land Development Plan. To the extent that those provisions are interpreted as conflicting

                  with the intent of ï¿½380.27(2) FS, the statute would evidently prevail.




                  While the transition from the provisions of E.O. 81-105 to the provisions of local comprehensive

                  plans appears to relinquish any explicit policy concerning CBRS units, it also alters the geographic

                  scope of the infrastructure policy from a focus on barrier islands to one on coastal high hazard

                  areas (CHHAs). The provisions of Chapter 163 governing the content of the coastal element of

                  local comprehensive plans clearly target the CHHA rather than barrier islands per se. This focus is

                  also explicit in ï¿½380.27(2) FS." As noted in the previous discussion of the barrier island bridge

                  policy, a focus on only barrier islands excludes hazardous coastal areas on other islands and the

                  mainland. Thus the geographic scope of E.O. 81-105 does not provide consistent policy for all

                  areas with comparable vulnerability to coastal storms. However, the linkage of state infrastructure

                  policy to local comprehensive plans offers even less consistency because the definition of the

                  CHHA pursuant to ï¿½ 1 63.3178(2)(h) FS and 9J-5.003(14) FAC, is entirely a matter of local

                  discretion.



                                                                   123











            In its 1991 Coastal Infrastructure Policy Update, DCA documents the variety of local government

            definitions of the CHHA: 25 out of 100 counties and municipalities surveyed based it solely on the

            FIEMA V-zone'; 11 based it on the V-zone and some other criterion (areas damaged by previous

            storms, inlets not structurally controlled, Category 1 storm evacuation zones)'; 33 based it on the

            V-zone and the state Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL); 6 defined it only in terms of the

            CCCL; 2 defined it solely in terms of evacuation zones; 11 used other definitions; and 12 had no

            explicit definition of the coastal high hazard area although required to do so (Florida Department of

            Community Affairs, 1991).




            According to T.Y. Chiu (1993) of the Florida Beaches and Shores Research Center, the CCCL is

            typically located further landward than the V-zone. In an analysis of the relative positions of V-

            zones, the CCCL, and categorical storm SLOSH surge zones in seven counties (Duval, Brevard,

            Dade, Monroe, Collier, Sarasota, and Wakulla), we found the CCCL to be further landward than the

            V-zone for 28 of 34 measurements (82%) along coastlines fronting on the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf

            of Mexico." (Note that there is no CCCL in Monroe or Wakulla counties; in these areas we

            compared the relative positions of the V-zones and SLOSH storm surge zones.) The CCCL is

            designed to demarcate the area of beach that will be impacted by a 1 00-year storm which is

            roughly comparable to a Category 3 storm on the Saffir/Simpson hurricane scale (Chiu, 1993). Dr.

            Chiu indicated that the CCCL also tends to be further landward than the Category 1 storm surge

            zone. We found that this was the case at about half of our measurement sites (117 of 31). However


            the Category 1 storm surge zone was further landward than the typical V-zone at 24 of 33 sites

            (73%). The Category 3 storm surge zone is generally further landward than the CCCL except in

            some areas with seawalls. Thus the typical pattern is:




                   LAND - CATEGORY ZONE - CATEGORY 1 ZONE - CCCL - V-ZONE - SEA


                                          or




                                                           124












                         LAND - CATEGORY 3 ZONE - CCCL - CATEGORY 1 ZONE - V-ZONE - SEA




                  Because CCCLs are drawn only along the open coast, in areas where barrier islands are present,

                  the CCCL will be limited to the open sea side of the barrier island while storm surge zones and V-

                  zones may occur on the sound or lagoon side of the barrier island or extend onto the mainland.

                  Interior islarids, i.e. those within sounds or lagoons protected by barrier islands, have no CCCLs.

                  Neither do areas without sandy shores, including all of the Big Bend counties from Pasco to

                  Wakulla counties plus Monroe County. Collier County illustrates the pattern in the low-lying areas

                  of the southwest coast: all the coastal islands are covered by the tropical storm and Category 1

                  storm surge zones, and the Category 1 zone extends inland a distance of 0.50 to 0.75 mile. The

                  Category 3 zone extends an additional 4 to 8 miles inland. The higher topography and greater

                  water depths along portions of the Atlantic coast result in a much different profile. In Brevard

                  County, for instance, the CCCL was further landward than the Category 1 zone at 6 of 7

                  measurement sites and further landward than the Category 3 zone at 5 sites. For a stretch of some

                  12 miles or more along the barrier island there is no Category 1 or 3 storm surge zone along the

                  Atlantic shore because of a seawall, but there are more extensive Category 1 and 3 storm surge

                  zones on the Indian River lagoon side of the barrier island as well as along the shore of the


                  mainland.




                  The correspondence between categorical storm evacuation zones and SLOSH storm surge zones

                  varies substantially among the counties. Most of the seven counties we surveyed evacuate their

                  entire barrier islands for a Category 1 or higher storm. This is true for Brevard County where

                  substantial portions of the barrier island system are subject only to a Category 3 or 5 storm surge,

                  as well as for the southwestern counties of Collier and Sarasota where all of the islands would be


                  inundated by a tropical or Category 1 storm. Outside of the barrier islands, evacuation zones tend

                  to correspond to storm surge zones, although they sometimes vary for practical reasons. For



                                                                  125










           example, in Collier County south of Naples, all areas seaward of US Route 41 are evacuated in the

           event of a Category 1 storm although some portions of this area are within the Category 2 storm

           surge zone (Pineau, 1993). Monroe County's policy calls for evacuating all mobile homes and

           tourists from the Keys in the event of a Category 1 or 2 storm and other residents of the Keys

           depending on the storm track (Coats, 1993). All of the Keys would be evacuated in the event of a

           Category 3 storm. The SLOSH maps for. Monroe County do not designate a Category 1 zone, but

           almost all of the Keys, except for areas immediately adjacent to portions of US Route 1, are within

           the Category 2 surge zone. Wakulla County, where the Category 1 storm surge zone extends

           inland as far as 5 miles and the Category 3 zone as much as 9.5 miles, has no fixed evacuation

           zones keyed to storm intensity (Murray, 1993). Local shelters are not opened if the storm intensity

           exceeds Category 2.




           Thus in most areas of the state, aCHHA based on the CCCL will be more protective along the open

           coast than one based solely on the FEMA V-zone. In some areas, a CHHA based on the CCCL will

           be more extensive along the open coast than one based on a Category 1 or Category 3 storm surge

           zone, but a CHHA limited to the area defined by the CCCL excludes areas subject to storm surge

           on interior islands and along the sounds and lagoons that lie between barrier islands and the


           mainland.




           The ELMS bill amendment of the CHHA definition in ï¿½ 1 63.3178(2)(h) FS suggests uniform use of

           the Category 1 evacuation zone, but this is not binding on the most important planning issues tied

           to the CHHA: mitigation, redevelopment, and coastal infrastructure. According to Murley (1993)

           and Flack 0 993), the evacuation zone was recommended by the ELMS Committee because local

           officials are more conversant with these demarcations than with the SLOSH storm surge zones

           upon which they are based. There.was also a sense that a more extensive zone would not be

           politically acceptable. Reference to the Category 1 evacuation zone in the ELMS III bill also reflects



                                                          126











                  recommendations made by DCA (see, for example, Florida Department of Community Affairs,

                  1990: 48; 1991: vii).




                  Our analysis indicates, however, that not all counties have formal evacuation zones keyed to the

                  storm surge zones. Furthermore, a CHHA.tied to the Category 1 storm surge or evacuation zone

                  will, in some instances, be less protective than one based on the CCCL or the FEMA V-zone. As

                  noted above, the Category 3 storm surge zone, which is roughly equivalent to the 1 00-year storm

                  impact zone, is often far more extensive than the Category 1 zone. DCA stated as early as 1990,

                  in its infrastructure policy implementation report, that it considered the Category 1 storm surge

                  impact area as "a reasonable compromise for a hazard mitigation planning area for infrastructure"

                  (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1990: 48). The author suggested that "[p1lanning for a

                  catastrophic event which has a long recurrence interval is not practical from a political or financial

                  perspective." Yet the 1 00-year storm has been widely accepted as a legitimate threshold for

                  natural hazard policies including the National Flood Insurance Program and the Florida CCCL permit

                  program.' State and local storm hazard mitigation policies linked to a CHHA based on the Category

                  1 evacuation zone rather than the Category 3 storm provide far less protection of public health and

                  safety and expose local and state government to much greater costs associated with coastal


                  storms.





                                                       ECONOMIC INCENTIVES




                  Two of the policy instruments reviewed in the preceding sections include economic incentives the

                  state offers to local governments that may encourage local initiatives that further the state's storm

                  hazard mitigation policy objectives: 1) the matching grants provided under the Preservation 2000

                  land acquisition bond program through the Florida Communities Trust; and 2) the state beach

                  erosion control assistance program administered by the DEP Division of Beaches and Shores.



                                                                 127










             Four others are discussed here: 1 ) state requirements that local property appraisers grant property

             tax relief to property owners who grant conservation easements or convey development rights to

             state or local governments or qualified non-profit organizations; 2) state law which authorizes

             transfer of development rights as a means of altering land development patterns; and two

             initiatives taken during the 1993 session of the state legislature; 3) the Hurricane Catastrophe

             Fund; and 4) the Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Assistance Trust Fund.




             TAX INCENTIVES FOR CONVEYANCE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
             AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS


             Overview


             As noted in the discussion of acquisition of less-than-fee property interests, state law requires local

             property appraisers to reduce the appraised value of property which has been restricted by an

             easement or development rights covenant. When such a conveyance of development rights or

             covenant has been made, the lands are to be assessed by the property appraiser based only on

             their use as restricted by the conveyance or covenant (ï¿½ 193.501 (3) FS). If the property owner

             obtains a reconveyance or release from the covenant during the term of the agreement, the

             property owner is required to pay the deferred tax liability (ï¿½ 193.501 (4) FS). Section 39 of the

             ELMS bill amended ï¿½ 193.501 FS allowing property appraisers to reduce the assessed value of

             property which is subject to the sale of development rights or a conservation easement to a

             charitable corporation or trust. Previous statutory language was "not clear or consistent in regard

             to the ad valorem tax treatment of lands subject to a conservation easement."




             Analysis


             We have been unable to locate any statistics from state agencies that document the extent to

             which local governments or nonprofit organizations have been successful in using these tax

             incentives to promote sale or donation of development rights or conservation easements in the

             state. As noted in the discussion of acquisition of less-than-fee property interests, these


                                                              128











                  instruments are currently limited by the fact that they must be applied to lands that are

                  environmentally endangered or are to be used for outdoor recreation and park purposes. David

                  Gluckman 0 994) suggests that less-than-fee acquisition has been most successfully applied to

                  agricultural or silvicultural lands where the current tax liability is already low. Thus tax relief is not

                  likely to be a major consideration for the property owner,




                  TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS


                  Overview


                  Transfer of development rights (TDR) refers to the process by which a land use regulatory agency

                  permits the transfer of development density authorization from one parcel of land to another. In a

                  regulatory sense it is exclusively a prerogative of local government to effect such transfers by

                  permitting increased densities in the receiving area in exchange for reduced densities in the sending

                  area. In theory, TDR can be used to reduce development densities in areas most prone to coastal

                  storm damage, thereby contributing to the objectives of minimizing the threats and costs of coastal

                  storms. Reduced densities may also help limit the vulnerability of public facilities and infrastructure

                  to storm damage. TDR can operate as an economic incentive where it allows a would-be developer

                  to realize higher densities in the receiving area than would otherwise be permitted.




                  Florida counties and municipalities have the authority within their general powers to enact local

                  land development regulations (Chapter 125 FS and ï¿½ 166.041 FS) that initiate TDR programs

                  (Peery, 1994). The ELMS Bill contains language authorizing the FCT "to provide technical

                  assistance to local governments to establish transfer of development rights programs within their

                  jurisdictions" (ï¿½380.511 FS as amended by Section 72 of the ELMS bill). FCT Executive Director

                  Anne Peery (11994) reports that the Trust has provided such assistance in the past where it was

                  sought by local governments with whom they have worked. However, the FCT's authority to

                  acquire title to land appears too restrictive to allow it to broker TDRs as has been done by the


                                                                     129










            California Coastal Conservancy (see Chapter 5).




            Analysis


            The ELMS Committee found that TDR "is not generally understood or widely used in our state,

            [allthough some municipalities in Florida have authorizing ordinances and even used TDRs in a few

            instancesn (Florida Environmental Land Management Study Committee, 1993:109). The committee

            found that obstacles to the use of TDR include "a lack of understanding about ... TDR theory, a

            lack of success where TDR programs have been attempted due to shortcomings in the enabling

            ordinances, and no direction or financial assistance from the State." They recommended that the

            State Legislature encourage local TDR programs and that the Florida Communities Trust assist local

            governments in establishing them.




            Several contacts verified the lack of significant application of TDR within Florida. Peery (1994)

            observed that TDR is not an attractive option to property owners when they can readily obtain

            variances to zoning ordinance density restrictions. Gluckman (1994) indicated that Collier County

            had made some limited use of TDR for wetlands, but otherwise he was not aware of any

            successful application of the concept in the state. Peery reports that Marion County is actively

            researching a potential TDR program and that Palm Beach County is pursuing a TDR strategy to

            preserve some agricultural lands.




            HURRICANE CATASTROPHE FUND


            Overview


            During the 1993 special session of the State Legislature a bill was enacted (CS/HB 31-C) which

            added section 215.555 to the Florida Statutes creating a state catastrophic hurricane reinsurance

            trust fund. The fund will be used to reimburse insurers for a portion of their catastrophic hurricane

            losses from individual policies written for residential and commercial structures and contents. The



                                                             130










                   trust fund is to be financed by annual premiums paid by those insurers that contract with the State

                   Board of Administration for coverage under the fund. Insurers will pay these premiums by raising

                   the premiums for individual insurance policies. The resulting increases in insurance policy premiums

                   will increase the costs of residing and conducting business in areas at greatest risk of hurricane

                   storm damage. A state grants program is to be financed from surpluses that may accumulate in the

                   fund for non-recurring projects that protect local infrastructure from potential hurricane damage.




                   Reimbursement contracts between insurers and the State Board of Administration will provide for

                   75% reimbursement of losses in excess of two times an insurer's gross direct written premium

                   from covered policies for the preceding year where the insurer has a surplus as to policyholders in

                   excess of $15 million. For insurers with a surplus of $15 million or less, the fund will reimburse for

                   75% of losses in excess of 1.5 times the insurer's gross direct written premium for the preceding

                   year. Reimbursement premiums ar    e to be based on a formula determined from the insured value

                   covered under policies written by the insurer within individual zipcodes. The formula is being

                   developed by consultants under contract to the State Board of Administration who will analyze

                   70 + simulated storm events to predict damage estimates based on wind speed, angle of approach,

                   terrain, types of construction, and other factors (Nicholson, 1993).



                   The initial reimbursement premium formula is to be adopted by the Board of Administration by

                   March 1, 1994, but the consultant study is not expected to be completed until April. As a result,

                   no firm estimates have been made of the impact of the fund reimbursement premiums on premiums

                   paid for individual policies. Jack Nicholson of the Department of Insurance said he "hoped" that

                   average insurance policy premiums would not increase any more than 50% (Nicholson, 1993). He

                   anticipates that insurers will raise premiums in accordance with the exposure/risk zones used to set

                   the reimbursement premium formula. Nicholson guessed that insurance premium increases may

                   range  from 30 to 100%.



                                                                     131










             If no covered events occur in a given year, up to two% of the premium collected in that year is to

             be made available the following year for making legislative appropriations for grants to local

             governments, state agencies, and nonprofit charitable organizations to support non-recurring

             projects that protect local infrastructure from potential hurricane damage.




             Analysis


             The Hurricane Catastrophe Fund has the potential to bring property insurance premiums into closer

             accord with actual risks incurred by residing or conducting business within areas vulnerable to

             hurricane storm damage. In this sense, the fund may provide an economic incentive that deters

             development within the coastal high hazard area. To the extent that premiums for individual

             policies are adjusted to reflect actual risks, the fund also has the potential to more equitably

             distribute the costs of insuring property owners against storm damage; i.e. those who incur the

             greatest risk will pay higher premi -ums rather than spreading the risk among all policy holders.



             Higher insurance premiums are an  imperfect policy instrument for several reasons. First, not all

             properties vulnerable to damage from coastal storms are insured. Thus not all property owners will

             be influenced by changes in insurance premiums. Furthermore, significant increases in property

             insurance premiums may motivate some owners to drop their insurance coverage. Third, to the

             extent that development is limited by the availability of insurance, creation of the fund serves to

             promote continued development within hurricane-prone areas so long as the development market is

             willing to pay the higher insurance premiums. Creation of the fund is also intended to assure more

             rapid settlement of storm damage claims. It may, therefore, accelerate the rate at which property

             owners rebuild after a storm and may reduce opportunities for state or local governments to

             purchase storm-damaged properties and remove them from the development market.




             The grants that may be available through the fund to protect local infrastructure will contribute to



                                                             132










                   the objective of reducing the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm damage. However, they

                   may also support continued occupancy of the coastal high hazard area unless conditions are placed

                   on the grants that encourage relocation. The grants may be subject to the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2)

                   FS if they are administered by a state agency, although the statute refers only to "legislative

                   appropriations for grants" (ï¿½ 215.555(7)(c) FS). E.O. 81 -101 likewise may not apply since it does

                   not apply to the State Legislature, and the Department of Insurance was not named as one of the

                   state agencies subject to the executive order. However, if the reimbursement premiums paid by

                   contracting insurers are derived from increased policy premium rates that are linked to risk levels,

                   the grants offer an indirect means for property owners who are most directly served by coastal

                   infrastructure to pay a more equitable share in the maintenance of that infrastructure.




                   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS, AND ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND


                   Overview


                   During the regular 1993 session, the State Legislature created a state trust fund to enhance state

                   and local emergency preparedness programs with monies raised through an annual surcharge

                   imposed on residential and commercial property insurance policies (Chapter 93-128 FS). The annual

                   surcharge is $2 on residential policies and $4 on commercial policies. Annual expendable revenues

                   for 1993 are estimated at $11.8 million after substraction of the state service charge of 7.3 %

                   (Starrett, 1993).




                   Twenty percent of the monies in the fund are to be used for state relief assistance for non-federally

                   declared disasters. An additional 20% is to be used for grants and loans to state, regional, or local

                   agencies and private organizations to implement projects to enhance emergency preparedness,

                   response, and recovery, including public education. The remaining 60% is to be allocated for

                   implementing and administering state and local emergency management programs. Twenty percent

                   of this money is to go to the Division of Emergency Management in the State Department of



                                                                    133










             Community Affairs, 64% to county emergency management agencies, and 16% to municipal

             emergency management offices. The majority of these monies are to be allocated as base grants to

             county emergency management agencies (ï¿½ 9G- 19.005 FAC). The funds for municipalities are to be

             allocated through a second competitive grants process 0 9G- 19.007 FAC).




             Analysis


             The fund as designed serves merely to supplement existing state and local resources for preparing

             for and responding to coastal storms and all other emergencies. This contributes to goals of

             protecting public safety and property but will not directly contribute to storm hazard mitigation

             unless some funds are used to reduce the vulnerability of response systems and facilities to storm

             damage. Hazard mitigation is not among the purposes explicitly listed in the statute (Chapter 93-

             128, ï¿½30)(c)) or the grant award categories listed in the regulations promulgated for implementing

             the grants program (M-11 8.007(5) FAC). It is mentioned, however, in the regulatory definition of

             a "project" (ï¿½9G-1 8.002(12) FAC) and in the discussion of demonstrating state or local emergency

             management needs in the 1993-94 Application Packet (Florida Department of Community Affairs,

             1993b).




             The insurance premium surcharge concept could be altered to provide incentives to avoid activities

             in risky locations such as the coastal high hazard area. For example, the surcharge rate structure

             could be modified to reflect the relative risk of living or conducting business in areas vulnerable to

             coastal storm damage. Properties located in Category 1 storm surge zones would be charged a

             higher surcharge than those in Category 3 zones, or Category 5 zones, or those outside the storm

             surge zones entirely. However, the surcharge would undoubtedly have to be considerably greater

             than $ 2 or $4 per year to motivate changes in land use. The potential 30 to 100 % premium

             increases likely to result from the reimbursement premiums imposed on insurers under the

             Hurricane Catastrophe Fund are likely to have a much greater impact.



                                                               134










                   A surcharge rate structure based on relative risk would also make financing of state and local

                   emergency management programs more equitable: property owners whose insured structures are

                   more vulnerable to coastal storm damage and who are more likely to require state and local

                   emergency assistance would be paying a larger share into the trust fund. If the fund were altered

                   so that it financed existing state emergency management activities that are directed toward

                   preparedness for, response to, and recovery from coastal storms, the surcharge would be

                   considerably greater and paying for those services would be more equitable than through the

                   current practice of funding such activities through the General Revenue Fund. The limits to relying

                   on higher insurance premiums to effect storm hazard mitigation goals are discussed in the section

                   on the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund.




                                                   EDUCATION AND INFORMATION




                   Several policy instruments described in preceding sections include technical assistance efforts by

                   state agencies that facilitate achievement of the state's storm hazard mitigation policy objectives.

                   These include the training workshops and deemed-to-comply manual for local building inspectors

                   sponsored by the Department of Community Affairs under the Coastal Zone protection Act of 1985

                   and the State Beach Management Plan prepared by the Division of Beaches and Shores. State

                   initiatives connected with federal programs are discussed in Chapter 2. One other bears formal

                   discussion here, the mechanism by which residents within the area delimited by the Coastal

                   Construction Control Line (CCCL) are notified of the location of the line.




                   CCCL PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURES


                   Overview


                   One of the public education and information strategies that has been promoted as a m6ans of

                   attaining natural hazard mitigation objectives is the alerting of affected persons to the presence of



                                                                  135










            natural hazards in specific areas (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989). Where governments

            initiate regulatory actions to protect public health and welfare in hazardous areas, there are also

            requirements for public notice of pending regulatory actions that are usually contained in state laws

            governing general administrative procedures. Governments may also choose to disclose regulatory

            constraints on property use as a way of fending off subsequent takings claims, since many courts

            have applied a standard of reasonable development expectations in making judgments about

            whether regulations have unreasonably denied property owners economically beneficial use of their


            property.




            Florida law (ï¿½ 161.053(2) FS) requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to provide

            public notice of the regulations governing property seaward of the CCCL in two ways. First DEP

            must conduct public hearings, with formal published notice, in each county, prior to setting a

            CCCL, and a hearing must also be   held by the Governor and Cabinet. Second, DEP is required to

            record the CCCL in public records of each affected county and municipality and to provide a copy

            of the survey of the line to the clerk of the circuit court in each county.




            Analysis


            While the public notice and formal recording of the CCCL accomplish some measure of informing

            the public, the emphasis of current Florida requirements appears to be on meeting the requirements

            of the state administrative procedures law (ï¿½ 120.54 FS) and on putting property owners on notice

            of the regulations rather than alerting them to the hazards of occupying the area demarcated by the

            CCCL. Other states have initiated hazard disclosure procedures tied to real estate transactions that

            are more directly targeted at alerting prospective property owners of the potential risks posed by

            natural hazards. Several examples are discussed in the next chapter.








                                                            136












                                                          ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 3


                    1       Effective soil depth is the depth of slightly or moderately limited soil material at an onsite
                            sewage disposal system drainfield site    ï¿½ 1 OD-6.042120) FACI.

                    2.      Class I is potable water supplies; Class IV is agricultural water supplies, and Class V is
                            navigation, utility, and industrial use.

                    3.      Basis wind speeds are the fastest-mile speeds at 33 feet above ground for open terrain
                            associated with an annual probability of 0.02 (50-year return interval).

                    4.      Coastal barrier islands are defined as in the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985
                            0 161.54(2) FS): "geological features which are completely surrounded by marine waters
                            that front upon the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay, or
                            Straits of Florida and are composed of quartz sands, clays, limestone, oolites, rock, coral,
                            coquina, sediment or other material, including dredge spoil, which features lie above the line
                            of mean high water. Mainland areas which are separated from the mainland by artificial
                            channelization for the purpose of assisting marine commerce shall not be considered coastal
                            barrier islands."


                    5.      The State Land Development Plan is one of three so-called translational plans designed to
                            provide interim guidance between the State Comprehensive Plan and the plans of individual
                            state agencies, regional planning councils, and local governments. The plan adds objectives
                            and agency operating policies, but it is not used to judge the consistency of local plans with
                            the State Comprehensive Plan (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1989).

                    6.      Section 380.27(2) FS cross references ï¿½ 163.3178 FS, and, therefore, links to
                            ï¿½ 163.3178(2)(h) FS which spells out the requirement that local governments designate
                            "high-hazard coastal areas" that will be subject to the state infrastructure policy set forth in
                            ï¿½380.27(2) FS. DCA has maintained in its recent coastal infrastructure policy reports that
                            the state's infrastructure policy applies to the entire coastal area 0 991:6; 1992:5;
                            1993a:4). This appears to be based on an imprecise interpretation of the cross-reference to
                            ï¿½ 163.3178 FS rather than the more precise specifications of ï¿½ 1 63.3178(2)(h) FS.

                    7.      The V-zone or velocity zone is the area estimated to be subject to at least a three-foot
                            breaking wave during a 100-year storm. It is determined by the National Flood Insurance
                            Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

                    S.      Coastal storm evacuation zones are established by county emergency management
                            agencies for storms of different intensities as measured by the Saffir/Simpson hurricane
                            scale which differentiates 5 categories of hurricanes plus tropical storms based on wind
                            speed and storm surge ranges. Most counties base their categorical storm evacuation zones
                            on storm surge maps prepared using the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
                            (SLOSH) model developed by the National Weather Service. County evacuation zones for
                            landfalling storms tend to be at least as wide as the area predicted to be affected by a
                            storm surge striking perpendicular to the coast (McDonald, 1993).

                    9.      Recall that the CCCL is based on beach and dune erosion predicted to result from a 100-
                            year storm rather than inundation from storm surge.

                    10.     The study, contained in Appendix A, analyzed the relative position of the V-zone, CCCL,
                            and the SLOSH model categorical storm surge zones for seven counties selected to


                                                                      137









                   represent different topographic and geographic situations in the state. No panhandle
                   counties west of Wakulla County were analyzed because up-to-date SLOSH maps were not
                   available. Measurement points were selected to represent significant shifts in the position
                   of one of the zones relative to the first measurement made for a county.



























































                                                           138











                                                           CHAPTER 4


                                A REVIEW OF LOCAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS:
                           HOW WELL DO LOCAL PLANS MEET HAZARD MITIGATION AND
                                      POST-STORM REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?




                                                          INTRODUCTION




                  Florida's comprehensive planning system is based on a set of integrated planning goals and policies

                  that begin at the state level and carry through to the regional and local levels. State planning goals

                  and policies, as codified in Chapter 187 FS, are intended to provide guidance for the development

                  of regional policy plans authorized under Chapter 186 FS. Local planning policies, authorized under

                  Chapter 163 FS, are, in turn, to be consistent with both state and regional goals and policies,

                  thereby creating a system that moves from the more general to the more specific as is appropriate

                  to the changing geographical focus and scope of each plan.




                  The degree to which state policy goals and objectives for coastal areas are realized is, in this

                  system, very much dependent on the manner and degree to which local jurisdictions reflect and

                  operationalize policies initiated at higher levels. Since land use and development decisions are, for

                  the most part, made at the local level, the local policies that guide permitting and development

                  decisions will determine if and how state goals and objectives are realized. Additionally, state

                  action within local jurisdictions is very much dependent on local policy and cannot act independent

                  of local planning objectives. Florida statute (Chapter 380.27 FS) requires that once a local

                  jurisdiction has an approved coastal management plan, state spending for infrastructure within the

                  coastal area must be consistent with this local plan.




                  Under these conditions, of vital importance to the state is the degree to which local plans

                  responsibly interpret state goals, objectives, and policies and adapt them to the local context. To

                  help insure that this occurs, the state has specified the required minimum content of local










            comprehensive plans and evaluates plans for compliance with these minimum requirements. These

            minima are spelled out in Rule 9J-5 FAC. Coastal communities (counties and incorporated cities)

            are required to produce, as part of their local comprehensive plan, a coastal management element.

            The requirements for this element are specified in Rule 9J-5.012.




            In the following sections we evaluate a small sample of these local coastal management plans in

            the attempt to address the question of how well state objectives are met at the local level. A

            review of local coastal management elements also provides an inventory of local policy alternatives

            and may suggest unique and innovative approaches to coastal management that should be

            promoted by the state.




                                                       THE STUDY




            The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the state agency with lead responsibility for

            reviewing Iocal comprehensive plans, has developed a review format that closely follows the

            requirements as specified in Rule 9J-5 FAC. Our interests overlap those of the DCA review only in

            part; in the interests of highlighting the most significant coastal planning issues we have focused

            on a subset of the requirements for the coastal management element as specified in Rule 9.1-5.012.

            The issues on which we focus are concerned with the coastal high hazard area, hazard mitigation,

            and post-storm redevelopment issues only. These topics are shown in Table 4.1 along with a cross-

            reference to the corresponding section of Rule 9J-5, where appropriate. Since we are also

            interested in the development of innovative policies for hazard mitigation, we have gone beyond

            the DCA review format to include review of the set of policy instruments discussed in Chapter 1.




            The review procedure incorporates three components: review of the DCA report titled Obiections,

            Recommendations and Comments (ORC report); review of the adopted coastal management



                                                           140











                   redevelopment plan.




                   The review of the ORC report is done to gpin some background to DCA's official response to the

                   proposed version of the plan. In each case the adopted version is subsequent to the ORC report

                   and we expect that issues raised in the DCA review will have been addressed in the final plan

                   submission.




                   The review of the coastal management element of the adopted plan was done to determine if the

                   local community had addressed the issues listed in Table 4. 1. We did not, however, evaluate the

                   extent to which the issues are addressed or whether the policies proposed are strong and likely to

                   be effective, except to the extent that they are properly addressed. This means that inventories,

                   analysis, and objectives/policies were required to be sufficiently specific. Where the requirement is

                   to inventory infrastructure within the CHHA, then an inventory that did not specifically address the

                   CHHA was deemed as not satisfying the requirement. Similarly, where we are concerned with the

                   use of development regulation for hazard mitigation, regulations that are not done for the purposes

                   of mitigation, even vaguely defined, but for other purposes (such as species protection) were not

                   judged as satisfying the requirement. Some considerable degree of vagueness and incompleteness,

                   however, was tolerated. Thus, for example, some communities may provide a reasonably thorough

                   inventory of infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area while others do little to inventory

                   infrastructure other than to provide vague statements about the general types that exist. Similarly,

                   a variety of definitions exist for the CHHA, many of which do not meet the definitional

                   requirements stipulated by DCA. Nevertheless, if the issue is addressed, this was noted and

                   reported as such in our tabulations. Only in a small number of instances is the wording of a local

                   policy so vague that it was entirely unclear what was meant and the entry was coded as absent.

                   The analysis also includes an instance of double counting that makes local regulation appear more





                                                                     141













               Table 4.11: Review of Coastal Management Element

               A. Data and Analysis: Does the.plan include the following tasks relating to post disaster
               redevelopment?

               5.012(2)(e)2      1 . Inventory of existing and proposed land uses in CHHA
               5.012(2)(e)2      2.  Inventory of structures with history of repeated damage
               5.012 (2) (e) 2   3.  Inventory of infrastructure in CHHA
               5.012 (2) (02     4.  Analysis for relocation of threatened infrastructure
               5.012(2)(e)2      5.  Inventory of beach and dune conditions
               5.012(2)(e)2      6.  Inventory of coastal and shore protection structures
               5.012 (2) (e) 2   7.  Analysis of measures to reduce exposure to hazards (relocation, structural
                                           modification, public acquisition)

               B. Objectives and     Policies: Does the plan include objectives or policies that address the following
               issues:


                                           1 .Coastal High Hazard Areas


               5.012 (3) (c) 7             a .Designation of CHHA
               5.012 (3) (c) 7             b .Limit development in CHHA
               5.012 (3) (c) 7             c .Relocate/replace infrastructure away from CHHA
               5.012(3)(b)5                d. Limit public expenditures that subsidize
                                                    development in CHHA
               5.012(3)(b)6                e. Direct population away from CHHA

                                           2. Hazard Mitiaation

               5.012 (3) (c) 3             a .General policy for hazard mitigation
                                           b. HM using the following policy instruments' ...

                                                    regulation
                                                                construction and site development
                                                                land use
                                                    investment
                                                             ï¿½ land acquisition
                                                             ï¿½ capital facilities, infrastructure, services
                                                    incentives
                                                                economic
                                                                education and information


               5.012 (3) (c) 3             c. Incorporate the hazard mitigation annex and
                                                      interagency hazard mitigation reports


                                                                                     (continued)









                                                                         142













            Table 4.1. continued...
            Review of Coastal Management Element



                                    3. Post Disaster Redeveloment


            5.012 (3) (b) 8         a. Policy to prepare post disaster redevelopment plan
                                    b. Identify regulatory/mgt techniques for post-disaster redevelopment that -

            5.012 (3) (c) 5                  1. Distinguish between long term repair and redevelopment
            5.012 (3) (c) 5                 2. Address removal, relocation, structural modification of damaged
                                                     infrastructure
            5.012(3)(c)5                    3. Address limiting redevelopment in areas of repeated damage

                                    c. Status of post storm redevelopment plan



              From the perspective of local government there are no mandates imposed on lower levels of
            government. This category of policy instrument is omitted.





            forceful than it is in reality. Rule 9.1-5 requires communities to include a policy statement regarding

            limitations on public expenditures that subsidize development within the CHHA; i.e. locating

            infrastructure within the area. Communities that failed to include this policy had this noted in their

            ORC report and eventually all of the sampled plans included an appropriately worded policy. This

            automatically qualified each community to also be scored positively on the issue of whether capital

            facilities programming was used for the purposes of hazard mitigation. Because of difficulties in

            interpretation, however, we recognize that different evaluation outcomes are possible and that

            different analysts may reach slightly different conclusions.




            After review of the plan we telephoned each local community that had indicated a policy to prepare

            a post storm redevelopment plan to inquire about the status of the plan. In most cases the date at

            which the community intended to have this plan adopted is specified as part of the community

            redevelopment policies. We inquired as to whether the plan had been prepared and, if so, whether

            it had been given official status by being incorporated within the local comprehensive plan. The



                                                              143











                   basis for selecting the local jurisdictions that are included in our review rests on the intersection of

                   a number of criteria: geographic location, development scale, and geophysical conditions of the

                   coast. Geographic location is operationalized in terms of five regions: Panhandle, Gulf, ocean -

                   north, ocean - central/south, and Keys. Within each region we selected two counties that differed,

                   to the extent possible, on geophysical conditions and development scale. Geophysical conditions of

                   the coastal area were defined in terms of beach erosion and accretion rates, using the highest

                   reported rates for each county organized into high, medium, low, and none categories.

                   Development scale was defined by the metropolitan versus non-metropolitan distinction (i.e.,






                   Table 4.2: Local Communities Selected for Review of Coastal Management Element


                   Location                         Geophysical Conditions                   Larnest Place


                                                    erosion          accretion


                   1. Panhandle
                            Bay                     high             medium                  Panama City
                            Franklin                medium           medium                  Apalachicola


                   2. Gulf
                            Sarasota                high             none                    Sarasota
                            Lee                     medium           medium                  Cape Coral


                   3. Ocean - North
                            Duval/Jax'              high             none                    Jacksonville Beach
                            St.Johns                low              low                     St. Augustine


                   4. Ocean - Central/South
                            Brevard                 medium           medium                  Palm Bay
                            Palm Beach              high             none                    W. Palm Beach

                   5. Keys
                            Monroe                  none             none                    Key West




                     Duval County and the City of Jacksonville are incorporated as one unit. Jacksonville Beach was
                   selected as an alternative.






                                                                       144










            however, it was not always possible to also differentiate counties within the same region on the

            whether the county is a part of a metropolitan area.) In attempting to meet the geophysical criteria,

            however, it was not always possible to differentiate counties within the same region on the basis

            of the metropolitan distinction. On these bases we have selected for review nine counties,

            shown in Table 4.2. In addition, we also selected the largest coastal city as of 1990 (i.e., of those

            cities designated coastal and required to complete a coastal management element) within each of

            these counties, thereby adding an urban dimension. This was necessary because in some highly

            urbanized counties the amount of coastal high hazard area that exists in the unincorporated area is

            small and the attention given to the CHHA in the plan is relatively minor.




                            RESULTS: CORRESPONDENCE TO STATE PLANNING MANDATES




            The tabulated results of the review are shown in Table 4.3 both in terms of the number of


            communities satisfying the requirement and the percent. In some instances the base upon which

            the percent is computed does not include the entire set of 18 places because the particular issue or

            requirement is not applicable (e.g., there is no CHHA in Panama City.)




            Table 4.3 shows that the proportion of communities that responded appropriately to each item

            varies considerably and only in a few instances is there universal coverage of an item. For example,

            in the Data and Analysis section, most (88%) of the places addressed the requirement for an

            inventory of coastal and shore protection structures, but less than half (47%) of the places

            provided an inventory of existing and proposed land uses in the CHHA. A number of communities

            for which this land use inventory was missing did provide this information for the coastal zone in

            general, but failed to do so for the smaller CHHA.




            The proportions associated with the required objectives and policies for the CHHA show that all



                                                           145










                  (100%) communities included a policy that addressed the limitations on public expenditures for

                  new infrastructure in the CHHA, although in many instances there are significant qualifiers to these

                  policies. Moreover, the seriousness of purpose with which communities treat the infrastructure

                  issue may be better indicated by how many communities also address other infrastructure related

                  content. Thus we see that only 65% inventoried infrastructure within the CHHA; only 53%

                  performed an analysis of the potential for the relocation of infrastructure out of the CHHA; and only

                  18% adopted policies that address the issue of relocating or replacing existing infrastructure out of

                  the CHHA. Dealing with the latter issue, moreover, does not necessarily mean that a relocation

                  policy has been adopted; in each instance relocation is predicated on damage and the need for

                  redevelopment rather than being addressed independently.




                  Objectives and policies that address the issue of hazard mitigation are relatively weak. Less than

                  half (44%) of the jurisdictions include a general policy in support of hazard mitigation, and the

                  majority of places rely on the relatively standard approaches of construction and site development

                  regulations (78%), the regulation of development (83%) and the location of infrastructure and

                  public facilities (100%). While development regulation can be a powerful and creative method for

                  addressing hazard mitigation, in many communities it is not handled as such. The weakest

                  examples are those that simply indicate that they will continue to enforce existing codes and land

                  use regulations which provide for hazard mitig ation, but fail to specify the content of these

                  regulations or to describe a logical connection between the action and expected results.

                  Objectives and policies for post disaster redevelopment are similarly mixed. Most revealing is that

                  while 72% of the communities indicated a policy for preparing a post disaster redevelopment plan,

                  none of those communities whose dates of adoption are specified as 1993 or before have done so

                  by the time of this report (although two indicate that draft plans have been prepared and adoption

                  is expected later this year.)





                                                                  146












              Table 4.3: Summary of Coastal Management Elements


                                                                                            numbe percent
              A. Data and Analysis

              1. Inventory of existing and proposed land uses in CHHA                         8        47
              2. Inventory of structures with history of repeated damage                      9        53
              3. Inventory of infrastructure in CHHA                                         11        65
              4. Analysis for relocation of threatened infrastructure                         9        53
              5. Inventory of beach and dune conditions                                      14        82
              6. Inventory of coastal and shore protection structures                        15        88
              7. Analysis of measures to reduce exposure to hazards                          15        83

              B. Objectives and Policies


              1. Coastal Hiah Hazard Areas


                      a. Designation of CHHA                                                 13        76
                      b. Limit development in CHHA                                           11        65
                      c. Relocate/re place infrastructure away from CHHA                      3        18
                      d. Limit public expenditures in CHHA                                   17        100
                      e. Direct population away from CHHA                                    12        72

              2. Hazard Miticiation


                      a. General policy for hazard mitigation                                 8        44
                      b. HM   using the following policy instruments ...


                               construction and site use                                     14        78
                               regulation of land use                                        15        83
                               land acquisition                                               8        44
                               capital facilities/infrastructure                             18        100
                               economic incentives                                            5        28
                               education and information                                      3        17


                      c. Incorporate hm annex/interagency reports                            13        72

              3. Post Disaster Redevelooment


                      a. Policy to prepare post disaster redvIpmt plan                       13        72
                      b. Identify regulatory/mgt techniques that address -

                               long term repair and redevelopment                            14        78
                               removal, relocation, structural modification                  12        67
                               limiting redevelopment                                         9        50

                      c. Status of post storm redevelopment plan                              0         0






                                                                    147











                  Beyond the proportions reported in  Table 4.3 is the strength of the specified policies. Clear,

                  focused, and direct policies that are likely to be effective responses to the issues of hazard

                  mitigation and post-storm redevelopment do exist in some communities, but in many the policies

                  are vague and unsatisfactory. A common problem appears to be the failure to specify management

                  or implementation devices. Hence, a community may state that it will control development within






                  Table 4.4: Required Items Included in Coastal Mgt. Element by Place



                          Place                                  0/0


                          Palm Beach                      8      44
                          W. Palm Beach                  13      72


                          Lee                            13      72
                          Cape Coral                     11      61

                          Duval/Jax                      10      56
                          Jax Beach                      12      67


                          Sarasota                       13      72
                          Sarasota City                   6      33

                          Bay                            15      83
                          Panama City'                    5      83

                          St.Johns                       10      56
                          St. Augustine                  13      .72

                          Monroe                          9      50
                          Key West                       16      89

                          Franklin                       15      83
                          Apalachicola                   15      83

                          Brevard                        16      89
                          Palm Bay                        5      28





                   Panama City contains no CHHA; only 6 of-the required items are applicable.




                                                                   148










            the CHHA but will not specify how this control is to be done. Related to this, communities often do

            not specify, to a sufficient degree, how a management tool will be used to achieve an outcome.

            Thus, some places simply indicate that the jurisdictions will use land use regulations to limit

            development or the placement of infrastructure but fail to make a logical connection between

            means and ends by indicating what the content of the regulations will be and what types of

            development limitations are intended. In some instances communities further diminish the intent of

            the regulations by adopting policies that specify only an intent to examine an issue, such as by

            stating a policy to study the potential for removing infrastructure from the CHHA. None of the

            communities of our sample include all of the required items from Table 4.1 (i.e., those items that

            have a reference to Rule 9J-5.) There are 18 such items listed; the number addressed for each

            place, as shown in Table 4.4, varies from 5 (28%) to 16 (89%).




            Since our interests in this review are to both evaluate the quality of coastal management policies as

            well as to determine the extent to which innovative policies are in force for hazard mitigation it is

            instructive to summarize the range   of mechanisms that are used. Accordingly, Tables 4.5a-g show

            an important part of the policy content of each community with respect to hazard mitigation. These

            entries are a close paraphrase of the policies as they exist in the comprehensive plan and so

            reasonably show the range of quality that exists. In most instances where multiple policies were

            relevant, the strongest and clearest was selected for presentation. Comments on each table are

            given below.




            Table 4.5a: Construction and site use regulation. A majority of communities include some reference

            to building and construction regulations. In some instances the reference is minimal, as when a

            community commits to the minimum building codes required under the flood insurance program or

            references state building standards. A number of communities establish conditions for the

            redevelopment of damaged structures, but the criteria also do not go beyond the minimum



                                                               149











                  specified by the flood insurance program. No community in the sample has adopted a standard for

                  repair to code that is based on successive degrees of damage cumulated over time (e.g., over a 5

                  year period.) In total there appears to be no innovation in the set of policies.




                  Table 4.5b: Regulation of land use. Almost all jurisdictions include objectives and policies that

                  regulate deftopment, although the intent of the regulation to provide for hazard mitigation is not

                  always clear or stated. In a number of instances communities are included because they addressed

                  the Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7 requirement to limit development within the CHHA, but did not address

                  development controls in conjunction with their hazard mitigation policy statement.




                  The regulation of development is the single largest set of policies reviewed. Whereas for other

                  policy types, such as acquisition or economic incentives a, jurisdiction may incorporate only a

                  single policy statement, the coastal management plans are likely to provide for a number and

                  variety of development regulation statements, all of which are difficult to summarize in this format.

                  Table 4.5b is meant to show a sample of these statements, and across the jurisdictions, the range

                  of mechanisms that are employed.




                  As in the other policy areas, the range of statements varies from the general to the specific, and

                  includes policies that reference actions as well as only the intent to take action. A number of

                  statements are relatively meaningless; they reference regulations that will be enforced without

                  specifying the content or significance of the regulation. Other statements reference state

                  regulations that have little to do with the local community. The mechanisms most frequently used

                  are the zoning ordinance and associated land development regulations limiting the type of

                  development and development densities. In a small number of instances strong policies are

                  articulated, such as those prohibiting redevelopment in areas of recurrent storm damage, calling for

                  the use of the eminent domain power to insure that structures are not rebuilt, or the use of density



                                                                   150










             transfers among parcels within the CHHA.




             Table 4.5c: Acguisition of coastal property. Eight communities consider acquisition as a mitigation

             measure. In five of the communities the policies are worded to allow for the consideration of

             acquisition after storms. In three instances the policies refer only to establishing guidelines,

             investigatinly acquisition programs, or preparing a proposal for debate. The policies can be

             compared to that of the City of Palm Bay, which is not included in the set of eight because its

             acquisition program is focused on improving public access and not hazard mitigation. Nevertheless,

             it creates a forceful contrast to the above. It states "The City will actively work toward to

             acquisition of vacant shoreline, pursuing funding sources as needed. (emphasis added)"




             Table 4.5d: Capital facilities and infrastructure. Policies exist for all 18 sample places. This is due,

             however, to an analytic decision that allowed us to count policies in one of two places as

             contributing to hazard mitigation through the use of infrastructure. Places that included a policy to

             limit infrastructure development within the CHHA, as required in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)5, along with

             those that were specifically written for hazard mitigation, were taken as relevant to this section. In

             reality, this decision was overly expansive. Many places satisfied the 9J-5 requirement to limit

             infrastructure expenditures within the CHHA without reference to hazard mitigation objectives. The

             wording of these policies is fairly uniform throughout and appears to mimic DCA requirements

             rather than a creative policy. In some instances even this position is compromised by allowing the

             development of private infrastructure, and by providing for public infrastructure when other

             conditions are met (e.g., W. Palm Beach allows the development of infrastructure for economic


             development.)




             Another aspect of capital facilities investments used for hazard mitigation is the use of sea walls,

             jetties, etc., versus natural dune systems. Six communities maintain this type of policy, generally in



                                                                151











                  favor of natural protective systems over additional investment in hardening of the coast. The

                  communities are Lee County, Duval/Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach, St. Augustine, Brevard

                  County, and Palm Bay.




                  Table 4.5e: Economic incentives. Creative and innovative mechanisms are utilized. These include


                  impact fees, special assessments or taxes, and the transfer of development rights as means of

                  influencing the fiscal dimensions of development decisions. Only St. Johns and Brevard County

                  commit to these mechanisms; the others adopt policies that involve investigation and

                  consideration. Palm Beach County includes a policy which states that they will establish a disaster

                  trust fund. The policy exists under the objective of post disaster redevelopment but it is not

                  specified as being for the purposes of hazard mitigation and no indications are given as to how the


                  fund will be used.




                  Table 4.5f: Education and information. These are relatively easy policies to implement and are

                  designed to make residents and property owners aware of the hazards and the additional costs of

                  locating within the flood hazard area. Only three places include these policies.








                  Table 4.5a: Construction and Site Use Regulations

                  Lee:                    Regulations and incentives will be examined for... floodproofing of utilities,
                                          structural wind resistance and floodplain management; all development
                                          regulations shall be revised to require that the vulnerability of future
                                          development in the A-zone be reduced.

                  Cape Coral:             The City will revise its land use and development regulations to indicate that
                                          structures damaged more than 50% of their assessed value can be rebuilt
                                          provided they comply with building code requirements for floodproofing.

                  Duval/Jax:              If rebuilt, structures which suffer damage in excess of 50% of appraised
                                          value shall be rebuilt to meet all current building and code requirements.



                                                                     152










            Jax Beach:              The City shall adopt and enforce design and construction standards
                                    specified in the Southern Standard Building Code; all new construction,
                                    substantial improvements, or reconstruction, redevelopment, repair of
                                    damaged structures shall comply with the provisions of the existing coastal
                                    zone requirements.

            Sarasota City:          The potential for storm damage shall be minimized through development
                                    compliance with the Coastal Construction Code, Sarasota Zoning Code, and
                                    the Engineering Design Criteria Manual.

            Bay:                    All new or redeveloped shoreline land use shall be constructed to conform to
                                    coastal construction building codes.

            Panama City:            The city will use regulation of construction practices in flood prone areas as
                                    specified in the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance; all habitable
                                    structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Flood
                                    Damage Prevention Ordinance.

            St. Johns:              The County shall adopt policies to redirect long term redevelopment that
                                    utilize improved construction site development practices to reduce the risk
                                    of recurrent damage.

            St. Augustine:          The City will enforce ordinances which regulate construction within the
                                    flood zones; structures that sustain damage greater then 50% of value due
                                    to a storm shall be required to rebuild using current coastal construction
                                    standards.


            Monroe:                 Monroe shall review its current building code and as appropriate adopt
                                    structural standards and site alteration restrictions to meet the minimum
                                    FEMA requirements; and, in the event of a disaster, shall consider the
                                    recommendations of the interagency hazard mitigation report.

            Key West:               Upon adoption the City shall enforce more restrictive land use controls
                                    within the CHHA including performance criteria which shall mandate that all
                                    development and redevelopment comply with state and local construction
                                    codes regulating construction activity in coastal areas.

            Franklin:               All land development applications within the CHHA obtain approval pursuant
                                    to a site plan review, to ensure that development is compatible with site
                                    characteristics. Applications will be reviewed for compliance with all
                                    applicable flood control regulation requirements. The County's Floodplain
                                    Management Ordinance shall reference the building elevations of the Flood
                                    Insurance Rate Maps, the building requirements of the National Flood
                                    Insurance Program.

            Apalachicola:           The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance shall reference the building
                                    elevations of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and the building requirements
                                    of the National Flood Insurance Program. In coastal areas needing
                                    redevelopment, structures which suffer damage in excess of 50% of
                                    appraised value shall be rebuilt to meet current requirements.




                                                             153











                   Brevard:                Structures seaward of the CCCL in need of repair that is greater than 50%
                                           of market value shall be reconstructed to coastal zone construction
                                           standards.




                   Table 4.5b: Regulation of Land Use



                   Palm Beach:             The County shall continue to enforce regulations and codes which provide
                                           for hazard mitigation. These include land use regulations.

                   Lee:                    All development regulations shall be reviewed and revised to require that the
                                           vulnerability of future development in the A zone be reduced; mobile homes
                                           or recreational development shall not be permitted on barrier islands or the
                                           CHHA.


                   Cape Coral:             The City will establish programs of incentives and regulation that prevent
                                           the placement of private or public investment in locations of high risk
                                           damage or destruction from the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes.

                   Duval/Jax:              All land development regulations shall be reviewed and revised to reduce the
                                           vulnerability of any existing development within the CHHA; all land
                                           development applications within the CHHA must be planned and obtain
                                           approval pursuant to a site plan review process to ensure that development
                                           is compatible with site characteristics; development within areas of the
                                           CHHA which have sustained recurring hurricane related damage shall be
                                           prohibited.

                   Jax Beach:              Undeveloped lands within the CHHA shall be designated "conservation-
                                           protected areas" on the future land use map; construction projects within
                                           designated redevelopment areas shall be in accordance with adopted land
                                           uses specified in the Community Redevelopment Plans; land use plan
                                           amendments shall not be approved within Category 3 hurricane vulnerability
                                           zones unless the change is for a lower density or a requested increase in
                                           density is offset in another part of the zone.

                   Sarasota:               Utilize the County's power of eminent domain and regulatory authority to
                                           relocate threatened and/or damaged structures and infrastructure landward
                                           of the CHHA.

                   Sarasota City:          The potential for storm damage shall be minimized through development
                                           compliance with the Sarasota Zoning Code.

                   Bay:                    Limit population density in the coastal area to 15 dwelling units/acre; the
                                           density in the CHHA shall be limited to one dwelling unit per parcel unless a
                                           greater density is approved; development shall be prohibited in all areas that
                                           have received repeated storm damage.

                   Panama City:            The City shall use specific regulatory and management techniques for
                                           general hazard mitigation including providing specific and detailed standards
                                           in the land development regulations for shoreline construction; post disaster

                                                                      154










                                    redevelopment shall be undertaken in conformance with this plan, including
                                    attendant land development regulations.

            St. Johns:              The City shall adopt land development regulations and policies to direct long
                                    term redevelopment activities within storm damaged areas; relocation of
                                    habitable structures which have incurred damage from a disaster, where
                                    damage is greater than 75% of assessed value, to new locations outside the
                                    CHHA provided that sufficient land is available on the subject parcel for
                                    such relocation.


            St. Augustine:          Developments seaward of the CCCL shall be in strict compliance with state
                                    guidelines; the city shall not increase densities in the CHHA should
                                    redevelopment occur.

            Key West:               The City shall adopt amended land development regulations which shall
                                    include performance standards regulating development activities in a manner
                                    which minimizes the danger to life and property occasioned by hurricanes;
                                    upon plan adoption the City shall enforce more restrictive land use controls
                                    within the CHHA including reduced maximum density for development.

            Franklin:               County shall limit the density of new residential development within the
                                    CHHA to a maximum of one dwelling unit/acre; maximum density of new
                                    commercial development within the CHHA shall be limited to the lowest
                                    density for those areas as provided for in the Future Land Use Element. The
                                    County will promote, through land development regulations, where a project
                                    is located in the CHHA, the clustering of uses.

            Apalachicola:           The City shall, through its land development regulations, restrict density of
                                    the CHHA to the lowest level of service establishment for the respective
                                    land use category. The City shall prohibit new mobile home projects within
                                    the CHHA; the City shall prohibit the siting of new acute care medical
                                    facilities with the CHHA and existing medical facilities will be discouraged
                                    from expanding.




            Table 4.5c: Acquisition of Coastal Property

            Palm Beach:             County shall investigate programs for acquisition in areas where buildings
                                    experience over 50% damage and cannot be rebuilt.

            Lee County:             Staff will prepare a proposal for a county run land acquisition program; the
                                    post disaster strategic plan shall establish guidelines for determining
                                    acquisition priorities.

            Cape Coral:             The City will establish guidelines for determining priorities for acquisition of
                                    storm damaged properties.

            Duval/Jax:              The City will identify structures in the CHHA, inventory their assessed value,
                                    judge the utility of the land for public access or resource protection, and
                                    make recommendations for acquisition during post storm recovery.



                                                              155












                   Jax Beach:                Same as Duval/Jax


                   Sarasota City:            (in the context of a post disaster redevelopment plan ... ) acquisition of
                                             coastal properties subject to damage will be considered.

                   Franklin County:          County will identify structures in the CHHA, inventory their assessed value,
                                             judge the utility of the land for public access, and make recommendations
                                             Jor acquisition when post disaster opportunities arise.

                   Apalachicola:             Same as Franklin




                   Table 4.5d: Capital Facilities and Infrastructure

                   Palm Beach:               The County shall not use funds for infrastructure expansion or
                                             improvements or development subsidization in CHHAs unless such funds are
                                             necessary to provide services to existing development; provide for adequate
                                             evacuation; provide recreational needs; and natural resource
                                             restoration/enhancement.


                   W. Palm Beach:            The City shall limit public expenditures in the CHHA to repair/replacement,
                                             public access, economic development projects, enhancement of natural
                                             resources.


                   Lee:                      Public expenditures in areas particularly subject to repeated destruction by
                                             hurricanes shall be limited to necessary repairs, public safety needs, services
                                             to existing residents, and recreation and open space uses.

                   Cape Coral:               The City will require that all public facilities except for recreational facilities,
                                             shall not be located within the CHHA.


                   Duval/Jax:                The City shall limit the expenditure of public funds in CHHAs to the
                                             restoration or enhancement of natural resources and the replacement and
                                             renewal of existing facilities which may be expanded and imported.

                   Jax Beach:                City funded public facilities shall not be built in the CHHA unless the facility
                                             is for public access or resource restoration.

                   Sarasota:                 The construction or reconstruction of County funded facilities or
                                             infrastructure in the CHHAs shall be prohibited except for passive recreation
                                             facilities and those necessary to ensure public health and safety.

                   Sarasota City:            The expenditure of public funds on infrastructure in the CHHA shall be
                                             limited to restoration/enhancement of natural resources, passive recreation,
                                             public safety.

                   Bay:                      The capacity of infrastructure shall not be increased on Coastal Barrier
                                             Resources over current capacity; public facilities shall not be located or
                                             improved in the CHHA unless they are necessary to protect the public safety
                                             or to restor/enhance natural resources.



                                                                         156










              Panama City:              The City shall not locate infrastructure facilities, except for water dependent
                                        facilities, in the 100 year flood zone.

              St.Johns:                 Public expenditures within the CHHAs shall be limited.

              St. Augustine:            The City will limit public expenditures that subsidize development in the
                                        CHHA except to restore/enhance natural resources.

              Monroe:                   The County shall identify infrastructure needs according to the projected
                                        population and shall implement a review program which explores
                                        alternatives to infrastructure placement within the CHHA.

              Key West:                 Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be built within the CHHA unless the
                                        facility is for the protection of public health and safety.

              Franklin:                 County funding for public facilities in the CHHA shall be prohibited unless a
                                        crucial need is demonstrated .


              Apalachicola:             City funded public facilities shall not be built in the CHHA unless the facility
                                        is for public access or resource restoration; the City will establish a lower
                                        priority for the expenditure of City funds for infrastructure within the CHHA.

              Brevard:                  Public facilities, except for recreational facilities, shall not be located by
                                        Brevard County within the CHHA.

              Palm Bay:                 Limit public expenditures for infrastructure in high hazard or storm surge
                                        areas of the coastal zone.






              Table 4.5e: Economic      Incentives


              Palm Beach:               In areas where building failure is equal to or greater than 50%, the County
                                        shall investigate the use of transfer of development rights.

              Lee:                      The County shall consider impact fees and/or a hazard mitigation municipal
                                        service taxing unit to cover the public costs of hazard mitigation, flood
                                        proofing, evacuation, search and rescue, acquisition of hazard prone
                                        properties, reconstruction of public facilities, construction or improvements
                                        to shelters, and similar needs.

              Sarasota City:            Special high hazard area taxing zones will be created to help pay for the
                                        relocation landward of the CHHA, the reconstruction and/or protection of
                                        storm damaged public infrastructure and facilities, and shelters.

              St. Johns:                The County shall adopt policies to direct long term redevelopment activities
                                        within storm damaged areas. The policies shall address... requirements for
                                        additional impact fees or surcharges for CHHA infrastructure to ensure that
                                        the costs are completely paid for by projects within the CHHA and not by
                                        the general public; and use special assessments within the CHHA to recoup
                                        expenditures for repair of damaged infrastructure.


                                                                    157










                   Brevard:                The County shall continue to implement its transfer of development rights
                                           program which has been established to transfer density from transfer
                                           districts within the CHHA to receiving districts outside of the CHHA.




                   Table 4.5f: Education   and Information



                   Lee:                    The County, in cooperation with local news media, educational institutions,
                                           public service groups, and other agencies shall implement a program of
                                           education and information describing the risks of hazards and actions
                                           necessary to mitigate the dangers which these hazards present.

                   Bay:                    The County will make available to the public a map depicting the CHHA; the
                                           County will notify owners of property in the CHHA of property designation
                                           to increase public awareness of hurricane hazard and post-disaster
                                           redevelopment policy.

                   St. Johns:              The County shall adopt policies to direct long term redevelopment activities
                                           within storm damaged areas. The policies shall... require notification to
                                           residents and businesses within the CHHA that specific standards and/or
                                           additional costs may be associated with locating within the CHHA.









                                           CONCLUSIONS: THE WEAKNESSES OF LOCAL PLANS




                   Our conclusion regarding the content of the coastal management elements within our sample is

                   that they are generally weak. No single community meets all of the surveyed requirements of Rule

                   9.1-5, and in many instances the requirement is met with a policy that suggests the intent to

                   consider or study the policy issue. Many of the policies reference ordinances and regulations whose

                   content remains unspecified so that it is impossible to determine whether the referenced document

                   appropriately addresses the policy subject. Statements that reference state requirements, such as

                   the state permitting process within the CCCL, because they are not subject to local discretion or

                   control, are inappropriate for inclusion within the plan. Most plans, moreover, are relatively

                   uncreative. While almost all incorporate construction and site use regulation for hazard mitigation



                                                                      158










            and post-disaster redevelopment, most are void of policies that address any other mechanisms.

            Some of these other mechanisms, moreover, are relatively simple and inexpensive -- such as the

            range of policies under the subject of education and information. Their absence is taken as a

            reflection of the seriousness of purpose with which the subjects of hazard mitigation and post

            storm redevelopment are taken.




            The general weaknesses of the coastal management element are mirrored in the responses obtained

            to our telephone interviews. We had originally anticipated an extensive interview schedule in which

            we would explore with each community the status of all hazard mitigation and post storm

            redevelopment policies, including experiences in implementation. A number of test interviews

            showed, however, that local staff were not always knowledgeable about the content of the

            element and whether policies had been implemented and with what results. Often we received the

            rather general response that a policy was being continually implemented, or was continually under

            study, without the provision of specific information. We regarded this as unreliable and reduced our

            interview to a focus on the single issue of having adopted a post storm redevelopment plan in

            those communities that had specified this policy. Even here, however, we experienced vagueness

            and a lack of knowledge. Some staff members were unaware of the stated policy while others

            confused the policy for a redevelopment plan with an emergency preparedness plan in which

            responsibility and procedures for emergency services are established.




            It is clear from our review that the system of translating state objectives and policies for the

            coastal area to local jurisdictions is not working well. In many instances the weaknesses of the

            coastal plans have been recognized by DCA staff and have been included in the ORC report to the

            local jurisdiction. Nevertheless, many of the issues identified in the ORC report have gone

            unattended by the local communities and plans with these deficiencies have been subsequently

            approved and held in compliance with state requirements. This procedure of approving local plans



                                                           159










                 that are weak and deficient in the ways in which they address hazard mitigation and post storm

                 redevelopment issues creates other difficulties. Under the current system of integrated state-

                 regional-local plans, local plans that are approved and determined to be in compliance with state

                 requirements receive a considerable degree of authority in regulating coastal development, to the

                 extent that state authority is diminished. Where the local plan is weak the necessary coastal

                 protections are lost both by virtue of the plan's deficiencies and the constraints that are placed on

                 the authority of the state.




                 It is not entirely clear how and why this situation has developed, and informants have suggested a

                 variety of reasons for explaining it (Busacca, 1993; McKay, 1993; Nave, 1993). Communities with

                 coastal management elements were the first set of places required to submit plans for state review

                 and approval. Early in the process the policies guiding the review process were not firmly

                 developed and this may have resul ted in both inconsistent and lax reviews. The review process also

                 relies on the technical comments made by other state agencies, and these comments are

                 particularly important where the expertise within DCA is limited. It has been suggested that the

                 cooperation of other state agencies in this review process has not always been forthcoming.




                 A number of informants suggest, however, that a significant reason for the weaknesses of these

                 elements is that coastal management has not been a DCA priority. In facing the political battles

                 surrounding comprehensive plan approval, DCA adopted particular issues that it deemed most

                 important and on which it sought to establish hegemony. Policies of land use, sprawl, and

                 concurrency have been dominant themes while the issues of hazard mitigation and post storm

                 redevelopment have never been important issues within the state. Since DCA must grant approval

                 of plans as a whole, it is inevitable that tradeoffs would be made between securing compliance

                 with valued policies versus forgiveness on less valued ones.





                                                                 160








           The current regulations, moreover, do not suggest that this situation is easily corrected. Once the

           plan is held in compliance, DCA no longer maintains the authority to review comprehensively the

           plan or the associated land development regulations. Thus, in spite of DCA policy that requires

           communities to complete their post-storm redevelopment plans within one year of approval of the

           comprehensive plan, no follow thorough has been initiated because of the lack of statutory

           authority to do so (Woodcock, 1993.) Alternatively, plan amendments must be submitted to DCA

           for comment, but this will not focus attention on those issues that are not the subject of a plan

           amendment. Thus, for example, only amendments that address the post-storm redevelopment plan

           will cause DCA to scrutinize this policy. Ironically, since many of the existing post storm

           redevelopment policies are weak or non-existent, DCA is most likely to have the opportunity to

           comment only when a jurisdiction attempts, through the amendment process, to improve the

           treatment of the issue.




           These findings and interpretations are consistent with those offered by other analysts. Burby and

           Dalton 0 993) argue that the rationales offered for state planning mandates to local communities in

           pursuit of state goals is fraught with difficulties. There are problems of monitoring and enforcement

           (DeGrove, 1984) as well as commitment by local communities to using mandated plans in order to

           manage development. Burby and Dalton's study of the effectiveness of state planning mandates on

           local adoption of methods for hazard mitigation indicates that while these mandates are important

           for the production of local plans, they appear to have little effect on the adoption and

           implementation of mitigation programs and the commitment of local planning staff to mitigation

           objectives.

                   "The lack of a robust link between recommendations contained in plans and the
                   development management measures actually adopted by local governments should ... be of
                   concern to state policy makers, since development management, not paper plans, is the
                   ultimate objective of state planning programs. To strengthen that link, states could pay
                   more attention to enforcing requirements for consistency between plans and development
                   management ..." (Burby and Dalton, 1993:13).




                                                            161











                                                                CHAPTER 5


                                                     IDEAS FROM OTHER STATES
                                         AND OTHER NATURAL HAZARDS SITUATIONS




                                                               INTRODUCTION




                   We followed two main approaches to identify policy innovations from other states that might be

                   considered for application in Florida. First, we consulted recent literature reviews of state storm hazard

                   and natural disaster mitigation programs (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989; Platt et al., 1992;

                   Berke and Beatley, 1993a; Berke and Beatley, 1993b; Berke and French, forthcoming) and recent

                   issues of the Natural Hazards Observer newsletter published by the Natural Hazards Research and

                   Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. Second, we used a networking

                   approach through national associations and federal agencies to locate states exemplary storm hazard

                   mitigation or post-storm redevelopment programs or in the process of developing such programs.

                   Organizations we contacted include the federal Office of Coastal Resources Management, the Federal

                   Emergency Management Agency, the Coastal States Organization, the Association of State Floodplain

                   Managers, and the National Emergency Management Association.




                   State agencies we contacted directly include the following: California's State Coastal Conservancy,

                   Connecticut's Coastal Resources Management Division, Delaware's Shoreline and Waterway

                   Management Section, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Michigan's Great Lakes

                   Shorelands Section, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, South Carolina's Coastal

                   Council, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Additional information about state programs

                   was obtained from Platt et al. (11992), Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley (1989), and a recent report

                   prepared by Florida DNR's Office of Policy and Planning, titled Beach Redevelopment (11993).



                   Our survey confirmed that Florida has one of the broadest arrays of state policies and programs that










            directly or indirectly contribute to achieving state policy goals and objectives concerned with coastal

            storm hazard mitigation. The survey revealed a few ideas for changes in current Florida policies or

            programs but no dramatic innovative ideas for radical change. Recent literature reviews of state

            mitigation initiatives taken for other natural hazards (Berke and Beatley, 1 993b) also show that policies

            are generally more advanced for hurricanes and severe storms than for other natural disasters such as

            earthquakes. Our findings are presented in sections that correspond to the different state storm hazard

            mitigation policy instruments defined in Chapter 1.




                                REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT




            Most of the states contacted had regulatory programs governing construction above the mean high

            water line (MHWL) that were similar in design to Florida's CCCL and 50-foot setback permit programs.

            However, several states have substantial damage thresholds that are lower than Florida's thus offering

            more opportunities in post-storm circumstances to bring existing structures into conformance with

            state regulations governing coastal construction.




            Most of the states contacted require that structures damaged beyond the substantial damage threshold

            be relocated behind a construction baseline or as far landward as possible. In a few states an

            undamaged habitable structure must be relocated if it intrudes on the public trust beach, i.e. the wet

            sand beach below the MHWL. Florida is one of the few states, however, that imposes construction

            design standards that are intended to reduce the vulnerability of habitable structures to wind, wave,

            and storm surge.




            Delaware, Michigan, North Carolina, and South Carolina have coastal construction regulations that are

            similar in many respects to Florida's CCCL and 50-foot setback permitting programs under Part 1,

            Chapter 161 FS. Most construction is prohibited seaward of some baseline. In Delaware, the line is



                                                               163











                   based on topographic elevation. In Michigan it is based on defining a "zone of active erosion" or a

                   specific topographic contour. In North Carolina development is generally prohibited seaward of the

                   crest of the primary dune or the first line of stable natural vegetation. In South Carolina the baseline

                   is defined by the location of the primary dune crest or by the sand volume of an idealized beach profile.






                   Delaware generally prohibits construction seaward of its "building line" and requires permits in the

                   "beach area" landward of the line. In Michigan, North Carolina, and South Carolina, construction of

                   habitable or permanent structures landward of the baseline is restricted within a zone defined by a

                   multiple of the average annual erosion raw 30 for small structures and 60 for large structures in

                   Michigan and North Carolina; 40 in South Carolina. Michigan requires that small structures located

                   between the 30-year and 60-year setback lines must be "readily movable" if there is access to the site

                   for moving equipment. All four states have variance provisions where strict adherence to the

                   regulations would preclude use of a parcel for a single-family residential structure.




                   Delaware has recognized that the buffer established by their construction line, which was surveyed

                   in 1981, has been reduced by progressive erosion (Pratt, 1993). However, they are awaiting the

                   outcome of proposed amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act before resurveying since one

                   version would require FEMA to map 30- and 60-year erosion lines.



                   All four states have substantial damage thresholds that are lower than Florida's. (Under ï¿½ 161.053 FS,

                   major habitable structures may be rebuilt so long as the original foundation is not substantially

                   damaged and the new structure does alter the foundation footprint). Delaware requires a permit from

                   the state for rebuilding a structure when 75% of the structure has been destroyed or when 50% of

                   the foundation is unsuitable for incorporation into the reconstructed structure 0 2.07 Regulation

                   Governina Beach Protection and the Use of Beaches). Delaware's substantial damage threshold has



                                                                      164










            never required a close call according to Pratt (1993). Damage has either been so great that it was

            obvious the threshold was exceeded, or so little that it was not an issue. Pratt says if there is a

            question, they tend to rely on judgment of the applicant's engineer. (They require applicants to employ

            a licensed engineer to prepare plans for construction permits.) He thought the state would hire an

            engineering consultant of their own on a case-by-case basis if a close call were necessary.




            North Carolina's threshold is 50% of the pre-storm physical value of the structure (Metzger et al.,

            1993). South Carolina's substantial damage threshold is higher than that required for continued

            insurance of damaged structures under the National Flood Insurance Act (66.67% rather than 50%).

            However, the basis is different than under the NFIA. This basis was altered after Hugo. The former

            system was based on building components that evidently excluded the foundation. The new system

            results in more frequent "wipe outs" (Hernandez, 1993).




            Delaware, South Carolina, and North Carolina require that rebuilt habitable structures, i.e. those

            damaged beyond the state's substantial damage threshold, must be relocated to a point landward of

            the construction baseline or setback line, or to a point as far as landward as possible. In South

            Carolina, structures approved via special permit to be built seaward of the baseline must subsequently

            be relocated if a storm event or long-term erosion causes the structure to become located on the

            Nactive beach" (seaward of the beach escarpment or the first line of stable vegetation).




            Virginia, however, has a unique relocation requirement designed to move structures before they

            interfere with public use of the wet-sand beach. The Barrier Island Policy of the state's Marine

            Resources Commission requires oceanfront property owners on barrier islands of the state to submit

            a relocation plan when the MHWL approaches to within 10 times the average annual erosion rate. The

            state cannot compel a property owner to move a structure until it is below the MHWL, but the plan

            requirement is designed to encourage relocation prior to that point (Frye, 1994). To date the policy has



                                                             165











                    been invoked in only three cases. One property owner has moved a structure further back on the same

                    lot. Two others are developing plans.




                    In Michigan, a property owner must comply with all the requirements governing a new structure if an

                    existing structure is damaged to the extent that it is declared a total loss for insurance purposes I ï¿½ R

                    281.22 0 5) Michioan Administrative Code). If the cost of restoring a damaged structure is more than

                    60% but less than 100% of its replacement value, the property owner may reconstruct the structure

                    if damage was not caused by erosion, the rebuilt structure would be at least 20-feet landward of the

                    erosion hazard baseline, and the reconstructed structure is "readily moveable." Structures sustaining

                    damage of 60% or less of replacement value may be restored to their original condition.




                    South Carolina maintains a data base that contains the assessed value of each coastal property within

                    the regulated coastal area and follows an explicit procedure for assessing structural damage. They do

                    not rely on local building inspectors in any way to implement this program. Following a storm, a

                    windshield survey is performed by department staff. Where the status of a structure is not obvious,

                    one of several structural engineers on contract with the agency is called in to perform a detailed


                    assessment.




                    Recent experience in Massachusetts illustrates the difficulties of enforcing state policies in a post-storm

                    situation. In January 1992, following two severe storms in 1991, the Massachusetts Department of

                    Environmental Protection (DEP) issued an official post-storm rebuilding guidance policy that was to be

                    implemented through two existing regulatory programs that are primarily implemented by local

                    governments: 1) the state wetlands law and 2) the state health code governing onsite sewage disposal

                    systems (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1992a). The state wetlands act

                    regulates construction on beaches and dunes with the primary objective of preserving the ecologic and

                    storm protection benefits of the beach and dune system. The law does not include any setback


                                                                       166











            provisions, but DEP will override a local wetlands act or sanitary sewage disposal system permit if the

            proposal calls for placing a non-elevated "solid structure" in a FEMA V-zone or A-zone on a barrier

            beach, coastal dune, or coastal beach (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,


            1992b).




            The essence of the post-storm rebuilding policy is that structures substantially damaged by a storm

            must be rebuilt to current codes governing new structures. The state applies the FEMA damage

            threshold of 50% of pre-storm market value of the habitable structure. However, onsite sewage

            disposal systems sustaining any damage are generally required to be repaired or replaced with systems

            meeting current state health code standards.




            Following the two 1991 storms it was anticipated that owners of 100 to 200 lots would not be able

            to rebuild in compliance with the  policy (Benoit, 1993). However, the policy was not successfully

            implemented. The major problem was that many people initiated rebuilding immediately after the storm

            before local code enforcement officers could inspect and monitor what was going on. This led to great

            pressure to grant waivers for those people who did wait for permission. Although state agencies had

            authority to review any waivers granted to the state policies and applicable regulations, they did not

            have enough personnel to thoroughly review all the proposed waivers. The net result was that virtually

            all of the damaged structures were rebuilt, many in violation of the provisions of the state storm

            rebuilding policy.




            Benoit reported that the state has convened a post-storm policy group and has also initiated action to

            codify the policy in the septic tank and wetlands regulations. Benoit feels the major deficiency in the

            policy was the lack of a two- to three-week rebuilding moratorium that would enable local officials to

            adequately inform property owners of the applicable rules governing rebuilding.





                                                             167












                                               PLANNING AND REGULATORY MANDATES




                  Only two of the states we contacted reported use of state planning or regulatory mandates to

                  accomplish explicit state storm hazard mitigation objectives. South Carolina uses a combination of

                  mandates and economic incentives to encourage local governments to address storm hazard mitigation

                  planning. They use the carrot of state funding for beach renourishment projects to encourage local

                  governments to prepare beach management plans that address a variety of issues including zoning and

                  land use controls in the area seaward of the state 40-year setback line, an analysis of beach erosion

                  control alternatives, and post-disaster plans (ï¿½48-39-350 Code of Laws of South Carolina). The State

                  Coastal Council is also empowered to impose and implement the State Comprehensive Beach

                  Management Plan where local governments fail to establish and enforce a local plan.




                  North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 requires 20 designated coastal counties to

                  prepare land use plans in conformance with guidelines promulgated by the state Coastal Resources

                  Commission (CRC). These plans must be reviewed and approved by the CRC, and where a county

                  refuses to prepare a plan, the Commission is directed by statute to prepare one for it. Municipalities

                  within coastal counties have the option of preparing such plans. Plans must include a number of

                  specific storm hazard mitigation policies and post-storm redevelopment policies (ï¿½T1 5A: 07B.0203(6)

                  North Carolina Administrative Code). Permits are required for specific actions within several different

                  .areas of environmental concern" (AECs) designated by the North Carolina CRC. Permits for major

                  actions are administered by the CRC. Permits for minor actions may be administered by local

                  governments that have approved land use plans.




                                                 ACQUISITION OF COASTAL PROPERTY




                  Two principal means of achieving storm hazard mitigation through land acquisition have been exercised



                                                                    168










            by the states: 1) fee-simple acquisition through Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act; and

            2) fee-simple acquisition using state funds. California's Coastal Conservancy has used several more

            innovative techniques including acquisition of less-than-fee property rights and a program to replatt and

            resell lands to achieve lower development densities.




            STATE PROMOTION OF SECTION 1362 OF THE NFIP


            Most states we contacted reported little participation in the Section 1362 program for reasons which

            are discussed in Chapter 3, namely low levels of federal funds available, lack of interest by individual

            property owners in selling their property, and reluctance by the state or local governments to assume

            title to the land. Two exceptions bear mention: 1) the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts and 2)

            Baytown, Texas.




            Jeff Benoit, Director of the Massachusetts Coastal Management Program, related the history behind

            use of Section 1362 funds to acquire 10 parcels in Scituate, Massachusetts, and nearby areas

            following the Blizzard of 1978 (Benoit, 1993). Following the 1978 blizzard, FEMA initially approached

            the town about accepting title to several parcels. The town was not interested in owning disaggregated

            properties, in part because they did not want to create public access to their beaches. FEMA then

            approached the state and they willingly pursued the effort. This brought the town around - they

            preferred managing public coastal property themselves rather than having the state do it. Eventually,

            it was agreed that the state would accept title to the parcels, but the land would be managed under

            a joint program with the town. In recent years, management has been turned entirely over to the town.






            Benoit also indicated that 1362 funds are being used to pursue purchase of another 9 or 10 parcels

            that were recently damaged by Hurricane Emily. Evidently part of the reason for successful application

            of the 1362 program in the state has been active promotion by the regional FEMA office located in


                                                              169












                   Boston.




                   Section 1362 funds were also used in Baytown, Texas, following Hurricane Alicia in 1983, to remove

                   storm-prone property from the real-estate market (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley, 1989). A total of

                   177 damaged homes within the Brownwood subdivision were purchased with about $550,000 and

                   turned over to the City of Baytown to manage as a city park and open space. In this case, the city took

                   the initiative to use the 1362 funds. However, an additional 120 structures within the subdivision were


                   not acquired using the 1362 funds either because they were not covered by federal flood insurance,

                   and therefore not eligible, or because owners refused to sell. Two hundred undeveloped parcels within

                   the subdivision also remained in private ownership following the storm. By 1987, however, the city

                   had managed to acquire all but about 55 vacant lots and 40 developed parcels.




                   Baytown prevented rebuilding in the subdivision by refusing to rebuild the public sewer and water

                   system and requiring that damaged structures be built to comply with FEMA V-zone elevation

                   standards. Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley do not describe any direct state participation in the

                   Baytown case other than actively enforcing the state Open Beaches Act which prohibits construction

                   between the mean low tide line and the natural vegetation line.




                   The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 (S.1405), sponsored by Senator John Kerrey of

                   Massachusetts, would repeal Section 1362. However, similar initiatives would be possible through a

                   newly created funding program for state and local mitigation activities under Title IV of the act, the

                   State and Community Mitigation and Assistance Program. The federal share of such initiatives would

                   be 75%, rather than 100% under Section 1362.




                   STATE-FUNDED COASTAL LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS


                   None of the states we contacted currently has a publicly-funded land acquisition program explicitly



                                                                    170










            designed to achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives. Those states that do have coastal land

            acquisition programs (California, Massachusetts, North Carolina) tend to target lands intended to

            increase public access to the shore or to protect specific natural features such as dunes or wetlands.




            North Carolina


            North Carolina initiated its Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program in 1981 to acquire

            shorefront property along the Atlantic Ocean and estuarine waters of the state to increase public

            access to beaches. According to Owens (1985) a secondary objective was to provide a means of

            buying out property owners whose lots were rendered undevelopable by the state regulations imposing

            construction setbacks in areas subject to coastal erosion.




            Under the North Carolina program, priority for acquisition was to be given to "lands which, due to

            adverse effects of coastal natural    hazards, such as past and potential erosion, flooding and storm

            damage, are unsuitable for the placement of permanent structures, including lands for which a permit

            for improvements has been denied under rules adopted pursuant to State law" (ï¿½ 1 13A-1 34.3 North

            Carolina General Stgtutes . Letters were sent to some 500 property owners with potentially unbuildable

            lots, but the Division of Coastal Management was subsequently directed to stop promoting the

            program after several property owners contacted the Governor's Office arguing that their property had

            been unjustly confiscated (Owens, 1991). Shaw (1993) reported that the state has not actively

            promoted this program since the original solicitation. Some offers were evidently made by the state

            following the initial solicitation but they generated little interest because the price offered was too low.




            Massachusetts


            The Massachusetts Coastal Management Office has tried unsuccessfully to promote legislation that

            would create a state post-storm acquisition fund analogous to Section 1362 (Benoit, 1993). The most

            recent draft would authorize the state Department of Capital Planning and Operations to acquire fee-



                                                                171











                    simple title to property from willing sellers that is located in areas subject to coastal or riverine flooding

                    and on which buildings are or were located that have been substantially and repeatedly damaged by

                    severe weather. State acquisition is to be funded through bond sales. Acquired parcels may be

                    managed by local governments under agreements with the state.




                    California


                    Land acquisition efforts of the California Coastal Conservancy have been directed towards 1) public

                    beach access; 2) protecting and restoring wetlands, estuaries, open space, and watersheds; and 3),

                    to a lesser, extent, preservation of prime coastal farmlands (Grenell, 1993). A large number of their

                    coastal acquisition projects have been multi-purpose projects that combined objectives of flood control

                    with wetlands preservation, however, storm hazard mitigation has never been a major criterion in

                    selecting or ranking projects.




                    The Conservancy has used several less-than-fee techniques (Grenell, 1993). Easements on coastal

                    parcels have been acquired primarily to preserve farmland and to allow public access to the shore. In

                    one case along the San Mateo coast, the Conservancy purchased 1300 acres of coastal property in

                    fee-simple. They transferred the lands to a nonprofit organization which is now reselling the upland

                    portion (about 1270 acres) with restrictions limiting land use to agriculture. The remaining land is being

                    held in fee to provide open space, public access to two beaches, and a link to a regional trail network.

                    In another case, where several parcels were being purchased to preserve a beach and dune habitat

                    system, one owner wanted to retain the underlying title, so the CCC purchased a conservation

                    easement to preserve a dune and freshwater pond system.




                    The Conservancy has used a form of transfer of development rights (TDR) to achieve two objectives

                    in the Malibu and Santa Monica mountains region: 1) remove substandard lots from the development

                    market; and 2) allow development of more appropriate lots without increasing the total residential



                                                                         172










           development potential of the area (G renell, 1989). The program is coupled with regulations that require

           purchase of "development credits" prior to approval of new subdivisions and, therefore, is a hybrid

           policy instrument that spans regulation, land acquisition, and economic incentives.




           Development credits can be obtained in two ways. First, a would-be developer can purchase

           development credits directly from the owner of an undeveloped lot in the area where the state wishes

           to preclude development of marginal land. The second option, which has been used the most in

           practice, has been for the Conservancy or a nonprofit land trust to purchase the marginal lots, impose

           development restrictions on them through easements or other means, and then sell the development

           credits to would-be developers for other subdivisions. The lots with retired development credits are

           then disposed of in several ways including sale to adjacent property owners to enlarge their side yards

           and conveyance to a private nonprofit organization or public agency for management as open space

           or park land.




           Another technique used by the California Conservancy has been to purchase undeveloped, subdivided

           land and- resubdivide it at a lower density. In a sense, this amounts to purchasing the development

           rights represented by the higher density of the original subdivision. According to Grenell (11993), the

           current issue is whether to have the Conservancy continue in a similar role on a larger scale statewide,

           i.e. go beyond the demonstration projects to a long-term program. This would require major funding,

           e.g. a state bond issue.




           The California Conservancy has also encountered the problem of managing isolated parcels of land.

           Grenell reports that they generally have been unsuccessful in convincing local governments to assume

           management responsibilities for these parcels. They typically seek outa nonprofit organization instead.







                                                             173










                                    DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE




                   STATE COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES


                   Massachusetts is the only state besides Florida to our knowledge that has a state policy limiting state

                   investment in growth-inducing infrastructure in coastal areas subject to storm damage. North Carolina

                   and South Carolina restrict the placement of public infrastructure under their construction setback

                   programs, but the setback zones are so narrow that they rarely affect major utilities such as water and

                   sewer lines. The most frequently affected public structures are roads.




                   Massachusetts led the way on coastal barrier infrastructure policy with an executive order in 1980 that

                   predated the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) by two years and Florida's E.O. 81-105 by

                   one year. The order prohibits the expenditure of state discretionary funds for sewers, water supply,

                   and other projects, including such things as elderly housing and redevelopment projects, in areas

                   designated as barrier beaches. Benoit (1993) reports that the state's definition of coastal barriers

                   differs somewhat from that in CBRA, but only at the margins, i.e. there are a few CBRA units that do

                   not qualify as state coastal barriers and a few state areas that do not qualify as CBRS units.




                   Implementation of the Massachusetts E.O. is coordinated by the State Coastal Management Program -

                   they interpret the application of the E.O. and take the heat. They initially established memoranda of

                   agreement with applicable state agencies and also published guidelines for the agencies to use in

                   implementing the E.O. Benoit reports that the program has run smoothly through three gubernatorial

                   administrations. While some formal evaluation was done early on, none has been performed recently.




                   Several years ago, the state contracted with Stephen Leatherman to develop maps depicting average

                   annual erosion rates for coastal lands. They plan to incorporate these data in a geographic information

                   system (GIS) system that will also include FEMA V-zones and barrier beach boundaries. Benoit


                                                                    174










            anticipates that this integrated GIS data base may serve to support a new executive order that extends

            the state's infrastructure policy to other coastal high hazard areas beyond barrier islands.




            BEACH RESTORATION PROGRAMS


            Beach restoration and renourishment programs represent another form of coastal infrastructure, in this

            case, however, investments are made to restore the recreational benefits afforded by beaches and to

            reduce the vulnerability of upland property to storm damage by enhancing the protective value of the

            beach and dune system. Only Delaware identified its beach restoration program as a component of its

            overall storm hazard mitigation policies.




            Delaware's coastal management program recently completed an analysis of options for contending with

            coastal erosion entitled Beaches 2000 (Beaches 2000 Planning Group, 1988). The report analyzed

            three options: 1) retreat; 2) armoring; and 3) beach nourishment. The state dismissed armoring except

            for extreme individual cases. Primary emphasis is on beach restoration and nourishment, but

            implementation has been limited to some extent by funding constraints. Retreat is seen as the ultimate

            strategy, but specific mechanisms have evidently not been articulated.




            The Beaches 2000 report was accompanied by an economic analysis of the distribution of benefits

            from beach restoration and renourishment projects. On the basis of that analysis, the coastal program

            staff recommended a 90%/10% local/state cost-share formula. However, subsequent bonding

            legislation for a state initiative included a provision for a 50%/50% formula for one particular

            community, so the Governor's policy has been to use a the latter formula throughout the state.

            Meanwhile, the State Legislature passed an increase in the accommodations (hotel/motel) tax and

            dedicated those funds to paying the local share. As currently operated, local governments front their

            50% share and then get paid back from revenues from the accommodations tax. The net result is that

            the storm protection and recreational benefits of the beach to local property owners are subsidized by



                                                            175












                   other state residents.





                                                          ECONOMIC INCENTIVES




                   Two forms of economic incentives to private property owners were identified by some of the states

                   we contacted: 1) promotion of the Upton-Jones provisions of the national Flood Insurance Program;

                   and 2) provision of tax relief for donation of property rights to coastal land.




                   UPTON-JONES PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM


                   One of the principal post-storm redevelopment incentives available is the option for holders of federal

                   flood insurance policies to relocate or demolish their insured structures using insurance payments. This

                   Upton-Jones program may be administered directly by FEMA or the state can become involved by

                   certifying structures as subject to "imminent collapse" and, therefore, eligible for the Upton-Jones


                   program.




                   Michigan and North Carolina are the only states we contacted that actively promote Upton-Jones.

                   Michigan operated a program from 1985-1986 that preceded Upton-Jones and served as a partial

                   model for it. North Carolina was also active in promoting the national program: Congressman Upton

                   is from Michigan; Jones is from North Carolina. The Michigan program was operated with surplus state

                   funds left-over from the match for a Corps of Engineers high water diking project. The state provided

                   emergency loans to property owners along the Great Lakes shoreline to relocate or elevate imminently

                   endangered structures. Once the funds were allocated, the program was discontinued.



                   According to Martin Janereth with the state's Department of Natural Resources, while property owners

                   are generally aware of the federal program, they typically are not sufficiently familiar with the details

                   to make decisions without additional information (Janereth, 1993). The state is authorized by FEMA



                                                                      176










            to certify structures as subject to imminent collapse. They use the NFIA criteria rather than

            conventional condemnation standards. Once the state has certified a structure they send the

            certification to the insured property owner. It is the insured who must take the initiative to obtain

            compensation for relocation or demolition under their flood insurance policy. The state does not

            formally track outcomes, but Janereth said there are numerous instances where insureds do not follow

            through with a claim.




            Richard Shaw of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management reported that North Carolina has

            been vary aggressive in promoting Upton-Jones through distribution of public information and through

            work of Sea Grant extension agents conferring with individual property owners (Shaw, 1993). The

            Division of Coastal Management is authorized by FEMA to certify structures as subject to imminent

            collapse. Their staff use both the FEMA criteria for defining imminent collapse (i.e. within some

            minimum distance of the natural vegetation line or the normal high tide line) as well as conventional

            condemnation criteria. The state has not arranged for any local governments to become authorized to

            certify structures.




            As in Michigan, once the state certifies a structure as subject to imminent collapse, property owners

            must take the initiative through their insurance carrier to obtain compensation. In Dare County (Nags

            Head area) which is subject to high levels of annual erosion, 70% of the processed claims have been

            for demolition rather than relocation. Following Hurricane Hugo, some 300 to 400 applications for

            certification were processed. However, relatively few property owners subsequently sought Upton-

            Jones payments. Shaw suggested that many changed their minds when local governments initiated

            beach bulldozing and dune rebuilding. (This is the maximum permitted under state law governing post-

            storm conditions, i.e. major beach restoration projects require long lead times and shoreline armoring

            is not permitted.)





                                                             177










                  Benoit 0 993) indicated that the major impediment Massachusetts has encountered with implementing

                  Upton-Jones has been the reluctance of local building inspectors to condemn structures that were still

                  habitable, i.e. the condemnation threshold under Upton-Jones is much lower than that traditionally

                  used by building inspectors. Benoit said he also had the impression that a number of property owners

                  had been put off by long delays in the administrative process involved.




                  According to Anthony Pratt of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

                  Control, the built-out condition of Delaware's coast has been an impediment to participation in the

                  Upton-Jones program (Pratt, 1993). Relocation is unattractive because open lots are several blocks

                  from the beach and represent a major loss of both use value and market value. Property owners

                  therefore are inclined to stay on their oceanfront lots as long as is possible.




                  The State and Community Mitigation and Assistance Program, which would be established under

                  National Flood Insurance Reform Act sponsored by Senator Kerrey would also replace the Upton-Jones

                  program for making advance payments for relocation or demolition of imminently endangered

                  structures. Here again, funding would be split 75%/25% between the federal government and the state

                  or local government. Apparently one reason for this change is that most Upton-Jones claims have been

                  submitted for demolition rather than relocation (Metzger et al., 1993). Demolition payments can be for

                  110% of the insured value of the structure while relocation payments cannot exceed 40%. Thus local

                  or state governments would apparently have to bear some of the costs of relocation or demolition.




                  TAX INCENTIVES


                  North Carolina has provided credits against individual and corporate income taxes as an inducement

                  for property owners to convey real property to the state, a local government, or a nonprofit

                  organization for a variety of purposes including public beach access (Shaw, 1993). Property owners

                  can obtain a tax credit of 25% of the market value of the property up to a limit of $25,000. The credit



                                                                    178










            may be applied against tax liability over a period of five years. The conveyance can include fee-simple

            title or less-than-fee interests such as conservation easements. The state has acquired fewer than 6

            coastal parcels by this method. The parcels are not actively managed and essentially provide informal

            public access. Shaw said this has not been aggressively promoted; most of the cases arose because

            property owners approached the state wanting to sell their land under the beach access acquisition

            program, i.S. they were not aware of the tax concession opportunity. The properties have been

            unsuited for developed beach access facilities, but the state has offered the alternative of the tax


            concession.




                                                INFORMATION AND EDUCATION




            We did not pursue in detail all of the technical assistance and public education initiatives of the various

            states we contacted. Two states, Delaware and North Carolina, mentioned specific technical assistance

            efforts they have or plan to undertake that are focused on storm hazard mitigation. These are


            summarized here.




            The principal policy instrument we explored is the concept of a natural hazard disclosure requirement.

            Strategies applying this concept have varied. California has an earthquake hazard disclosure

            requirement tied to real estate transactions. Massachusetts has proposed a similar requirement for

            formal notification of prospective purchasers of property subject to coastal hazards. North Carolina and

            South Carolina have notification requirements tied to their coastal construction permitting programs.

            These go beyond the current practice in Florida which is limited to the convening of public hearings

            prior to setting Coastal Construction Control Lines (CCCLs) and procedures for recording the location

            of the CCCL with affected local governments.







                                                                179












                   STORM HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE


                   In its 1984 guidelines for local government coastal comprehensive plans, the North Carolina Coastal

                   Resources Commission requires plans to include both pre-storm and post-storm mitigation planning

                   components. The state does not have any leverage over subsequent implementation, nor does it

                   actively monitor such activity. However, the state has provided financial and technical assistance under

                   its program for local coastal planning and management grants, to 5 to 10 communities who wished

                   to develop such plans (Shaw, 1993). One example is the Nags Head post-storm redevelopment plan

                   which has received national recognition.




                   Delaware is also developing a state storm hazard mitigation program that will include both technical

                   andfinancial assistance. Using federal funds available underthe 1990 amendments of the Coastal Zone

                   Management Act, the state plans to hire a coastal engineer in 1995 to perform storm hazard risk

                   analyses for each coastal community based on an inventory and analysis of individual structures and

                   infrastructure. Based on this analysis, the engineer will prepare a strategy for each community designed

                   to upgrade design and construction of individual public facilities and private structures. No specific

                   plans have been made for how these plans will subsequently be implemented, but the state plans to

                   attempt to come up with some state money to help finance the improvements (Pratt, 1993).




                   EARTHQUAKE HAZARD DISCLOSURE


                   Berke and Beatley 0 993a) report on a real estate reporting requirement in California established by the

                   Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. An analysis of the effectiveness of this measure by Palm

                   (11981 ) concluded that it had little effect on prospective home buyers' decisions. This was attributed

                   in part to the imprecision of the information provided and the late stage in the real estate transaction

                   process at which it was provided. Real estate agents or individuals selling property within the Alquist-

                   Priolo fault zone were required to disclose the fact that the property was within the zone. Apparently

                   the disclosure could simply take the form of a statement in the purchase contract that the property



                                                                     180










            was in the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The disclosure was not made until the prospective purchaser had

            already made a commitment to buy the property.




            THE MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSAL


            The Massachusetts Coastal Management Program has sponsored state legislation requiring notification

            of prospective, purchasers of residential real estate of coastal flooding and erosion hazards by sellers

            and real estate agents. It is designed to avoid the shortcomings of the Alquist-Priolo Act. The notice

            is to include copies of applicable flood insurance rate maps, flood hazard boundary maps, and state

            shoreline erosion maps, and is to be provided prior to the signing of a purchase agreement. If the notice

            is not provided at least 10 days prior to signing the purchase agreement, the prospective purchaser

            can rescind the purchase agreement within 10 days of receiving the notice. Sellers or real estate

            agents who fail to comply can be held liable for ensuing flooding or erosion damage. According to Jeff

            Benoit, Director of the Massachusetts Coastal Management Program, no action has been taken on this

            bill as yet (Benoit, 1993).




            NOTICE TIED TO COASTAL CONSTRUCTION REGULATORY ZONES


            South Carolina has statutory provisions which require that a disclosure statement be included in all real

            estate transactions located in whole or in part seaward of the state setback line. The disclosure must

            state that the property is or may be affected by the setback line and baseline record and must include

            the local erosion rate as established by the State Coastal Council (ï¿½48-39-330 Code of Laws of South

            Carolina). This serves as notice to property owners that they are subject to regulation as well as

            alerting them to the nature of the erosion hazard they face (Hernandez, 1993).




            North Carolina's regulations governing permits for development activities in "Ocean Hazard Areas"

            (ï¿½T1 5A: 07H.03060) North Carolina Administrative Code) require the state's Coastal Resources

            Commission (CRC) to obtain written acknowledgement from the permit applicant of their awareness



                                                               181











                   of the risks associated with developing on the proposed site and the limited suitability of the site for

                   permanent structures. This provision appears to have been intended at least in part to limit the liability

                   of the CRC.
































































                                                                     182










                                                            CHAPTER 6


                                                  FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
                                                    AND POLICY OPTIONS






                                                           INTRODUCTION




             Our purpose in this final chapter is to bring together the separate parts of the discussion and analysis

             to arrive at a set of options available to the state for achieving storm hazard mitigation policy

             objectives. This final chapter is written to be able to stand alone; i.e., it can be read in conjunction with

             the introductory chapter to this report for a relatively complete picture of our approach and findings.

             However, the chapters intermediate to the first and last contain significant details, insights, and

             findings that support our conclusions and which the interested reader may wish to pursue.




             The chapter is organized around a number of themes. We begin with a review of the array of policy

             instruments as they are implemented within the state by various levels of government and how they

             contribute to the state's several goals and objectives for mitigating coastal storm hazards. We then

             assess the constraints to effecting changes in current policies, followed by an analysis of the gaps and

             deficiencies in current policies and a presentation of options for new state policy initiatives. We

             conclude with a discussion of how the several options can be configured to achieve various levels of

             reform that balance the state's three goals of protecting coastal environmental resources, protecting

             life and property, and minimizing the public costs of storm damage.




                                        SUMMARY OF CURRENT POLICY INSTRUMENTS




             Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present an overview of how federal, state, and local policies and programs

             operating within the State of Florida contribute to the achievement of the state's storm hazard

             mitigation policy goals and objectives. Table 6.1 is a matrix of policy instruments and goals and











                   objectives into which each of the specific programs, mechanisms, and means discussed within the

                   body of the report is included. Table 6.1 organizes the current policy efforts extant within the state

                   and provides a basis for perceiving which policy objectives are most heavily served and which policy

                   instruments are most broadly applied. Table 6.2 parallels Table 6.1 but is organized by policy

                   instruments and implementing jurisdiction. This table illustrates the roles of the three levels of

                   government jurisdiction in implementing the different policy instruments that can contribute to

                   achieving state policy goals and objectives for storm hazard mitigation.




                   In the following sections, we discuss how specific local, state, and federal policies within each of the

                   policy instrument categories can or does contribute to achieving specific storm hazard mitigation goals

                   and objectives.




                   REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT


                   Policies and programs governing construction and site development in areas subject to coastal storm

                   damage include the state's regulations governing construction above and below the mean high water

                   line along open sandy shores of the state, state regulation of dredge and fill activities within state

                   coastal waters, state regulation of onsite sewage disposal systems, and local building codes governing

                   construction of habitable structures within the Coastal Building Zone and federally designated flood

                   and velocity zones. These policy instruments contribute to all of the state's storm hazard policy

                   objectives listed in Table 6.1 except "allocate public costs to private sector by risk."




                   The state's regulations governing structures below the mean high water line (MHWL), which are

                   administered by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of Beaches and Shores

                   (DBS) under ï¿½ 161.041 FS, restrict the use of coastal armoring (seawalls, revetments, etc.) to protect

                   upland structures from erosion and storm damage because of the potential impacts such structures can

                   have on long-term maintenance of the beach and dune system. They strike a balance between the



                                                                     184





            I able b.): btate btorm Hazard Mitigation Policy Instruments, Goals, and Objectives Matrix



                                                                Protect Coastal                                                                           Protect Life and
                                                           Environmental Resources                                                                           Property

                                                           Preserve Natural Storm                         After the Coastal                            Reduce Vulnerability of                        Manage Development to
            Policy Instruments                              Protection Features                             Environment                                Buildinas & Facilities                             Minimize Threats


            Regulation

            Regulation of construction                      Coastal armoring permits                    - Coastal armoring permits                        CCCL permfts                                  CCC L permits
            and site development                            CCCL permits                                                                                  50-ft setback permits                         50-ft setback permits
                                                            50-ft. setback permits                                                                        Local building codes                          30-year setback
                                                            30-year setback                                                                                                                             Onske sewage permits
                                                            Dredge & fill permits                                                                                                                       Dredge & fill permits
            Regulation of land use                          Local land development                        Local land development                          N/A                                           Local land development
                                                            regulations                                   regulations                                                                                   regulations
                                                            State ACSC land                               State ACSC land                                                                               State ACSC land
                                                            development regulations                       development  Iregulations                                                                     development regulations


            Mandates

            Planning mandates                               Protect coastal wetlands                      1409 DRA hazard mitigation                      ï¿½409 DRA hazard mitigation                    Designate CHHA
                                                            Protect and restore beaches                   plans                                           plans                                         Limit development in CHHA
                                                            and dunes                                     DRA state hazard mitigation                     DRA state hazard mitigation                   Relocate infrastructure
                                                            Coastal land acquisition                      plans                                           plans                                         away from CHHA
                                                            & ranking system                                                                                                                            Limit public expenditures
                                                            1409 state hazard mitigation                                                                                                                in CHHA
                                                            plans                                                                                                                                       Direct population away from
                                                            DRA state hazard mitigation                                                                                                                 CHHA
                                                            plans                                                                                                                                       Adopt hazard mitigation policies
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Prepare post-storm redevelopment
                                                                                                                                                                                                        plan
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Identify regulatory techniques for
                                                                                                                                                                                                        post-storm redevelopment
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Coastal land acquisition
                                                                                                                                                                                                        & ranking system
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ï¿½409 DRA hazard mitigation plans
                                                                                                                                                                                                        DRA state hazard mitigation plans


            Regulatory mandates                             N/A                                           N@A                                             Coastal Building Zone codes                   N/A
                                                                                                                                                          State minimum building code



            Investment


            Acquisition of coastal                          %1362, NFIA                                   N/A                                             NIA                                           S 1362, NFIA
            property                                        CCCL takings purchases                                                                                                                      CCCL takings purchases
                                                           -CARL                                                                                                                                      -CARL
                                                           -FCT                                                                                                                                       -FCT
                                                           - Less-than-fee acquisition                                                                                                                  Less-than-fee acquisition
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (continued)



                                                                                                                         185












                                                                 Protect Coastal                                                                                Protect Life and
                                                             Environmental Resources                                                                                Property


                                                             Preserve Natural Storm                           After the Coastal                               Reduce Vulnerability of                           Manage Development to
          Policy Instruments                                   Protection Features                               Environment                                  Buildinas & Facilities                                Minimize Threats


          Development of capital                               Federallstate/local beach                      Fade ral/state/local beach                       N/A                                               E.O. 81-105
           facilities and Infrastructure                       erosion control                                erosion control                                                                                    Barrier island bridge policy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 CHHA infrastructure policy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 CBRA



          Incentives


          Economic Incentives                                  Upton-Jones, NFIA                              CRS, NFIA                                        NFIA building codes                               Upton-Jones, NFIA
                                                               Property tax concessions                       1404 DRA hazard mitigation                       CRS, NFIA                                         Property tax concessions
                                                               for less-than-fee rights                       grants                                           DRA public assistance                             for less-than-fee rights
                                                               CRS, NFIA                                      Federal & state beach                            program                                           Local TDR programs
                                                               11362, NFIA                                    erosion control assistance                       DRA 1404 hazard mitigation                        CRS, NFIA
                                                               1404 DRA hazard mitigation                                                                      grants                                            11362, NFIA
                                                               grants                                                                                                                                            DRA public assistance
                                                               FCT land acquisition                                                                                                                              program
                                                               matching grants                                                                                                                                   1404 DRA hazard mitigation
                                                               Federal & state beach                                                                                                                             grants
                                                               erosion control assistance                                                                                                                        FCT land acquisition
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 matching grants


          Education and information                            DCA facilitation of local                      DBS Beach Management                             DCA training for                                  NFIA lender notice
                                                               government acquisition of                      Plan                                             building inspectors                               CCCL public notice
                                                               coastal lands                                                                                   DCA deemed-to-comply
                                                               DBS Beach Mgmt Plan                                                                             manual
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (continued)

































                                                                                                                              186







                                                                                       Minimize Public Costs of Storm Damaae


                                                                Manage Development to                                         Reduce Vulnerability of                                   Allocate Public Costs to
          Policy Instruments                                       Minimize Costs                                             Public Infrastructure                                      Private Sector by Risk



          Regulation


          Regulation of construction                             CCCL permits                                                 Coastal armoring permits                                   NIA
             and site development                                50-foot setback permits
                                                                 30-year setback
                                                                 Onsite sewage permits
                                                                 Dredge & fill permits



          Regulation of land use                                 Local land development                                       Local land development                                     N/A
                                                                 regulations                                                  regulations
                                                                 State ACSC land                                              State ACSC land
                                                                 development regulations                                      development regulations



          Mandates


          Planning mandates                                      Designate CHHA                                               Designate CHHA                                             N/A
                                                                 Limit development in CHHA                                    Limit development in CHHA
                                                                 Relocate infrastructure                                      Relocate infrastructure
                                                                 away from CHHA                                               away from CHHA
                                                                 Umit public expenditures                                     Limit public expenditures
                                                                 in CHHA                                                      in CHHA
                                                                 Direct population from CHHA                                  Direct population from CHHA
                                                                 Adopt hazard mitigation policies                             Adopt hazard mitigation policies
                                                                 Prepare post-storm redevelop-                                Prepare post-storm redevelop-
                                                                 ment plan                                                    ment plan
                                                                 Identify regulatory techniques                               Identify regulatory techniques
                                                                 for post-storm redevelopment                                 for post-storm redevelopment
                                                                 Coastal land acquisition                                     Coastal land acquisition
                                                                 & tanking system                                             & ranking system
                                                                 1409 DRA hazard mitigation plan                              1409 DRA hazard mitigation plan
                                                                 DRA state hazard mitigation plan                             DRA state hazard mitigation plan


          Regulatory mandates                                    N/A                                                          N/A                                                        N/A



          Investment


          Acquisition of coastal                                 11362, NFIA                                                  CARL                                                       N/A
            property                                             CCCL talcings purchases                                      FCT
                                                                 CARL                                                         Less-than-fas acquisition
                                                                 FCT
                                                                 Less-than-fee acquisition
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (continuedl








                                                                                                                              187












                                                                                         Minimize Public Costs of Storm Damage


                                                                 Manage Development to                                            Reduce Vulnerability of                                       Allocate Public Costs to
          Policy Instruments                                        Minimize Costs                                                Public Infrastructure                                         Private Sector by Risk


          Development of capital                                   E.O. 61-105                                                    Federal/state/local beach                                     Local beach preservation
           facilities and infrastructure                           Barrier island bridge                                          erosion control                                               districts-
                                                                   policy                                                         E.O. 81-105                                                   E.O. 81-105
                                                                   CHHA infrastructure                                            CHHA infrastructure policy                                    Barrier island bridge policy
                                                                   policy                                                                                                                       CHHA infrastructure policy
                                                                  -CBRA                                                                                                                         -CBRA



          Incentives


          Economic incentives                                      Upton-Jones, NFIA                                              Property tax concessions                                      - N/A
                                                                   Property tax concessions                                       for less-than-fee rights
                                                                   for less-than-fee rights                                       Local TOR programs
                                                                   Local TOR programs                                             CRS. NFIA
                                                                   CRS, NFIA                                                      DRA public assistance
                                                                   11362, NFIA                                                    program
                                                                   DRA public assistance                                          1404 DRA hazard mitigation
                                                                   program                                                        grants
                                                                   1404 DRA hazard mitigation                                     Hurricane Catastrophe Fund
                                                                   grants                                                         grants
                                                                   FCT land acquisition                                           EMPAT Fund grants
                                                                   matching grants

          Education and information                                NFIA lender notice                                             DBS Beach Management                                          N/A
                                                                   CCCL public notice                                             Plan



          Key to Abbreviations


          ACSC = Area of Critical State Concern                                               FCT = Florida Communities Trust


          CARL = Conservation and Recreation Lands Program                                    N/A = Not Applicable


          CBRA = Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act                                        NFIA     National Flood Insurance Act


          CCCL = Coastal Construction Control Line                                            TOR      Transfer of Development Rights


          CHHA = Coastal High Hazard Area


          CRS =    Community Rating System


          DBS = Florida Division of Beaches and Shores


          DRA =    Federal Disaster Relief Act (Stafford Act)


          EMPAT = Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Act


          E.O. = Executive Order






          table b.2: Loastal Storm Hazard Mitigation Policy Implementation Matrix



                                                                                 Regulation                                                                                Mandates


          Implementing                                    Construction and
          Jurisdiction                                    Site developmen                              Land Use                                      Planning                                       Regulatory


          State                                             Coastal armoring permits                    State ACSC land                                N/A                                           NIA
                                                            CCCL permits                                development regulations
                                                            50-ft. setback permits
                                                            30-year setback
                                                            Dredge & fill permits


          State/Federal                                     N/A                                         N/A                                            DRA state hazard mitigation                   N/A
                                                                                                                                                       plans
                                                                                                                                                       ï¿½409 DRA hazard mitigation
                                                                                                                                                       plans



          State/Local                                       Onsite sewage permits                       N/A                                            Designate CHHA                                Coastal Building Zone codes
                                                                                                                                                       Limit development in CHHA                     State minimum building code
                                                                                                                                                       Relocate infrastructure
                                                                                                                                                       away from CHHA
                                                                                                                                                       Limit public expenditures
                                                                                                                                                       in CHHA
                                                                                                                                                       Direct population away from
                                                                                                                                                       CHHA
                                                                                                                                                       Adopt hazard mitigation policies
                                                                                                                                                       Prepare post-storm redevelopment
                                                                                                                                                       plan
                                                                                                                                                       Identify regulatory techniques for
                                                                                                                                                       post-storm redevelopment
                                                                                                                                                       Coastal land acquisition &
                                                                                                                                                       ranking system
                                                                                                                                                       Protect coastal wetlands
                                                                                                                                                       Protect and restore beaches
                                                                                                                                                       and dunes



          State/Federal/Local                               N/A                                         NIA                                            N/A                                           N/A


          Local                                             Local land development                      Local land development                         N/A                                           N/A
                                                            regulations                                 regulations



          Local/Federal                                     N/A                                         N/A                                            N/A                                           N/A


          Federal                                           N/A                                         N/A                                            N/A                                           N/A


                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (continued)







                                                                                                                        189













                                                                                   Investments                                                                           Incentives

          Implementing                                       Acquisition of                                 Development of Capital                                                                         Education &
          Jurisdiction                                     Coastal Property-                              Facilities & Infrastructure                     Economic                                         Information


          State                                              CARL Program                                   E.O. 81-105                                   - NIA                                             CCCL public notice
                                                             FCT                                            Barrier island bridge policy
                                                             CCCL takings purchases


          State/Federal                                      N/A                                            N/A                                             Upton-Jones, NFIA                               N/A


          State/Local                                        Less-than-fee acquisition                      CHHA infrastructure policy                      Property tax concessions                        DCA training for
                                                                                                                                                            for less-than-fae rights                        building inspectors
                                                                                                                                                            FCT land acquisition                            DCA deemed-to-comply
                                                                                                                                                            matching grants                                 manual
                                                                                                                                                            Hurricane Catastrophe Fund                      DBS beach management
                                                                                                                                                            grants                                          plan
                                                                                                                                                            EMPAT Fund grants                               DCA facilitation of local
                                                                                                                                                                                                            land acquisition



          State/Federal/Local                                11362, NFIA                                    Beach erosion control projects                  11362, NFIA                                     N/A
                                                                                                                                                            1404 DRA Hazard mitigation
                                                                                                                                                            grants
                                                                                                                                                            DRA public assistance
                                                                                                                                                            program



          Local                                              Local land acquisition                         Local coastal infrastructure                    Local TOR programs                              N/A
                                                             programs                                       policies
                                                                                                            Local beach preservation
                                                                                                            districts



          Local/Federal                                      N/A                                            N/A                                             CRS, NFIA                                       N/A


          Federal                                            N/A                                            CBRA                                            N/A                                             NFIA lender notice




          Key to Abbreviations

          ACSC = Area of Critical State Concern                                            CRS = Community Rating System                                                     FCT = Florida Communities Trust
          CARL = Conservation and Recreation Lands Program                                 DBS = Florida Division of Beaches and Shores                                      N/A = Not Applicable

          CBRA = Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act                                     DRA = Federal Disaster Relief Act (Stafford Act)                                  NFIA = National Flood Insurance Act

          CCCL = Coastal Construction Control Line                                         EMPAT = Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Act                     TDR = Transfer of Development Rights

          CHHA = Coastal High Hazard Area                                                  E.O. = Executive Order



                                                                                                                            190










             state's policy objectives of preserving the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment

             and altering the coastal environment to protect private property and public facilities and infrastructure.




             The state's regulations governing coastal construction above the MHWIL, including the CCCL and 50-

             foot setback permitting programs and the 30-year setback 0 ï¿½ 161.052 and .053 FS), also contribute

             to maintaining the natural storm protection attributes of the beach and dune system by requiring that

             structures not interfere with natural shoreline fluctuations or the ability of the natural system to recover

             from storm-induced erosion. The storm buffering value of coastal wetlands is protected through the

             state's dredge and fill regulations (Part Vill, Chapter 403 FS).




             The CCCL and 50-foot setback permitting programs and the 30-year setback also reduce the

             vulnerability of buildings and facilities through location and construction standards. The Interagency

             Hazard Mitigation Team Report on -Hurricane Andrew (United States Federal Emergency Management

             Agency, 1992) reports that structures built to these standards on Key Biscayne suffered little or no

             damage. Parallel standards are required to be enforced through local building codes under the Coastal

             Zone Protection Act of 1985 within a Coastal Building Zone which covers an area that extends further

             landward than that defined by the state CCCL and includes areas subject to storm hazards that do not

             have sandy shorelines (Chapter 161, Part 111, FS). As is discussed more fully in the section on gaps

             and opportunities, these local building codes are not uniform nor are they consistently enforced. Many

             are less stringent than the construction standards imposed under the state's coastal construction

             permitting programs.




             The 30-year erosion setback that is imposed on structures regulated within the CCCIL zone, can serve

             to reduce the threats to people and property from storm damage by ensuring a substantial distance

             separates habitable structures from the MHWL. State regulations governing onsite sewage disposal

             systems, which are administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services MRS) in



                                                                191











                   cooperation with local governments under ï¿½381.0065 FS, may also help reduce the vulnerability of

                   people and property to storm damage by restricting how shoreline property is developed or

                   redeveloped. While the primary intent is to protect coastal water quality, the requirements for

                   minimum lot size, setback from the MHWL, and vertical separation from ground water, combined with

                   DEP limits on dredging and filling surface waters of the state and state restrictions on building on

                   sovereign Mal lands, help to limit construction of habitable structures or post-storm reconstruction on


                   the immediate shore.




                   In areas with a nonsandy shore on open or interior coastal waters, which are not covered by 30-year

                   erosion setback requirements, these regulations are the major constraint to building at the water's

                   edge. Their strict enforcement in Taylor, Dixie, and Levy counties following the March 1993 storm

                   has prevented rebuilding on some 97 parcels. Nonetheless, these regulations do not necessarily

                   prevent a property owner from building a habitable structure closer to the shore than a septic system,

                   nor do they have any influence in areas served by public sewers other than to preclude building a


                   habitable structure below the MHWL.




                   These several regulatory programs will also contribute to the objective of minimizing public costs of

                   planning for, responding to, and mitigating coastal storms in two ways: 1) by reducing the level of

                   damage likely to be sustained by private structures in areas subject to coastal storm damage (due to

                   construction design standards, setbacks, and preservation of the natural protective features of the

                   coastal environment); and 2) by limiting the absolute numbers of people and private structures exposed

                   (where development is absolutely precluded on a given parcel).



                   Effectively enforced design and construction standards for wind load and flood elevation of habitable

                   structures reduce the number of people requiring emergency food and shelter services, the number of

                   permit applications that must be administered for post-storm reconstruction, and the amount of


                                                                    192










             property destruction and resultant debris removal costs incurred by local and state governments.

             Where coastal construction regulations result in lower development densities, they may reduce costs

             of local and state disaster response and recovery activities including evacuation, shelter, public safety

             protection measures, small business bridge loan programs, and debris removal. Lower development

             densities and greater setbacks within areas subject to coastal storm damage may also result in reduced

             vulnerabilitg-of public infrastructure (roads, water and sewer systems) that is maintained to serve


             residential and commercial land uses.




             While all of these regulations apply to new development, post-storm conditions may provide an

             opportunity to apply them to nonconforming properties or structures that may have been grandfathered

             when the applicable statutes were adopted. Several of the state's storm hazard policies and programs

             specifically apply to post-storm redevelopment circumstances. Most are linked to some threshold of

             .substantial damage" or "substantial improvement."




             The state's coastal armoring regulations require that erosion control structures that no longer function

             as designed must be reconstructed in conformance with current standards. If changes in the beach

             profile or shape cause an erosion control structure to interfere with natural sand movement, DBS can

             require redesign, relocation, or removal of the structure. Section 161.061 FS also permits DBS to

             declare any structure below the MHWL a nuisance and require its alteration or removal.




             Under building codes adopted pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act and the state Coastal Zone

             Protection Act of 1985, local governments can require conformance with construction standards for

             new structures when existing habitable structures are substantially damaged (damage exceeds 50%

             of market value). The damage threshold for requiring conformance of rebuilt structures with state

             construction standards is considerably higher. DBS is authorized to require nonconforming structures

             to meet the state construction and setback standards for new structures under the CCCL and 50-foot



                                                               193










                   setback permit programs only where post-storm reconstruction involves major repair or modification

                   of the original foundation. This significantly limits opportunities to substantially reduce the vulnerability

                   of habitable structures that were originally built prior to the effective date of the CCCL and 50-foot

                   setback permit programs.




                   REGULATION OF LAND USE


                   Land development regulations (LDRs) adopted by local or state government can potentially contribute

                   to all of the state's storm hazard mitigation policy objectives. Regulations which limit the types and

                   density of land uses in areas prone to coastal storm damage can minimize the number of people, the

                   amount of private property, and the amount of public infrastructure put at risk. Such limits in turn will

                   reduce the public costs of planning for, responding to, and mitigating storm damage. LDRs can also

                   minimize the likelihood that the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment will be

                   impaired by incompatible land uses. Where LDRs impose special requirements necessary to minimize

                   the risks of damage from coastal storms and these requirements raise the costs of development in

                   areas prone to coastal storm damage, they contribute to the objective of internalizing the public costs

                   of storm damage in proportion to the risks taken by private developers and property owners.




                   Regulation of land use is almost entirely a function of local governments who have the authority to

                   restrict types of land uses and the density of development through promulgation of local LDRs such

                   as zoning and subdivision ordinances. The state does not directly regulate land use except under

                   limited circumstances where a local government fails to adopt LDRs consistent with development

                   guidelines developed by the state for designated Areas of Critical State Concern.




                   The state does not statutorily mandate adoption of specific local LDRs, but it indirectly influences the

                   content of local LDRs governing coastal land use through the planning mandates concerning storm

                   hazard mitigation that are set forth in Chapter 163 FS and Chapter 9J-5 FAC and through its limited



                                                                       194










             authority to review LDRs that are challenged as being inconsistent with the approved comprehensive

             plan. However, the state does not have authority to review local LDRs as a set for the purposes of

             mandating or suggesting changes that would make the regulations more effective. Thus, localities may

             avoid serious regulation of coastal land use by virtue of local regulations that are consistent with the

             local plan, but which are problematic in design, administration, or impact.




             PLANNING MANDATES


             Chapter 163 FS and Chapter 9J-5 FAC set forth specific requirements for local comprehensive plans

             that address storm hazard mitigation policy objectives. Planning requirements targeted at protecting

             coastal wetlands, beaches, and dunes contribute to the objective of preserving the natural storm

             protection features of the coastal environment. As shown in Table 6.1, most of the planning

             requirements for the coastal elements of local comprehensive plans have the potential to influence the

             development process and thereby minimize both the threats to public safety and private property of

             coastal storm damage as well as the public costs of responding to such damage. The vulnerability of

             public infrastructure is directly reduced through requirements that address relocation of infrastructure

             or reduction in public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA), and indirectly reduced to

             the extent that such planning mandates reduce land uses that require supportive infrastructure.




             The 1993 ELMS bill added a requirement that local governments develop a coastal land acquisition and

             ranking system that includes storm hazard mitigation as an acquisition criterion, This planning mandate

             has the potential to facilitate the use of fee-simple and less-than-fee simple acquisition strategies to

             preserve the natural storm protective features of the environment. Such acquisition initiatives can also

             remove vulnerable property from the real estate market and, if done at an appropriate scale, can

             influence patterns of development in areas subject to coastal storm damage. In this way, this planning

             mandate can contribute to the policy objectives of minimizing threats to life and property, reducing the

             public costs of coastal storm damage, and limiting the amount of public infrastructure that is vulnerable



                                                               195











                   to damage.




                   Our review of the storm hazard mitigation elements of 18 county and municipal comprehensive plans

                   reveals, however, that many local plans do not meet the intent of the state's planning mandates. No

                   single community was found to meet all of the 9J-5 requirements, and in many instances the

                   requirements were met only with broad and general statements referencing an intent to consider a

                   policy at some future date. Similarly, where requirements were deemed to be met they often were

                   done so with language that was vague or by references to ordinances and regulations whose content

                   was left unspecified. Most plans, moreover, were found to be uncreative; they often included simple

                   and common regulatory mechanisms, such as construction regulations, but lacked policies that go

                   beyond basic regulation. Thus, for example, less than half of the plans contained policies that

                   addressed the instruments of land acquisition, economic incentives, or the use of education and

                   information for the purposes of haz ard mitigation. We conclude from this review of local coastal plans

                   that the system of translating state policy objectives for hazard mitigation to localities is not working

                   well and that considerable leverage for the purpose of achieving state policy objectives has been lost.




                   Planning marWates also exist to the state, from the federal government, under the Disaster Relief

                   (Stafford) Act. Given a presidential disaster declaration, the state is obliged to prepare a ï¿½409 hazard

                   mitigation plan for the area covered by the declaration. The plan is intended to evaluate the natural

                   hazards within the designated areas and to design appropriate actions to mitigate these hazards. In

                   addition, the state is encouraged to prepare a more general statewide comprehensive hazard mitigation

                   plan which transcends the specifics of each disaster declaration and which provides an overall policy

                   framework within which the separate hazard mitigation plans are constructed.




                   Since the content of the disaster-specific and the statewide hazard mitigation plans is not specified,

                   but is intended to focus on the issues and mitigation efforts appropriate to the locate or state, the plans



                                                                      196










            have the potential to contribute to each of the state's policy objectives in an integrated and

            coordinated manner. Unfortunately, this potential has not been realized. Disaster-specific hazard

            mitigation plans have tended to be little more than reports in which mitigation recommendations are

            derived from damage assessments. The recommendations for mitigation are done without reference

            to a larger policy framework, and are made without regard to priorities, integration, and coordination.

            The draft state plan has been criticized for these same reasons. Mitigation options are suggested for

            specific types of hazards but not in association with a careful consideration of integrated policy

            objectives and priorities among objectives and policy instruments.




            REGULATORY MANDATES


            Local building codes that specify construction standards for wind loads, floodproofing, and building

            elevation constitute the primary policy instrument for reducing the vulnerability of privately owned

            buildings and facilities to coastal storm damage outside the areas regulated under the state's CCCL and

            50-foot setback permitting programs.




            Local building codes for habitable structures that may be susceptible to coastal storm damage are

            influenced by two state regulatory mandates. Throughout the state, regardless of location, local

            governments that assume responsibility for regulating construction are required to adopt one of four

            model state minimum building codes under Part VII, Chapter 553 FS. These vary in their specifications

            for hurricane wind load resistance.     Within areas defined as the Coastal Building Zone, local

            governments are required under the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 (Part 111, Chapter 161 FS) to

            adopt wind load standards that are more stringent than several of the model codes included under the

            state minimum building code as well as floodproofing and flood elevation standards that conform to

            the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. However, as discussed in the preceding

            section on regulation of construction and site development these standards are not as stringent as

            those currently imposed by the state in areas subject to the CCCL and 50-foot setback permitting



                                                             197














                   programs.




                   While the State Administration Commission has the authority to withhold state funding to local

                   governments that do not comply with the Coastal Zone Protection Act, there is no formal state

                   monitoring of compliance, and no sanctions have been imposed. Staff of the State Department of

                   Community Affairs (DCA) indicate that very few local governments failed to file documentation for

                   adopting the requisite building code provisions.




                   ACQUISITION OF COASTAL PROPERTY


                   Public programs that acquire storm-prone properties and thereby remove them from the real estate

                   market may help to preserve the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment by

                   precluding activities that damage or impair the functions of wetlands or the beach and dune system.

                   While the state's dredge and fill and coastal construction regulations are designed to accomplish such

                   protection, the constraint of avoiding a constitutional takings of property without just compensation

                   necessitates compromises that allow some economically "beneficial" use of land by the property

                   owner. Fee-simple acquisition or purchase of conservation easements or development rights provide

                   direct compensation for prohibiting activities that threaten the protective features of the natural coastal


                   environment.




                   Public acquisition of coastal property also contributes to the policy objectives of managing development

                   to 1) minimize threats to public safety and property and 2) minimize public costs of planning for,

                   responding to, and mitigating coastal storm damage because it removes hazardous property from the

                   development market thereby exposing fewer persons and less property to the threats of storm damage.

                   If sufficient quantities of land are removed from the development market through fee-simple acquisition

                   or purchase of easements or development rights, local development patterns can also be affected. This

                   will especially be the case where such purchases influence decisions about public expenditures for


                                                                       198











            growth-inducing infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, and water supply systems. The net

            result may also be to minimize the extent to which public investments in capital facilities and

            infrastructure are put at risk by being installed to serve development in areas prone to severe storm

            damage. Acquisition of coastal land does not directly contribute to the policy objectives of altering the

            coastal environment to reduce vulnerability to storms, reducing the vulnerability of private buildings

            and facilities to storm damage, or allocating the public costs of storm hazards to the private sector in

            proportion to risk incurred.




            State land acquisition under the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program and the former

            Save Our Coasts (SOC) Program has contributed to all these goals by facilitating the purchase of large

            tracts of coastal lands along open and interior coastlines of the state. The local government land

            acquisition matching grants program operated by the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) has also

            contributed to preserving the storm protection value of beach, dune, and wetland systems and to

            removal of storm-prone property from the development market. A few small parcels have been

            purchased by the State Division of Beaches and Shores in anticipation of or following denial of coastal

            construction permits. Such purchases will not affect development patterns or infrastructure decisions

            in the short-run but do contribute to protecting natural storm protection features and to removing

            hazardous property from the market.




            State agencies have made little use of less-than-fee acquisition alternatives, evidently because few

            opportunities have arisen where easements or conveyance of development rights would accomplish

            the principal objectives of an acquisition project. There are no data on the extent to which these

            methods have been employed by local governments or qualifying private nonprofit organizations in the


            state.




            The federal Section 1362 program for purchasing property insured under the National Flood Insurance



                                                              199










                   Act that is repeatedly flooded is the only true post-storm property acquisition program that could

                   potentially operate in the state. It can be effective as illustrated by the two cases in Massachusetts

                   and Texas described in Chapter 5. However, it has evidently not been aggressively promoted in Florida

                   by the state, its local governments, or, apparently, the regional FEMA office due to a number of

                   constraints including low levels of federal funding. The few instances of its application in Florida have

                   involved noncoastal properties subject to repeated riverine flooding. As with the individual lot

                   purchases under the state CCCL permit program, these acquisitions are not likely to influence overall

                   development patterns or public capital investment decisions. Proposed amendments to the National

                   Flood Insurance Act would eliminate the Section 1362 buyout program and substitute a broader federal

                   grants program that would include purchase of repeatedly damaged property as an eligible state or

                   local activity. The federal share of such grants would be 75%.






                   DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE


                   Florida has two types of policy instruments involving development of capital facilities and infrastructure

                   that can contribute to the achievement of storm hazard mitigation policy objectives. Publicly-financed

                   beach erosion control projects help preserve the natural storm protection features of the coastal

                   environment and serve to reduce the vulnerability of upland structures and property, including other

                   public facilities and infrastructure, by altering the coastal environment. The state has also adopted

                   several policies designed to limit state expenditures for growth-inducing infrastructure in areas subject

                   to coastal storm damage. These have the potential to influence the development and redevelopment

                   process so as to limit the amount of property and numbers of lives at risk. In so doing, they also have

                   the potential to minimize the public costs of preparing for, responding to, and mitigating coastal storms

                   and to minimize the numbers of publicly-financed capital facilities that are vulnerable to storm damage.







                                                                      200










            The state's coastal infrastructure policies include Governor Graham's 1981 executive order (E.O. 81 -

            105), state restrictions on the financing of bridges and causeways to previously unbridged barrier

            islands 0380.270) FS), and a policy linking state expenditures for infrastructure in coastal high hazard

            areas (CHHAs) to the provisions of local government comprehensive plans (ï¿½380.27(2) FS). The

            federal government also has a policy limiting expenditures for infrastructure in coastal areas under the

            Coastal Barrier, Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982. This contributes to the state's objectives of minimizing

            the threats and costs of coastal storms by influencing the development and redevelopment processes.

            CBRA applies to undeveloped portions of barrier islands which are designated by the federal

            government as Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units. Thirty-three such units have been

            designated in Florida.




            Beach erosion control projects, which may include "hard engineered" structures such as seawalls,

            groins, and breakwaters, or "soft engineering" in the form of beach and dune restoration and

            renourishment, are typically financed from a combination of federal, state, and local funds based on

            federal and state cost-sharing formulas designed to allocate costs in a manner that somewhat reflects

            the distribution of resulting benefits among local, state, and federal publics. Federal law limits the

            maximum federal share to 50%, while Florida law requires that local governments contribute a

            minimum of 25% to such projects. These programs can address the policy objective of allocating public

            costs to the private sector in proportion to risk if local governments employ some mechanism for

            financing the local share that is linked to the benefits obtained by different property owners. Florida

            law authorizes local governments to create several types of special districts in which ad valorem taxes

            can be assessed based on some measure of the benefits derived from a municipal service, including

            beach erosion control projects. The few local governments that have employed such a strategy have

            used very simple allocation schemes such as establishing a special district consisting of all beachfront

            properties or having beachfront property owners pay the larger share of the local costs.





                                                              201











                  Where local governments or private developers choose to finance infrastructure in the absence of

                  federal or state financial assistance, policy objectives of limiting development in hazardous coastal

                  areas will be undermined.       However, state responsibility for repairing and reconstructing such

                  infrastructure may be reduced, and the costs of initially constructing and subsequently repairing such

                  infrastructure will be more equitably borne by those who choose to take the risks of occupying areas

                  prone to coastal storm damage.




                  While it has been alleged that beach erosion control projects may allay property owners' concerns with

                  storm damage risks, it seems unlikely that the federal and state programs for financing such projects

                  have any significant impact on initial development in areas subject to coastal storm damage. Virtually

                  all such federal and state projects are undertaken in reaction to storm damage that has occurred to

                  areas that have already been developed. One of the criteria used by the Florida Division of Beaches

                  and Shores in assessing the critical nature of shoreline erosion is the extent of developed property that

                  is threatened (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores, 1993).




                  The state's CHHA infrastructure policy (ï¿½380.27(2) FS) is designed to supersede E.O. 81-105 once

                  the comprehensive plan of a coastal local government-has been approved. There are some significant

                  differences in how the state's storm hazard policy objectives are met under the executive order and

                  the CHHA infrastructure policy. Some of these stem from differences in the two policies, but most

                  result from the inconsistent content of local government comprehensive plans and the failure of many

                  local governments to fully address the relevant requirements, as is discussed in the preceding section

                  on planning mandates. These differences are discussed in the later section on gaps and opportunities.

                  Only about 9 out of 195 local governments required to prepare coastal elements did not have their

                  comprehensive plans approved as of January 1994. However, there is also some uncertainty over

                  what conditions must be met before the executive order is no longer to be heeded by state agencies.





                                                                     202











            The barrier island bridge policy has effectively prevented the expenditure of state funds for

            constructing new bridges or causeways to unbridged barrier islands. However, decisions on state

            funding for expanding existing bridges or causeways, or constructing new bridges or causeways to

            interior islands or barrier islands already connected to the mainland, are tied to the provisions of local

            comprehensive plans under the state's CHHA infrastructure policy.




            ECONOMIC INCENTIVES


            Table 6.1 includes a considerable number of policy instruments in the category of economic incentives.

            Some, such as the Upton-Jones provisions of the National Flood Insurance Act, state property tax

            concessions for conveyance of easements and development rights, and local transfer of development

            (TDR) programs are targeted at private property owners. The remaining economic incentives are

            federal and state programs designed to motivate initiatives by lower levels of government that

            contribute to achieving storm hazard mitigation policy objectives.




            Private Sector Incentives


            The Upton-Jones Program permits property owners to collect insurance claims to demolish or relocate

            structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program              when they are "imminently

            endangered" rather than waiting until they are damaged by coastal erosion or flooding. By removing

            such structures from the coast, the program can reduce damage to the beach and dune system that


            would result if the structure were to remain on the active beach.             Relocation will reduce the


            vulnerability of the structure and its inhabitants to future storm damage and reduce the public costs

            of subsequently responding to damage to the structure. The program has been aggressively promoted

            in Michigan and North Carolina, but there has been little activity in Florida. Experience in other states

            suggests the program will have little impact unless states assume the role of certifying structures as

            subject to imminent collapse and actively educate property owners about the opportunities available.

            Proposed amendments to the NFIA would repeal Upton-Jones and provide federal funds under a



                                                               203










                  75%/25%, federal/nonfederal, cost-sharing grants program that could be used for similar purposes as

                  well as for accomplishing other objectives.



                  Florida law (ï¿½193.501(3) FS) requires local property appraisers to reduce the appraised value of

                  property which has been restricted by an easement or development rights covenant. Presumably such

                  tax relief may motivate property owners to sell or donate easements or development rights to a

                  government entity or qualified nonprofit organization. Where such initiatives result from the tax relief

                  incentives, they will contribute to the same policy objectives ascribed to the use of less-than-fee

                  acquisition techniques: preserving the natural storm protection features of the coastal environment,

                  managing the development and redevelopment processes so as to minimize threats and costs of storm

                  damage, and reducing the vulnerability of public facilities and infrastructure. The potential impact of

                  such tax relief is limited, however, by both the limited circumstances under which less-than-fee

                  acquisition has been used and the relatively low tax liability of the property typically involved in such


                  transactions.




                  Transfer of development rights programs, which are primarily the prerogative of local governments in

                  Florida, have the potential to be used to reduce the threats and costs of storm damage by reducing

                  densities in areas most prone to coastal storm damage. A secondary result may be to also limit the

                  extent of public infrastructure at risk from storm damage. While counties and municipalities in Florida

                  have the legal authority to implement TDR programs, there has been little successful application of this

                  strategy in the state. Experience in California may suggest a role for the Florida Communities Trust

                  which is discussed in the section on gaps and opportunities.




                  Incentives to Other Levels of Government


                  Economic incentives represent the major category of policy instruments available to the federal

                  government for influencing state and local government behaviors. These incentives operate in both the


                                                                     204











            NFIP and the Federal Disaster Relief (Stafford) Act (DRA) and can contribute to several of the state's


            storm hazard policy objectives. Florida also provides economic incentives to local governments that

            promote storm hazard mitigation initiatives. These include matching grants for land acquisition through

            the Florida Communities Trust, and direct grants for storm hazard mitigation under the recently

            established Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and the Emergency Management, Preparedness, and

            Assistance Trust (EMPAT) Fund. The federal government and the state also share the costs of beach

            erosion control projects with local governments.




            The mainstay of the NFIP is the availability of flood insurance to property owners in communities that

            elect to participate in the program. The obligation of community participation is the adoption of

            federally specified construction standards in local building codes governing development in flood hazard

            areas. These standards are designed to reduce the vulnerability of structures to flood hazards and are

            applied to all structures within flood zones, not just to those structures whose owners have purchased

            insurance. Because of this, and because community participation in the program is near universal

            within the state, the program represents a significant contribution toward the state policy objective of

            reducing the vulnerability of buildings and facilities to storm damage.




            The flood insurance program includes other incentives for state or local governments. Under the

            Community Rating System (CRS), communities are encouraged to adopt programs and standards that

            surpass the minimum construction codes required for the availability of flood insurance, and property

            owners are given a discount on insurance premiums according to the range and strength of the

            mechanisms put into place by the community. A variety of alternative mechanisms are possible, giving

            rise to the potential for CRS to contribute to each of the state's policy objectives under the goals of

            protection of the natural environment and protection of life and property. Our data indicate, however,

            that this incentive program is not working well. Only 52% of coastal communities (cities and counties)

            within the state participate in CRS, and the level of participation across the most powerful of the



                                                              205










                   allowable activities is relatively small. This is in spite of the state-mandated planning system under

                   Chapter 163 FS that is intended to encourage adoption of many of the same programs.



                   The Section 1362 program, which has been mentioned in the discussion of land acquisition policy

                   instruments, also serves as a federal incentive to state and local governments. All Section 1362

                   transactionrare contingent on a state or local agency accepting ownership of the property acquired

                   and managing the property in an undeveloped state as open space or for recreational use. As

                   previously noted, this program has the potential to contribute to policy objectives under the goals of

                   protecting coastal environments and protecting life and property. Unfortunately, only one property has

                   been purchased under Section 1362 and transferred to public ownership, and it was not a coastal

                   parcel.




                   The federal government provides economic incentives to state and local governments through two

                   programs under the Disaster Relief Act: the public assistance program and the Section 404 hazard

                   mitigation grant program. The public assistance program is relatively narrowly constructed, making

                   funds available on a 75%/25% cost-sharing basis, for the purposes of dealing with damaged public

                   facilities. These facilities may be repaired or replaced, or an alternative project may be funded, if

                   warranted. Options other than repair are generally not selected, however, and mitigation has focused

                   on reducing the vulnerability of buildings and facilities.




                   The Section 404 hazard mitigation grant program is more broadly constructed; projects need not focus

                   on specific sites or specific damages. The grants are available to states, and through them, to

                   localities, on the basis of the hazard mitigation projects specified in the section 409 hazard mitigation

                   plan. The grants represent a 50% federal cost sharing and a substantial incentive for states to give

                   appropriate attention to the development of the hazard mitigation plan. To date, however, the potential

                   for this grant program has not been realized by the state; funds available under the program have gone



                                                                     206










            unused. While the state is now in the process of more actively using this program, we anticipate that

            without a clear and focused set of hazard mitigation policies, projects, and priorities, these funds will

            not be used effectively.




            State matching grants for local land acquisition projects through the FCT offer incentives for local

            governments to acquire and manage lands for conservation and recreational purposes. A number of

            these projects have included coastal properties and have, therefore, had the potential to contribute to

            several storm hazard mitigation policies including preservation of the natural protective features of

            coastal environments and managing the development process to minimize the threats and costs of

            storm damage. The matching formula under the FCT program varies. Sixty percent of the funds,

            which are derived from the Preservation 2000 bond program, must be matched on a 50/50 basis.

            However, small counties and municipalities may not have to contribute any match at all.



            The Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and the Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Assistance Trust

            (EMPAT) Fund were both enacted in 1993. The "Cat" fund is a reinsurance fund for private carriers

            of residential and commercial property insurance that is funded by premiums collected from the

            insurance companies operating in the state. A state grants program is to be financed from surpluses

            that may accumulate in the fund for non-recurring projects that protect local infrastructure from

            potential hurricane damage. Because the rules have not yet been written for the grants program, it

            is not clear whether it will operate on matching basis. However, it will have the potential to contribute

            to the policy objective of reducing the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm damage.




            The EMPAT Fund is financed by flat-rate surcharges on individual residential and commercial property

            insurance premiums. Some of the monies in the fund will be available to counties and municipalities

            through two grants programs for projects that may include disaster mitigation. It is not clear at this

            time what types of hazard mitigation projects may be eligible for funding. It is possible, however, that



                                                              207










                  projects to reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure may be fundable under this program as well.



                  As noted in the discussion of developing capital facilities and infrastructure, both the federal

                  government and the state share the costs of beach erosion control projects with local governments

                  where some measure of public benefit can be expected from restoring, renourishing, or otherwise

                  protecting the beach and dune system. The individual projects contribute to both of the state's policy

                  objectives under the goal of protecting coastal environmental resources.




                  These cost-sharing programs can be viewed as economic incentives designed to stimulate local

                  governments to participate in providing the storm-hazard mitigation and other benefits of beach erosion

                  control projects. The minimum nonfederal share for federally supported projects is 50%, while the

                  minimum local contribution for state-supported projects is 25%. Both programs require the provision

                  of public access as a condition of financial support.







                  EDUCATION AND INFORMATION


                  Education and information initiatives can also be targeted at both lower levels of government and the

                  private sector. We did not undertake a detailed review of all federal and state technical assistance and

                  public information programs that have some        bearing on storm hazard mitigation. Most that are

                  mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3 are directed at local governments and are ancillary to other policy

                  instruments. Examples include technical assistance in developing local CRS programs under the NFIP,

                  training workshops and the "deemed-to-comply" manual for local building inspectors that are sponsored

                  by DCA to promote effective implementation of the Coastal Zone Protection Act, and preparation of

                  the state Comprehensive Beach Management Plan by DBS which contains recommendations for

                  contending with coastal erosion throughout the state. These efforts contribute to achieving the same

                  policy objectives as the programs they support.



                                                                     208










            Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley (1989) emphasize a particular public information strategy which they

            characterize as "enlightening individual market decisions." The predominant policy instrument for

            accomplishing such enlightenment is the so-called hazard disclosure statement.                The federal

            government, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, requires financial institutions that are

            regulated by the federal government to notify occupants of land of potential flood hazards when a

            financial transaction over the land takes place. Presumably, this mechanism is intended to discourage

            private development or occupancy of hazardous sites, thereby contributing to the state policy

            objectives of minimizing the threats and costs of storm damage by influencing the development


            process.




            State regulations governing the CCCL permit program provide a much less individualized form of hazard

            disclosure. Public hearings are required prior to establishing or revising a CCCL, and once the line is

            set, DEP is required to record the line in public records of each affected county and municipality and

            to provide a copy of the survey of the line to the clerk of the circuit court in each county.




                                 CONSTRAINTS TO ACHIEVING STATE POLICY OBJECTIVES




            Before proceeding to analyze the apparent gaps in the array of federal, state, and local policies that

            contribute to achieving Florida's coastal storm hazard mitigation objectives and the opportunities for

            improving those policies, it is important to understand the constraints with which any new policy

            initiatives must contend. This section describes several general limitations that will apply to most

            storm hazard mitigation policies as well as several constraints that are peculiar to individual categories

            of policy instruments.




            GENERAL LIMITATIONS


            There are three principal constraints to state storm hazard mitigation initiatives that must be



                                                               209











                  recognized. Two are specific to the problem of coastal storms and development: 1) the extent to

                  which coastal lands have already been developed; and 2) the limited frequency and spatial distribution

                  of storm damage of sufficient magnitude to present opportunities to alter land use activities within

                  areas subject to coastal storm damage. The third is the substantial political opposition that exists to

                  state intervention in land use decisions by local governments and private property owners.




                  Extent of Development


                  Many of Florida's storm hazard mitigation policies are designed to influence how undeveloped land is

                  used. These include 1) direct regulation of site development, such as through the coastal construction

                  control line (CCCL) permitting program; 2) regulation of the design and construction of habitable

                  structures through the CCCL permit program and local building codes; 3) local regulation of land use

                  types, densities, and intensities; 4) land acquisition programs such as CARL and the FCT grants

                  program; and 5) the state's coastal infrastructure policy. The opportunities for using these policy

                  instruments to achieve storm hazard mitigation goals and objectives will be constrained by the extent

                  to which land is already developed. Policies which focus on the development process rather than site

                  development will be further constrained by the extent to which undeveloped land has already been

                  subdivided into smaller lots and the ownership patterns of those lots.




                  We have some partial data on the extent to which coastal property in the state has been developed,

                  but no data are readily available on the extent of subdivision or the ownership patterns of small lots.

                  The majority of the privately owned land along the state's open, sandy coasts is already developed.

                  A rough analysis prepared by the DNR Division of State Lands (1989) determined that 538 miles (67%)

                  of the state's 802 miles of sandy shoreline' were privately owned. Only 22% of that private land

                  (15% of all sandy shoreline) was estimated as being undeveloped. It was also estimated that 12% of

                  the private undeveloped land present in 1981 had been developed by 1989, while an additional 14%

                  had been transferred to public ownership.



                                                                    210










            A more recent analysis prepared by the DNR Division of Beaches and Shores, the Florida Undeveloped

            Coastal Beach Resources Inventory of December 1990, affords a county-by-county assessment of the

            extent of shoreline development. This study identified all undeveloped parcels along the sandy

            shorelines of the Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean with 500 feet or more of undeveloped property (Florida

            Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, 1990b). Table 6.3 presents the

            total linear feet of undeveloped property in each county as well as the total estimated shoreline and

            the% undeveloped. Total shoreline estimates were obtained from the 1971 shoreline study conducted

            by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No data are included for Monroe County and the Big Bend

            counties because they are not classified as having sandy shorelines. Neither Dade nor Santa Rosa

            county had any undeveloped parcels of 500 feet or more in length.




            The tabulation in Table 6.3 suggests that storm hazard mitigation policies targeted at land use

            development may have their greatest impacts in Charlotte, Collier, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Indian River,

            St. Lucie, and Walton counties where about 15% or more of the shoreline remains undeveloped.

            Moreover, the situation in Walton County has been altered substantially since 1990 through state

            acquisition of the Topsail Hill tract and several other parcels which total some 4.5 miles of shoreline

            or approximately 53% of the undeveloped open beach frontage inventoried in 1990. Policies focused

            on undeveloped private land will have a moderate impact in counties such as Bay, Brevard, Lee,

            Nassau, Okaloosa, and St. Johns where between 5 and 14% of the shoreline is not yet developed.

            Again, however, these estimates are limited by the lack of information on extent subdivision. In coastal

            areas that are almost fully developed or "built-out," such as Broward, Dade, Duval, Escambia, Palm

            Beach, Pinellas, and Sarasota counties, storm hazard mitigation policies designed to protect existing

            development and to modify structures and land uses in a post-storm environment will be more

            important. These policies, however, will be constrained by a second factor, the infrequency of

            recurrent local storm damage.





                                                              211












                     Table 6.3: Proportion of Undeveloped Open Coast Beach Frontage

                     County                     Undeveloped (ft)l                   Total Lftj'                %-Undeveloped

                     Walton                               45,200                       133,056                          33.97
                     Gulf                                 45,380                       139,920                          32.43
                     St. Lucie                            27,489                       116,160                          23.66
                     Indian River                         24,193                       116,160                          20.83
                     Charlotte                            14,262                       73,920                           19.29
                     Franklin                             46,985                       288,288                          16.30
                     Collier                              40,877                       264,000                          15.49
                     Flagler                              14,472                       95,040                           15.23
                     Nassau                               7,570                        70,224                           10.78
                     Bay                                  19,182                       235,488                          8.14
                     Brevard                              30,481                       380,160                          8.02
                     St.Johns                             17,270                       218,064                          7.92
                     Lee                                  16,536                       232,320                          7.12
                     Okaloosa                             7,454                        129,360                          5.76
                     Volusia                              9,420                        258,720                          3.64
                     Manatee                              1,820                        73,920                           2.46
                     Martin                               2,145                        110,880                          1.93
                     Pinellas                             3,125                        186,912                          1.67
                     Sarasota                             3,020                        184,800                          1.63
                     Broward                              1,710                        126,720                          1.35
                     Palm Beach                           2,505                        237,072                          1.06
                     Escambia                             1,520                        215,424                          0.70
                     Duval                                  5@5                        84,480                           0.62
                     Dade                                    0                         183,744                          0.00
                     Santa Rosa                              0                         16,368                           0.00


                     Note: Data    not included for the following counties which lack            significant areas of sandy shoreline:
                     Citrus, Dixie, Jefferson Hernando, Levy, Monroe, Pasco, Taylor,             and Wakulla.

                     "Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources 0 990b).

                     'Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers (1197 1).



                     Infreauency of Recurrent Local Storm Damage


                     The probability of a hurricane directly hitting any specific locality is very low (Jarrell, Hebert, and

                     Mayfield, 1992), and the area directly affected is typically small - the radius of maximum winds around

                     the hurricane center (R) averages about 15 miles, and the "direct hit" zone, defined as the area within

                     2 R to the right and one R to the left of the hurricane center, averages about 50 miles (Hebert, Jarrell,

                     and Mayfield, 1993). As a result, estimating the probability of a hurricane strike for small geographic


                                                                             212











            areas is difficult because there are few available data (McDonald, 1993).




            Simpson and Lawrence (1971) estimated hurricane probabilities (relative annual frequencies) for 50-

            mile segments of the coast based on hurricane records for the period 1886-1970. A summary of their

            estimates for the Florida coast are presented in Table 6.4. The National Hurricane Center has also

            tabulated hurricane frequencies by county for the period 1900-1990. A summary of these data for

            Florida coastal counties is presented in Table 6.5. Table 6.6 presents data from Hebert, Jarrell, and

            Mayfield (1993) which indicate the most recent occurrence of a direct or indirect hurricane hit for

            larger populated areas of the Florida coast.




            These data demonstrate that post-storm opportunities to bring substandard habitable structures up to

            code in any particular local area will be infrequent. The area affected may also be substantially limited

            except in the event of a severe storm (Category 3 or higher). Thus storm hazard mitigation through

            post-storm redevelopment will be a long and intermittent process.




            Political Opposition to State Intervention in Land Use Decisions


            The imposition of planning and regulatory mandates on local governments, as well as direct state

            regulation of construction, site development, and land use, are constrained by the existence of

            significant political interests who oppose state intervention in both the home rule powers of local

            governments and the actions of private property owners. These political forces, and the conventional

            limits on state intervention which they have engendered, pose constraints to the array of feasible

            initiatives for closing the gaps in current state policies and programs that contribute to mitigating the

            risks and costs of coastal storm damage. Countermanding such opposition requires forceful arguments

            that such intervention is justified by the interests and obligations of the state. There are, therefore,

            very few instances of direct state regulation of land use and development and few state regulatory

            mandates to local government. In addition, the state's authority to review the content of local



                                                              213












                   Table 6.4: Probability For a Hurricane or Great Hurricane Occurrence in Any One Year for 50 mile
                   Segments of the Florida Coastline


                                                    Reference                  Great                          All
                   Sector                            City                    Hurricanes'                    Hurricanes



                   14                               Pensacola                     -                         13
                   15                                                             -                         14
                   16                               Panama City                   -                         7
                   17                               Apalachicola                  -                         6
                   18                                                             -                         7
                   19                                                             -                         6
                   20                               Homosassa                     -                         8
                   21                               Tampa                         1                         6
                   22                               Sarasota                      2                         4
                   23                               Fort Myers                    1                         5
                   24                                                             2                         9
                   25                                                             4                         13
                   26                               Key West                      2                         13
                   27                                                             5                         12
                   28                               Miami                         7                         16
                   29                               West Palm Beach               7                         15
                   30                               Fort Pierce                   5                         8
                   31                               Vero Beach                    -                         5
                   32                               Daytona Beach                 -                         2
                   33                               St. Augustine                 -                         1
                   34                               Jacksonville                  -                         1



                   'Simpson & Lawrence define "great hurricanes" as having sustained winds of 125 mph or more. This
                   roughly corresponds to Category 3 or higher on the Saffir/Simpson scale.

                   Source: Simpson and Lawrence (197 1).




















                                                                      214












              Table 6.5: Florida County Hurricane Strikes (1900-1990) by Saffir/Simpson Scale

                                              Direct               Hurricanes    >
              County                          Strikes                Category    3


              Escambia                              4                          2
              Santa Rosa                            3                          2
              Okaloosa                              6                          3
              Walton                                5                          3
              Bay                                   8                          1
              Gulf                                  6                          1
              Franklin                              6                          1
              Wakulla                               2                          0
              Jefferson                             1                          0
              Taylor                                1                          0
              Dixie                                 1                          0
              Levy                                  2                          1
              Citrus                                2                          1
              Hernando                              3                          1
              Pasco                                 3                          2
              Pinellas                              3                          1
              Hillsborough                          3                          1
              Manatee                               3                          2
              Sarasota                              3                          1
              Charlotte                             5                          4
              Lee                                   5                          4
              Collier                               8                          5
              Monroe                                17                         8
              Dade                                  11                         4
              Broward                               7                          3
              Palm Beach                            10                         4
              Hendry                                NC1                        NC
              Glades                                NC                         NC
              Okeechobee                            NC                         NC
              Martin                                9                          3
              St. Lucie                             7                          2
              Indian River                          4                          0
              Brevard                               2                          0
              Volusia                               3                          0
              Flagler                               3                          0
              St.Johns                              4                          0
              Duval                                 3                          0
              Nassau                                1                          0



              'Non-coastal county.

              Source: Jarrell, Hebert, and Mayfield (1992).




                                                                     215













                    Table 6.6: Last Occurrence of a Direct or Indirect Hit by Any and/or a Major Hurricane at Populated
                    Florida Coastal Communities (Category is in parentheses)

                                                                    Direct                                     Indirect
                    City                              Last Maeor                Last Any                       Last Any

                    Pensacola                         1926(3)                   1926(3)                        1979(3)
                    Panama City                       1975(3)                   1985(2)
                    Apalachicola                      1985(3)                   1985(2)
                    Homosassa                         1950(3)                   1968(2)
                    St. Petersburg                    1921(3)                   19460)                         1968(2)
                    Tampa                             1921(3)                   1946(l)                        1968(2)
                    Sarasota                          1944(3)                   1946(l)                        1966(2)
                    Fort Myers                        1960(3)                   1960(3)                        1966(2)
                    Naples                            1960(4)                   1964(2)                        1992(3)
                    Key West                          1948(3)                   1987(l)
                    Miami                             1992(4)                   1992(4)
                    Ft. Lauderdale                    1950(3)                   1964(2)                        1992(4)
                    West Palm Beach                   1949(3)                   1979(2)
                    Stuart                            1949(3)                   1979(2)
                    Fort Pierce                       1933(3)                   1979(2)
                    Vero Beach                        < 1900                    1979(2)
                    Cocoa                             < 1900                    1979(2)
                    Daytona Beach                     < 1900                    1960(2)
                    St. Augustine                     < 1900                    1964(2)
                    Jacksonville                      < 1900                    1964(2)
                    Fernandina Beach                  < 1900                    1928(2)



                    Source: Hebert, Jarrell, and Mayfield 0 993).



                    government comprehensive plans and land development regulations is very limited.




                    The state's comprehensive planning process is based on a hierarchical systern that preserves the

                    authority of local governments to develop specific planning strategies and implement them through land

                    development regulations (LDRs). Chapter 163 FS and the 9J-5 FAC regulations detail what issues

                    must be covered by local comprehensive plan goals and objectives, and implemented through local

                    LDRs. However, the state does not compel local governments to adopt or enforce any particular LDRs,

                    and once plans have been approved, the state has limited opportunities to review them further.




                                                                        216










            The state can impose comprehensive plan provisions and associated LDRs only where local

            governments fail to do so for areas that have been designated by the state as Areas of Critical State

            Concern. These are limited to areas with significant environmental or historical resources that would

            be endangered by uncontrolled or inadequate development.




            State programs regulating coastal construction, dredge and fill activities, and onsite sewage disposal

            systems are grounded on the state's recognized responsibility to protect public health and safety and

            the environment. Thus the CCCL permitting program serves to preserve and protect the natural and

            recreational resources of the beach and dune system which are linked, in part, to the public trust

            resources of the wet sand beach, i.e. sovereign tidal lands. The dredge and fill regulations protect tidal

            lands and water quality, and the onsite sewage disposal regulations protect public health and water

            quality. Any additional state planning or regulatory mandates to local governments or direct regulatory

            initiatives must be tied to similar, accepted justifications for intervention.




            Experience with the CCCL coastal construction permitting program suggests that in some

            circumstances localities may prefer a state regulatory presence where they concur with the need for

            intervention. Section 161.053(4) FS authorizes local governments to administer an approved permit

            program in lieu of the CCCL program, but none has taken the initiative to do so. DBS Director Kirby

            Green (1993) has indicated that localities generally prefer to have the state exercise this regulatory

            power, presumably to shield locals from the political fallout. Such instances, however, are relatively


            -few.





            SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS


            Specific limitations exist within the context of the three general limitations and apply to the individual

            policy instruments. Our perceptions of these limitations are as follows.





                                                               217












                   Regulation of Coastal Construction and Site Develooment


                   Efforts to regulate coastal construction and site development must contend with both a changing

                   physical environment and an uncertain legal environment. The dynamic nature of coastlines, especially

                   those comprised of sand substrates, poses an unstable regulatory environment. In addition, the lack

                   of concise judicial rules for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action results in a constitutional

                   takings of private property further muddies the waters of potential regulatory policy initiatives.




                   Dynamic Nature of the Coastal Environment. The dynamic nature of sandy shorelines has the potential

                   to undermine the long-term effectiveness of the CCCL and 50-foot setback permit programs and the

                   30-year erosion setback requirements. However, periodic resurveys of the CCCL in areas with

                   significant rates of shoreline erosion or accretion will assure that the maximum protection afforded by

                   these programs is maintained for new structures. Nonetheless, long-term erosion coupled with sea

                   level rise will gradually move the MHWL closer to existing structures, including those built in

                   compliance with a coastal construction permit and a 30-year erosion setback.




                   Takinas Challenues to Land Use Reaulation. Constitutional protections against the taking of private

                   property for public use without just compensation constrain the ability of governments to restrict the

                   uses of land, regardless of the recognized legitimacy of the regulatory activity. The U.S. Supreme

                   Court's 1992 decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992 WL 142517 (U.S.S.C.) has

                   highlighted this issue and the continuing uncertainties over what levels of regulation require

                   compensation.




                   DEP's legal staff (Wiehle, 1993) has reviewed the Part 161 regulatory program in the wake of the

                   Lucas decision. The staff concluded that the case "appears to further limit the State's ability to

                   prohibit the harmful use of private property through regulation without the need for compensation."

                   The constraint arises where denial of a permit is deemed to deprive the property owner of all


                                                                      218










             economically beneficial use" of his or her property.




            Wiehle concludes that the state can only prevail in an inverse condemnation suit based on a regulatory

            takings claim where it can show "that the activity it seeks to prevent through the permit denial is one

            which either it or an adjacent property owner could prevent under principles existing at the time of

            purchase under the State's common law nuisance or property laws." Section 161.053(7) FS, which

            was enacted in 1971, states that "any coastal structure erected, or excavation created, in violation

            of the provisions of this section is hereby declared to be a public nuisance." However, in Wiehle's

            opinion, this statement of legislative intent does not meet the Supreme Court's determination that the

            permit denial must be based on "background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the

            uses [the plaintiff) ... intends in the circumstances in which the property is presently found."




            Reaulation of Land Use


            'The state has no authority to impose specific land development regulations (LDRs) except under very

            limited circumstances where local governments fail to adopt LDRs in conformance with guiding

            principles established for one of the four Areas of Critical State Concern that have been designated.

            'Three of these are in coastal areas: 1) Big Cypress Swamp, 2) the Florida Keys, and 3) the

            Apalachicola Bay area.




            While state law requires local governments to enact necessary LDRs to implement their approved

            comprehensive plans, DCA has no authority to conduct a systematic, substantive review of those LDRs

            or to compel local governments to adopt specific LDRs to accomplish storm hazard mitigatioln

            objectives or any other policy objectives. Any initiatives to alter this constraint must contend with the

            general constraint of strong political opposition to state intervention in the regulation of land use (see


            above).






                                                               219












                  Plannina and Re-gulatory Mandates


                  Political opposition to state intervention in the regulation of land use and development is also the

                  principal constraint to new planning and regulatory mandates. The existing statutory provisions

                  governing state review of local comprehensive plans further limit the opportunities to address

                  deficiencies in the coastal elements of current plans.




                  As currently structured, DCA's next opportunity to review local comprehensive plans will arise when

                  local governments submit their first evaluation and appraisal reports (EARs) and related amendments

                  pursuant to ï¿½ 163.3191 FS. Unless additional planning mandates are legislatively imposed and tied to

                  the EARs process, DCA review will be limited to the amendments initiated by the individual local

                  government. Thus the process offers no guaranteed means for correcting deficiencies, such as those

                  discussed in Chapter 4, that have been identified in plans that were approved by DCA in the initial

                  round of submissions and reviews.




                  Acouisition of Coastal Pronerty


                  Acquisition of coastal property to achieve storm hazard mitigation policy objectives is constrained by

                  several factors. First, the statutory and constitutional criteria governing the state's land acquisition

                  programs appear to preclude purchase of land solely for storm hazard mitigation. Second, the property

                  identification, evaluation, and purchase processes of existing programs are not well-suited to rapid

                  implementation in post-storm circumstances. Post-storm acquisition is further constrained by the

                  reluctance of owners of developed coastal property to relinquish it and the reluctance of public

                  agencies to assume management responsibility for small, and sometimes isolated, parcels of land. Use

                  of less-than-fee acquisition techniques faces additional constraints which are discussed below.




                  Constraints Posed by Existing State Land Acquisition Program . one of the state's land acquisition

                  programs, past or present, has specifically included storm hazard mitigation as a selection criterion,



                                                                    220










            until enactment of the 1993 ELMS legislation. The ELMS bill added such criteria to those to be used

            for CARL purchases with funds from the Preservation 2000 (P2000) bond issues. Apparently the

            ELMS III Committee intended that a similar addition would be made to the selection criteria for the


            Florida Communities Trust (FCT) land acquisition matching grants program for local governments. The

            bill did direct local governments to establish a method of identifying and ranking coastal parcels for

            acquisition Tvith state funds which is to include consideration of storm hazard mitigation as a selection

            criterion. But the bill did not explicitly link this process to the FCT land acquisition grants program.




            Conflicts between the conditions that would make a site desirable for acquisition to achieve storm

            hazard mitigation and those that are statutorily or constitutionally required for CARL and P2000

            purchases may render the storm hazard criterion fairly impotent. In addition, there is a perception that

            most of the large tracts of coastal land that have attributes targeted by the CARL Program have

            already been considered. A separate funding initiative that would be unconstrained by the CARL and

            P2000 acquisition criteria would require development of sufficient public consensus in favor of

            acquisition principally for purposes of storm hazard mitigation. Whether such an effort could tap into

            the interest groups that have traditionally supported public land acquisition remains an open question.




            The CARL and FCT acquisition criteria and processes also severely limit their potential application in

            post-storm circumstances where small parcels may need to be acquired fairly rapidly.                 Both

            decisionmaking processes are complex and lengthy and not suited to quick response to a post-storm

            opportunity. There are provisions in Chapter 253 FS for expedited acquisition under the CARL

            Program, but these have not, as yet, been used. Both programs also have tended to favor acquisition

            of large parcels.




            Constraints to Federal Post-Storm Acquisition Programs. Experience with the Section 1362 acquisition

            program and the Upton-Jones relocation program under the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA)



                                                              221











                   suggests that owners of storm-damaged, developed coastal property will almost always seek to rebuild

                   rather than selling out or relocating a dwelling. Furthermore, most state and local government land

                   management agencies tend to avoid assuming management responsibilities for numerous, small, and

                   discontinuous property parcels.




                   The Section 1362 program is further limited in its impact because it only applies to properties insured

                   under the National Flood Insurance Program. In Chapter 2 we estimated this to be only 26% of the

                   households in flood hazard areas in the state. The Section 1362 program has also had very little money

                   available for acquiring storm damaged property. While proposed amendments to the NFIA may make

                   more money available for acquiring repeatedly damaged property, the federal money will require a 25%

                   state or local match which may further dampen enthusiasm for promoting this policy instrument.




                   Constraints to Use of Less-Than-Fee Technigu9s. Use of less-than-fee acquisition techniques appears

                   to have limited potential in coastal areas because the constraints necessary to achieve storm hazard

                   mitigation objectives will generally preclude most economic uses of the property. The difference

                   between fee-simple purchase and purchase of an effective easement or development restriction may

                   be less than 20%. There may be occasions where a property owner is willing to convey an easement

                   or development rights covenant in consideration for property tax relief provided for in state statutes.

                   However, less-than-fee acquisition has been most successfully applied to agricultural or silvicultural

                   lands where the current tax liability is already low. Thus tax relief is not likely to be a major

                   consideration for the property owner.




                   Development of Capital Facilities and Infrastructure

                   The state's two principal policy instruments that influence development of capital facilities and

                   infrastructure face vastly different constraints. We are not aware of any substantial legal constraints

                   to the effective use of the state's authority to assist in the financing of beach erosion control



                                                                    222











            assistance programs. The principal impediment has been inadequate funding to develop restoration

            management plans for all of the state's critically eroding beaches. Detailed erosion studies remain to

            be done for more than 40% of the state's critically eroding shorelines (Florida Department of

            Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores, 1993).




            The state's coastal infrastructure policy, on the other hand, is constrained by the 1985 policy decision,

            embodied in ï¿½380.27(2) FS, to link the infrastructure decisions of state agencies to the comprehensive

            plans of local governments. If this commitment to home rule remains unchanged, the state must

            contend with the constraints to new planning mandates if there is to be any substantive improvement

            in the consistency and effectiveness of state policy governing expenditures for infrastructure in coastal

            high hazard areas.




            Economic Incentives


            The general and specific constraints on increasing the use of regulatory instruments and mandates to

            local governments suggest that a complementary strategy of economic incentives may be more

            politically feasible. Indeed, this alternative is generally suggested as an alternative to "command-and-

            ,control" strategies. We have distinguished two types of incentives: 1) those that involve cost-sharing

            or other direct financial assistance from one level of government to a lower level; and 2) those that

            alter the economics of the land market to discourage undesirable actions or encourage desirable

            behavior by the private sector. There are, however, constraints to these incentives that must also be

            appreciated.




            Incentives to Other Levels of Government. The use of economic incentives that involve direct


            expenditures by the state are likely to be problematic because of the multiple demands that already

            exist on the state's limited fiscal resources. The state economic incentive programs that currently help

            achieve storm hazard mitigation goals are funded through bonds (the P2000 bonds for the FCT



                                                              223











                   matching grants program) and through indirect taxing mechanisms (the property insurance policy

                   surcharge that funds the Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Assistance Trust Fund and the

                   premiums charged insurance carriers to finance the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund). New initiatives will

                   presumably require new funding mechanisms.




                   Proposed amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act will reduce the federal subsidy of two storm

                   hazard mitigation programs under the NFIA. Both the Section 1362 buyout program and the Upton-

                   Jones Program, under which federal funds fully covered property acquisition and incentives for private

                   property owners to relocate or demolish imminently endangered structures, would be repealed. The

                   bill calls for a general purpose federal grants program that would cover similar initiatives, but state or

                   local governments would have to cover 25% of the costs.




                   Private Sector Incentives. Privates  ector incentives that contribute to storm hazard mitigation include

                   the Upton-Jones Program under the NFIA, Florida's tax concessions for conveyance of easements and

                   development rights, and transfer of  development rights (TDR) programs. Upton-Jones targets owners

                   of habitable structures that are insured under the NFIP. Experience in other states indicates that the

                   principal constraint, where the program is actively promoted, is the reluctance of beachfront property

                   owners to relinquish their property or relocate their structure to another site unless they have no other

                   option. It also appears that the program works best where a state agency assumes the role of

                   certifying structures as subject to imminent collapse using the NFIP criteria rather than conventional

                   condemnation standards. Experience in other states suggests that local code enforcement officers are

                   reluctant to "condemn" a structure using the lower-threshold federal criteria.




                   The main constraints to the use of the state's property tax relief provisions governing conveyance of

                   conservation easements and development rights have been discussed in the preceding section on

                   constraints to use of less-than-fee acquisition techniques. They include the high%age of total property



                                                                      224










            value represented by the right to build on coastal property and the low tax obligations on lands most

            suited to such conveyances.




            TDR programs involve some of the same constraints plus others. The best known successes have

            involved transfers of development rights from undeveloped agricultural land to areas proximate to

            existing growth centers (Pizor, 1986). In these cases, owners of land within the sending area (farmers)

            still had the potential to earn a substantial economic return from the property after conveyance of the

            ,development rights. In addition, the land in question consisted of significant areas in single ownership.

            Several analysts have concluded that TDR will only be effective where it is coupled with significant

            ,constraints on development within the sending area and where the demand for development density

            is at least as great in the receiving area as it is in the sending area (McGilvray, Anderson, and West,

            1985; Pizor, 1986).




            'The situation in many coastal real estate markets appears inimical to a successful TDR effort. Where

            land is already subdivided and lots have been purchased by people who wish to develop a single-family

            residence, there will be little incentive to sell the development rights - no significant economically-

            beneficial use will remain. Where large areas of unplatted land exist, there must be sufficient

            constraints on development over a large enough area coupled with a sufficiently desirable receiving

            area to make TDR an attractive financial proposition, Higher development densities on parcels removed

            from the immediate coast will not be an attractive option unless similar restrictions apply to the

            majority of the regional coastal development market (McGilvray, Anderson, and West, 1985). The

            most promising strategy short of total fee-simple acquisition may be to acquire land and resell it with

            lower permitted development densities. We are not aware of any Florida state agency with the

            authority to carry out such a transaction.







                                                               225












                   Education and Information


                   Education and information,   as policy instruments, depend on the connection between information and

                   behavior and the assumption that adequate information to     private parties or other government actors

                   will structure their actions in desired ways. Hence, information on the risks of flood hazard areas may

                   be given to property owners anticipating building in such areas, or technical assistance may be

                   provided by the state to local governments in anticipation of local participation in program activities.




                   Experience suggests that public education and technical assistance to other government entities will

                   be most effective when those actors have sufficient motivation to behave as desired and merely lack

                   the knowledge of what to do or how to do it. Thus education and technical assistance programs that

                   accompany economic incentives or regulatory programs may facilitate their implementation.




                   The evidence on the efficacy of hazard disclosure policies is less compelling, however. The one study

                   we have encountered of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in California suggests that the

                   disclosure policy instrument was not properly designed, i.e. the timing of the hazard disclosure was

                   too late in the real estate transaction (see Chapter 5). While a better designed policy has now been

                   proposed in Massachusetts, we have found no evaluation data with which to judge its probable

                   efficacy. However, studies of flood and earthquake insurance purchasing behavior Kunreuther, 1976)

                   suggest that even where people are well informed of natural hazards, they are unlikely to take action

                   to reduce the risks of a hazard that is perceived to be of low probability unless they have had first-hand

                   experience with the hazard, even though the magnitude of the possible injury is significant. Jarrell,

                   Hebert, and Mitchell (11992) have estimated that as of 1990 (i.e. before Hurricane Andrew) between

                   94 and 95% of Florida's coastal population had not experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane

                   (Category 3 or higher).







                                                                      226












                                  OPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING STATE POLICY OBJECTIVES




            Our review of the policy instruments implemented within Florida by federal, state, and local

            government agencies, reveals instances in which instruments are inadequately conceived or applied

            and gaps where new policy initiatives could be taken. In the following sections we evaluate the extent

            to which each,of the state's storm hazard mitigation policy objectives is being achieved and suggest

            policy options that could be considered to enhance those objectives.




            PRESERVE NATURAL STORM PROTECTION FEATURES
            OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT


            The state's panoply of regulations governing construction and site development above and below the

            mean high water line are specifically targeted at preserving the natural storm protective features of

            beach, dune, and coastal wetland systems. These have been supplemented by acquisition of coastal

            shorelines and wetlands under the former Save Our Coasts Program, the CARL Program, and the

            Florida Communities Trust matching grants program with local governments, plus federal and state

            programs for covering up to 75% of the costs of restoring and renourishing beach and dune systems.




            We have not identified formal evaluation data with which to judge the effectiveness of these programs.

            Staff within the DEP Division of State Lands indicated that they may be assembling a summary of the

            coastal lands that have been acquired through the SOC and CARL programs (Brock, 1993), and the

            Division of Water Management is reported to be developing a data base that may allow an assessment

            of the impacts of the state's dredge and fill regulations in preserving wetlands (Wonnacott, 1993).

            We have, however, identified several opportunities to improve the legal instruments and fiscal

            resources that can be used through these programs to more effectively achieve the objective of

            preserving the natural storm protection features of the state's coastal environments.






                                                             227











                   Options for Enhancing the State's Coastal Construction ReQuIations

                   The principal shortcomings of the regulatory system include 1) the lack of a dedicated funding source

                   to purchase properties where strict enforcement of coastal construction permit regulations would result

                   in a constitutional takings; 2) the absence of statutory mandates to prevent local governments from

                   allowing subdivision of coastal land that creates parcels that cannot be developed in compliance with

                   the state's coastal construction regulations; and 3) the state's limited authority to compel property

                   owners to relocate structures before they are below the mean high water line (MHWL).



                           Option 1:       Establish a dedicated source of state funds for purchasing properties that would

                                           be rendered unbuildable by strict enforcement of the state's coastal

                                           construction regulations.




                   The Department of Environmental Protection Division of Beaches and Shores formerly used the interest

                   earned on funds deposited in the Beach Management Trust Fund to acquire parcels following a judicial

                   takings judgment. The Division is also actively developing a procedure for negotiating purchase of

                   parcels prior to actually denying a coastal construction permit, so as to avoid a takings lawsuit. Action

                   by the State Legislature to return interest accrued in the Trust Fund to this purpose would facilitate

                   such purchases. However, additional funds may be needed. If so, these could perhaps be taken from

                   a more general storm hazard mitigation land acquisition fund (see Option 6).




                           Option 2:       Mandate conformance of local subdivision regulations with the 30-year setback

                                           and other locational requirements under the 50-year setback and CCCL


                                           permitting programs.




                   There are no restrictions in current state law to creating lots within the CCCL area that are too shallow

                   to permit development in compliance with state regulations. This sets up potential takings claims that



                                                                     228










             could be averted if the land subdivision process reflected those requirements at the outset. This could

             be accomplished through amendment of appropriate sections of Chapters 125, 166, and 177 FS.




                     Ootion 3:       Impose relocation requirements comparable to those imposed under the

                                     grandfather provisions of the 30-year erosion setback rule, as permit conditions

                                     for all CCCL and 50-foot setback construction permits in areas with significant


                                     erosion rates.




             The state currently has exercised only limited authority in requiring relocation of residential or

             commercial structures when they are at the water's edge. Single-family residences built under the

             grandfather provisions of the 30-year setback requirement have been required by DBS to be relocated

             when they are at the MHWL. However, this provision has not yet been tested in the courts, and has

             not been imposed as a condition for other CCCL or 50-foot setback permits. Residential and

             commercial structures built prior to enactment of the 30-year setback rule are not subject to any state

             relocation provisions until they are below the MHWL (ï¿½ 161.061 FS) unless the foundation is damaged.

             This is also the case for structures b uilt between the CCCL and the 30-year setback, although these

             structures presumably will not face a relocation problem for many years.




             The relocation requirements for structures built landward of the 30-year erosion projection line have

             evidently been imposed under DBS's existing authority under ï¿½ 161.053 FS. Imposition of similar

             requirements for other CCCL and 50-foot setback permits could presumably be similarly authorized.




             'Where a relocation requirement cannot be met on an existing parcel, the state may face a potential

             -takings claim. However, the finding of a takings in the Lucas case hinged on the determination that

             ,denial of a permit to construct a single-family residential dwelling constituted denial of "all economically

             beneficial or productive use of the land." Successful takings claims have also been tied to justifiable



                                                                 229










                   "development expectations." The state could conceivably argue that a landowner who had used the

                   land for some period of time had achieved an economically beneficial use of the land within the limits

                   of reasonable development expectations given the erosive nature of the site.



                           Option 4:       Require relocation of habitable structures at sites with receding shorelines

                                           before they interfere with natural sand movement or intrude into the sovereign

                                           beach.




                   Requiring relocation once the MHWL reaches a structure (as in Option 3) may not provide optimal

                   protection of the beach and dune system and may not prevent the structure from intruding onto the

                   sovereign beach if the rate of erosion is rapid and compliance is delayed. An option that would be

                   more protective than Option 3 would require relocation when the MHWL is within some minimum

                   distance of the structure, such as some multiple of the annual average erosion rate. Such a policy

                   would probably require amendments to         161.052 and 161.053 FS.




                   No state that we surveyed had a comparable, enforceable requirement. However, Virginia requires

                   property owners whose houses are separated from the MHWL a distance less than 10 times the

                   average annual erosion rate to submit a relocation plan to the State Marine Resources Commission.

                   The state cannot compel relocation until the structure is below the MHWL, but the plan requirement

                   has been successful in initiating relocation action in several instances.




                   Imposing a relocation requirement based on a setback threshold would probably have to be based on

                   state authority to protect the beach and dune sand sharing system or an argument that the structure

                   should be moved when incursion on the sovereign beach is imminent. Employing the setback threshold

                   strategy successfully might also require greater restrictions on permits for installation of rigid erosion

                   control structures under ï¿½ 161.041 FS. Currently a major nonconforming habitable structure (one built



                                                                      230










             prior to the CCCL or 50-foot setback permitting requirements) can be protected with a seawall or other

             protective structure if it is vulnerable to erosion from a five-year storm. A higher threshold of storm

             damage vulnerability may be required to achieve relocation, although an applicant for an erosion control

             structure permit is required to demonstrate that relocation of the habitable structure to be protected

             is economically and physically unfeasible.




             Options for Enhancina the State's Coastal Land Acauisition Programs


             The major gaps in the state's current land acquisition programs that limit their effectiveness in

             preserving the natural storm protective features of the coastal environment include: 1) the lack of

             explicit authorization for the Florida Communities Trust matching grants program to finance acquisition

             of land for storm hazard mitigation; 2) the conflicts between acquisition criteria under the CARL and

             Preservation 2000 programs and those that should be applied to promote acquisition of land to achieve

             storm hazard mitigation; and 3) similar limits in the statutory language authorizing conveyance of

             conservation easements and development rights.




                     Dotion 5:       Amend the authorizing legislation for the Florida Communities Trust so that

                                     storm hazard mitigation is explicitly listed as an objective to be attained through

                                     the Trust's matching grants program for local land acquisition.




             While the 1993 ELMS bill creates a mechanism for local governments to identify and rank coastal

             properties for acquisition through state land acquisition programs, including lands that would contribute

             to storm hazard mitigation, the bill does not directly amend the legislation authorizing use of P2000

             funds by the FCT program (ï¿½380.510(7) FS). Thus there is no formal legal linkage between the

             ranking lists to be developed by local governments and the criteria to be used in awarding FCT grants.







                                                                 231










                          Option 6:       Create a separate dedicated source of state funds for acquiring parcels of

                                          coastal property primarily with the objective of mitigating public losses from


                                          storms.




                   Constraints imposed by statutory acquisition criteria for P2000 bonds and for the CARL Program

                   appear to limiteffective use of these means to acquire significant land primarily to attain storm hazard

                   mitigation policy objectives, despite revision of those criteria by the 1993 ELMS bill to include storm

                   hazard mitigation. Property that may provide significant local storm hazard mitigation benefits by

                   preserving a wetland or beach and dune system may not have sufficient statewide environmental

                   resource or recreational benefits to be ranked high enough for acquisition under the CARL Program.

                   The P2000 criteria may limit use of funds allocated to the FCT program, even if Option 5 is taken and

                   the FCT acquisition criteria are amended to include storm hazard mitigation. In other cases, property

                   which is subject to high rates of erosion may be viewed as a management liability in the context of

                   other CARL acquisition goals, and yet be an important parcel to acquire to achieve storm hazard

                   mitigation objectives.




                   Creation of a separate funding source for acquiring lands for coastal storm hazard mitigation would

                   remove the required linkage to protection of environmentally or recreationally important uses that is

                   central to P2000 and CARL. It would could also contribute to implementation of Option 1.




                   Financing a separate funding source may be constrained, however, by the language of ï¿½ 17 Article IX

                   of the State Constitution, which has served as the authority for issuing all bonds used to acquire state

                   lands for conservation and recreation purposes since 1963. If separate bonding authorization is

                   required, a substantial public education effort may be needed to generate support both for incurring

                   state indebtedness and for removing real estate from the local tax base for such a purpose.





                                                                    232










                    Option 7:       Develop a state inventory of coastal properties that would be ranked highly for

                                    acquisition to achieve storm hazard mitigation policy objectives.




            Establishing a separate fund for acquiring land for storm hazard mitigation as envisioned in Option 5

            will require an estimate of how much money is likely to be needed for such purposes. While the ELMS

            bill did direct DCA to assist local governments in preparing their own lists of priorities for acquiring

            coastal lands, there is no mechanism in place to prepare a central, statewide list of parcels that would

            be ranked highly for acquisition to achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives. Such an effort might

            build on the local government inventories, but there may be opportunities to build on other inventories

            as well, such as the one conducted by the State Division of Beaches and Shores in 1991 of

            undeveloped coastal properties.




            Parcels identified in that study as having 500 feet or more of contiguous undeveloped shoreline could

            be analyzed to determine their vulnerability to storm damage (flooding, storm surge, and erosion), the

            potential impact acquisition might have on preserving natural storm protection features and on altering

            development patterns and reducing the amount of property and numbers of lives at risk. A project

            team with the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems at Florida Atlantic University and

            Florida International University is developing an analogous process for assessing developed parcels that

            are damaged by coastal storms (see Metzger et al., 1993). The DBS inventory, however, is limited

            to properties within the jurisdiction of the CCCL permit program, i.e. located in counties with

            predominantly sandy shorelines fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf, or the Straits of Florida.




                    Option 8:       Amend the statutory authorization for the conveyance of development rights

                                    covenants and conservation easements to explicitly allow such transactions for

                                    the purpose of achieving storm hazard mitigation objectives.





                                                              233










                  Under current law, conveyance of easements or development rights appears to be authorized only

                  where the easement or covenant would protect significant natural resource or recreational values.

                  Thus amendment of the applicable statutes (ï¿½ ï¿½704.06(l) and 193.501(6)(h) FS) may be necessary

                  to apply these acquisition techniques where storm hazard mitigation would be the primary benefit.




                  The urgenc7-of taken such action should be tempered, however, by the constraints to using such

                  techniques in coastal settings. As noted in the discussion of constraints to use of less-than-fee

                  acquisition, the difference in price between acquiring an easement or development right that will

                  accomplish storm hazard mitigation objectives and acquiring full title to the property may be small.

                  The types of land uses that have been found most amenable to sale of easements and development

                  rights have been mainly agriculture and silviculture. There are likely to be few instances where

                  property used for such purposes would be a high acquisition priority for coastal storm hazard

                  mitigation.




                  Options for Enhancina Economic Incentives


                  Experience form other states suggests that the state can play a role in promoting greater use of the

                  Upton-Jones Program under the National Flood Insurance Act which serves as an economic incentive

                  for property owners to demolish or relocate structures that are on the verge of succumbing to the

                  forces of beach erosion and wave damage.




                          Option 9:      Obtain authorization from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

                                         to certify structures as subject to imminent collapse under Upton-Jones

                                         provisions of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and actively promote the

                                         program in cooperation with local governments. Apply FEMA imminent collapse

                                         criteria rather than local condemnation criteria, and link the program to the

                                         state's coastal construction permitting program.



                                                                   234










             It appears from the experience of Massachusetts, Michigan, and North Carolina that availability of

             federal flood insurance money to cover the cost of demolition or part of the costs of relocation will be

             most attractive to property owners where the program is linked to strict enforcement of the state's

             coastal construction regulations under Chapter 161 FS and where the state assumes the role of

             certifying structures as subject to imminent collapse rather than relying on local code enforcement

             officers wtTo are reluctant to apply the lower-threshold Upton-Jones criteria. Florida has done neither

             to date. It should be noted, however, that proposed amendments to the NFIA would repeal the Upton-

             Jones Program and replace it with a general grants program to the states, based on 75% federal

             funding, under which buyouts would be permitted comparable to those under Upton-Jones.




             ALTER COASTAL ENVIRONMENT TO REDUCE
             VULNERABILITY TO STORMS


             State policies that have an impact on altering the coastal environment to reduce storm vulnerability

             include both the regulation of and financial support for beach erosion control initiatives. We have

             found no important gaps in the state's regulation of coastal armoring structures or in its policies

             governing state financial support for beach erosion control projects.




             The different rules that apply to protecting conforming and nonconforming structures along open sandy

             coasts under ï¿½ 161.041 FS attempt to strike a compromise between those major structures thomes,

             commercial buildings, etc.) that have not benefitted from the setback and construction design

             standards imposed under the CCCL and 50-foot setback permits programs and those that have. The

             different restrictions imposed under the state's dredge and fill regulations along interior and vegetated

             shorelines (Part VII, Chapter 403 FS) seem to be based on a legitimate distinction of vulnerability to


             ,coastal erosion forces.




             It has been argued that publicly-funded beach erosion control projects, including hard engineered

             structures such as seawalls and soft engineered projects such as beach restoration, give upland


                                                               235










                   property owners a false sense of security and therefore diminish the incentives to avoid occupying

                   areas subject to damage form coastal storms. The majority of such projects in Florida, however, are

                   associated with protecting areas that are already developed. While relocation is promoted in the State

                   Land Development Plan as the preferred strategy, the approach proposed by the FAU/FIU Joint Center

                   JMetzger et aL, 1993), which presents relocation as the strategy of last resort when beach restoration

                   is not economically justified, seems more consistent with the policy objectives stated in Chapter 161

                   FS. It implies, however, that a formal analysis of public and private costs and benefits be completed.



                   The principal constraint identified to implementing the state's program for addressing the state's beach

                   erosion problems is a shortage of resources to complete analysis of the remaining 40% of the state's

                   critically eroding shorelines.




                           Option 10:     Increase state funding allocated to the Department of Environmental Protection,

                                          Division of Beaches and Shores, for completing analysis of the remaining 97

                                          miles of critically eroding shorelines.




                   REDUCE VULNERABILITY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
                   TO STORM DAMAGE


                   The principal policy instruments that serve to reduce the vulnerability of privately-owned structures to

                   coastal storm damage are the construction standards imposed under the state's coastal construction

                   permitting programs and local building codes. Achievement of this policy objective is incomplete in

                   Florida for several reasons. Most importantly, regulations governing the design and construction of

                   habitable structures in areas susceptible to storm damage are not uniform within areas of comparable

                   risk across the state. Three other deficiencies limit effective achievement of this policy objective in

                   post-storm circumstances: 1) the high substantial damage threshold which applies to the state's

                   construction standards; 2) a shortage of qualified building inspectors who can enforce building codes

                   during the recovery phase; and 3) inadequate insurance coverage of individual structures for the costs


                                                                     236











            of rebuilding to current code requirements.




            Options for Enhancing Buildina Construction Standards


            The state's regulations governing coastal construction do not provide equal levels of storm hazard

            mitigation to all coastal areas. The CCCL and 50-foot setback construction standards administered

            by DBS under Chapter 161 FS apply only to sandy shorelines along the open coasts of the Gulf, the

            Atlantic Ocean, and the Straits of Florida. There is no comparable state protection of buildings and

            facilities along inland shores and areas with vegetated shorelines, including all but about 18 miles of

            shoreline in the eight Big Bend counties and the Florida Keys. Based on estimates of total shoreline

            developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1971), about 450 miles of the state's coastline (35%)

            are not covered by the DBS regulations.




            The Coastal Zone Protection Act      is designed to extend comparable storm damage protection to

            habitable structures in areas along vegetated coasts with FEMA-designated velocity zones (V-zones)

            -through local building codes governing construction within the Coastal Building Zone. The Coastal

            Building Zone also extends further landward than the CCCL. Local governments have allegedly not

            been uniformly diligent in enforcing the foundation and wind load requirements. In addition, the wind

            load and flood elevation standards required under the Coastal Zone Protection Act are no longer

            equivalent to those imposed by DBS, nor are they consistent with the wind load recommendations of

            FEMA following hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. Two options are possible: 1) extending state regulatory

            Jurisdiction to other areas subject to comparable risk; and 2) mandating the adoption of comparable

            standards as part of local building codes.




                    Or)tion 11:     Extend state regulation of habitable structure design standards to all tidal

                                    shorelines including vegetated shorelines and the shores of inland waters.





                                                              237










                   Current state regulations governing wind load and flood elevation construction standards for habitable

                   structures are linked to the authority in Chapter 161 FS to protect the beach and dune systems along

                   the state's sandy shorelines. While such areas are more vulnerable to erosion damage, they are not

                   significantly more susceptible to flooding and structural damage from storm surge or winds than are

                   areas of similar topography along vegetated and interior coastlines. Storm surge zones for Category

                   3 and higher storms extend much further landward than the CCCL in many areas of the state, and the

                   majority of the state is subject to basic wind speeds of 90 to 100 miles per hour. Hurricane Andrew

                   clearly demonstrated that wind damage can occur far landward of the CCCL.




                   The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 no doubt is evidence of an earlier decision to forego

                   extending state regulation to all areas of comparable risk. The administrative costs would be

                   significant, and there would be substantial political opposition to further direct state regulation of

                   construction practices. However, strengthening construction standards will not only enhance achieving

                   the state policy goal of protecting life and property, it will also contribute to minimizing the state's

                   costs of post-storm response and recovery.




                           Option 12:      Revise the State Minimum Building Code and the Coastal Zone Protection Act

                                           so as to require application of wind load design standards and flood elevation

                                           standards comparable    to those imposed in areas subject to state coastal

                                           construction permits.




                   If Option 11 is deemed infeasible, the alternative is to use existing mechanisms for mandating minimum

                   local building code standards. The State Minimum Building Code (Chapter 553 FS) applies to all local

                   governments who choose to regulate construction. Currently the statute directs local governments

                   to adopt one of four models. However, these differ in the extent and specificity of their standards for

                   wind load resistance. FEMA has recommended that the ASCE Standard 7 be adopted in all areas



                                                                     238










            subject to hurricane-force winds. This is the standard applied under the state's coastal construction

            permits. Herbert Saff ir 0 992) identifies the South Florida Building Code as the only one among the

            four models listed in Chapter 553 FS that applies this standard. He recommends use of the ASCE


            standard statewide.




            The Coastal Zone Protection Act (Chapter 161, Part 111, FS) applies to local building codes administered

            within the Coastal Building Zone which encompasses all areas containing V-zones designated by FEMA.

            The statute requires all local building codes to apply flood elevation requirements consistent with those

            required by FEMA for the V-zones. These standards are not as stringent as those imposed by the state

            within CCCL and 50-foot setback zones, however, because DBS uses a more conservative method for


            estimating 1 00-year storm flood elevations that are typically one to two feet higher than those

            developed by FEMA. Amending Part III of Chapter 161 to require use of the DBS method for

            calculating flood elevations would result in comparable protection for all areas subject to coastal

            flooding.




            Options for Enhancing Post-Storm Protection of Vulnerable Structures


            Pursuit of Options 11 or 12 will significantly advance the state policy objective of reducing the

            vulnerability of newly constructed buildings and facilities. However, application of the more protective

            standards to existing structures will occur only when major modification of the structure occurs. One

            of the primary circumstances in whichmajor modifications are made is when a structure sustains

            significant damage from a coastal storm. As noted above, there are three gaps in the current system

            that limit the opportunity to apply more protective standards in post-storm circumstances: 1) the high

            substantial damage threshold which applies to the state's construction standards; 2) a shortage of

            ,qualified building inspectors who can enforce building codes during the recovery phase; and 3)

            !inadequate insurance coverage of individual structures for the costs of rebuilding to current code

            requirements.



                                                               239











                          Option 13:     Lower the "substantial modification" threshold for requiring repaired or rebuilt

                                         habitable structures to meet design and construction standards seaward of the

                                         Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) or the 50-foot setback.




                  The substantial modification threshold that must be exceeded before a structure is required to be

                  rebuilt to code is higher for the state's construction standards under the CCCL and 50-foot setback

                  permitting programs than it is for local building codes and comparable regulations in most of the other

                  states we surveyed. Under the Coastal Zone Protection Act, whenever the costs of *cumulative

                  modifications over a 2-year period exceed 50% of the market value of a structure within the coastal

                  building zone, the owner must bring the entire structure into conformance with current building

                  standards. FEMA applies a similar standard to qualify for reinsuring a structure under the National

                  Flood Insurance Program, except that the FEMA threshold is not based on cumulative damage or


                  modifications.




                  The threshold   under the state's coastal construction permitting program is considerably different.

                  Existing major habitable structures can be remodeled or repaired after a storm without complying with

                  the 50-foot setback requirement, the CCCL permit conditions, or the 30-year setback so long as the

                  modified or repaired structure remains within the confines of the existing foundation and no

                  modification of the foundation is involved. According to DBS staff, there have been no cases where

                  a permit has been denied to rebuild on the existing foundation, even in several cases where the


                  foundation was on the active beach as the result of a storm.




                  A lower damage threshold for requiring conformance with the DBS construction standards would

                  increase the opportunities to reduce the number of habitable structures vulnerable to storm damage.

                  The Office of Policy and Planning of the former Department of Natural Resources has recommended

                  amending Chapter 161,053 FS so that DBS can require that private structures located within the 30-


                                                                    240










            year erosion projection area be rebuilt to the same standards that would apply to new structures if the

            structure were damaged more than 50% of its replacement value. This threshold could be lowered

            further by employing the damage basis applied under the Coastal Zone Protection Act. The impact

            could be further extended by applying the damage threshold to all habitable structures within the entire

            area seaward of the CCCL rather than limiting it to structures within the 30-year erosion projection


            area.





                    Option 14:      Support and participate in the effort by the Building Officials Association of

                                    Florida to deploy retired certified building inspectors and provide for mutual aid

                                    among municipalities in the wake of major disasters.




            'The post-storm window of opportunity to bring substantially damaged structures up to code so as to

            reduce their vulnerability to future storms is highly dependent on having enough building code

            enforcement personnel in the field immediately following a storm. This problem has been highlighted

            by federal Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams following both Hurricane Andrew and the March 1993

            storm. Similar problems may also arise for DBS following a large-scale, severe hurricane that strikes

            coastal areas subject to the CCCL and 50-foot setback permitting programs.




            The State Interagency Management Committee Winter Storm Task Force (1993) has recommended

            that DCA encourage local governments to participate in an emergency preparedness plan being

            developed by the Building Officials Association of Florida to deploy retired certified building inspectors

            and provide for mutual aid among municipalities. DBS may also benefit from participation in such a

            plan.




                    Option 15:      Promote adoption of proposed amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act

                                    that would provide holders of federal flood insurance with coverage for



                                                               241










                                           rebuilding in compliance with current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

                                           construction and elevation requirements.




                   An additional impediment to using post-storm circumstances as an opportunity to bring nonconforming

                   structures up to code is the lack of coverage in individual property and flood insurance policies for

                   upgrading a structure. Under the NFIP, federal flood insurance covers only repair or replacement of

                   the structure as insured. Many property insurance policies also do not include provisions for rebuilding


                   to current code.




                   Federal legislation introduced in 1993, the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (S.1405), would

                   provide holders of federal flood insurance with coverage for rebuilding in compliance with current NFIP

                   construction and elevation requirements (Florida Interagency Management Committee Winter Storm

                   Task Force, 1993).




                           Option 16:      Explore the potential for the state to require that private insurance carriers

                                           operating in the state provide coverage for rebuilding in compliance with state

                                           and local building codes as modified under Options 11 or 12.




                   Option 15 would provide a partial resolution     of the problem of inadequate insurance coverage for

                   bringing storm-damaged structures up to code, but likely would not cover reconstruction in

                   conformance with state or local wind load and flood elevation requirements as envisioned in Options

                   11 and 12. The Hurricane Catastrophe Fund created by legislation enacted during the 1993 special

                   legislative session may offer a vehicle for requiring private insurance carriers to provide such coverage.




                   MANAGE DEVELOPMENT TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY
                   AND MINIMIZE STATE COSTS

                   Table 6.1 indicates that two of the state's policy storm hazard mitigation policy objectives are

                                                                      242










            furthered by policy instruments that manage the development and redevelopment of coastal land: 1)

            minimizing threats to life and property; and 2) minimizing state costs of planning for, responding to,

            and mitigating coastal storms. The array of state policy instruments contributing to these objectives

            is the most extensive for any of the objectives listed in Table 6.1, but they include many that

            contribute to policy objectives already discussed. We present specific policy options here for each of

            the major policy instrument categories.




            Options for Enhancing the State's Coastal Construction Regulations


            Virtually all of the state regulatory programs governing construction and site development can help

            minimize the threats and costs of coastal storm damage as well as the goal of protecting coastal

            environmental resources and the objective of reducing vulnerability of buildings and facilities. Options

            1 through 4 presented above will also apply to the objectives of managing coastal land development

            and redevelopment to minimize the threats and costs of storm damage. We have identified no others

            that are needed to enhance achievement of these objectives.




            Options for Enhancina the State's Planning and Reaulatory Mandates


            Our review of the storm hazard mitigation elements of county and municipal comprehensive plans

            demonstrated that the system of translating state policy objectives for hazard mitigation to localities

            is not working well and that considerable leverage for the purpose of achieving state policy objectives

            has been lost. We found no community among 18 counties and municipalities analyzed that met all

            of the 9J-5 FAC requirements pertinent to coastal storm hazard mitigation, and in many instances the

            plans contained only broad and general statements referencing an intent to consider a policy at some

            future date. Implementation was sometimes linked to ordinances and regulations whose content was

            left unspecified. When queried, local planning officials frequently could not identify a specific LDR that

            is applied to achieve policies such as directing populations away from coastal high hazard areas or

            limiting development or public expenditures in such areas. In addition, several of the policy options



                                                               243










                   presented below require a means to review and approve amendments to local comprehensive plans and

                   the LDRs for implementing them.




                           Option 17:      Provide a means for correcting deficiencies in the coastal elements of local

                                           comprehensive plans and assuring their implementation through appropriate

                                           local land development regulations (LDRs).




                   As currently structured, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process for local comprehensive

                   plans does not provide a reliable mechanism for correcting deficiencies or enhancing the utility of such

                   plans for consistently achieving state storm hazard mitigation goals and objectives. DCA review is

                   confined to the amendments that local governments choose to initiate.            DCA is also explicitly

                   constrained from reviewing local LDRs except under vary narrow circumstances where a substantially

                   affected individual initiates review of a specific LDR that is alleged to be inconsistent with the

                   provisions of a local comprehensive plan.




                   The political feasibility of providing a new opportunity for DCA review of local comprehensive plans

                   other than through the EAR process may be low, while the potential for mandating specific LDRs may

                   be even more remote. Yet the absence of such mechanisms greatly diminishes the potential to make

                   any significant progress in achieving the state's objectives of minimize the threats and costs of coastal

                   storm damage. It also will severely constrain implementation of the post-storm redevelopment

                   strategies proposed by the FAU/FIU Joint Center (Metzger et al., 1993) for implementation by the

                   Division of Beaches and Shores (see especially policies D.1 - D.8, p. 27).




                   Options for Enhancina the State's Land Acouisition Programs

                   Because land acquisition has the potential to influence the development process by removing land from

                   the real estate market, Options 5 through 9, presented under the policy objective of preserving the


                                                                      244










            natural storm protective features    of the coastal environment are also important to attaining the

            objectives of minimizing the threats and costs of storm damage. Two additional options are presented

            here as Options 17 and 18: one addresses post-storm acquisition opportunities and the other the use

            of purchase and resale as a means to reduce the density of development in areas subject to storm


            hazards.




                    Ootion 18:      Provide statutory authority for expedited acquisition of coastal property under

                                    post-storm conditions.




            The CARL processes for project identification, ranking, and implementation are not geared to rapid

            execution in a post-storm situation. If CARL is to be used for post-storm hazard mitigation acquisition,

            explicit provisions for expedited acquisition may be needed unless those in ï¿½253.025 FS are deemed

            to be adequate. If a new fund is to be established for storm hazard land acquisition as presented in

            Option 6, it will need provisions for such expedited initiatives.




                    Or)tion 19:     Give the Florida Communities Trust the authority and a mandate to acquire and

                                    replat land and resell it to achieve density reduction objectives.




            The ELMS III Committee recommended that the State Legislature encourage state programs to utilize

            liess-than-fee acquisition techniques for preservation purposes including the purchase and resale or

            leaseback of land with restrictions. This option represents a compromise between purchase of fee-

            simple property or development rights, both of which may be capital intensive, and severe regulatory

            restrictions on development, which may be held to be takings. Purchase, resubdividing, and resale is

            recommended in the FAU/FI1J Joint Center study as a strategy to be employed by local governments.

            However, the limited leverage of the state on such practices by local governments (see preceding

            section on planning and regulatory mandates) suggests that use of this strategy by state agencies may



                                                               245










                    also be desirable. The California Coastal Conservancy (see Chapter 5) has been successful in

                    purchasing coastal property and reselling it after resubdividing for lower density.



                    The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) is authorized to acquire land in fee-simple and hold it for up to

                    five years, but it must eventually resell or otherwise convey it to a state or local agency or a qualified

                    nonprofit organization. There is, therefore, no apparent authorization for the FCT to resell or lease land

                    to the private sector after resubdividing it or imposing development restrictions, such as specific

                    setbacks, density restrictions, etc. that might contribute to achieving state storm hazard mitigation

                    objectives.




                    Options for Enhancina the State's Coastal Infrastructure Policies


                    As discussed in preceding sections, Florida's policies governing public expenditures for new and

                    reconstructed infrastructure are now primarily linked to those contained in the coastal elements of local

                    government comprehensive plans under ï¿½380.27(2) FS and ï¿½9J-5.012 FAC. Because of differences

                    between these provisions and the state's former policies, contained in Governor Graham's 1981

                    executive order (E.O. 81-105) as amended in 1986, the substance of the state's policy has been

                    changed. If objectives contained in the executive order are to be attained and the linkage to local

                    comprehensive planning maintained, amendments are required to Chapter 380 FS and 9J-5. In the

                    alternative, the state may consider returning to a centralized state policy that is uncoupled from the

                    local planning process. Such a policy would permit the state to make its own judgments as to what

                    circumstances warranted expenditure of state funds for infrastructure that will create potentially

                    greater state liability for the costs of storm damage.




                    Additional problems exist with the current system because of uncertainty over how the transition

                    should be made by state agencies in following the executive order as opposed to the dictates of

                    Chapter 380 FS. The entire process is further limited by the absence of a formal process for


                                                                      246










            coordinating such reviews among state agencies.




                    Option 20:      Amend Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9.1-5 of the

                                    Florida Administrative Code governing the coastal elements of local government

                                    comprehensive plans to achieve greater consistency with the storm hazard

                                    mitigation policy objectives articulated in E.O. 81-105 governing post-storm

                                    redevelopment and federally-designated Coastal Barrier Resources System units.




            While Governor Graham's executive order, as amended by his letter of August 1986 to state agencies,

            explicitly includes post-storm redevelopment in its constraints on state agency expenditures for coastal

            infrastructure, ï¿½380-27(2) FS only governs "projects which increase the capacity of infrastructure."

            Thus as the provisions of E.O. 81-105 are phased out, state agencies will only be constrained from

            supporting post-storm replacement of infrastructure where the replaced facilities are intended to have

            increased capacity that might induce further growth that is consistent with that called for in a local

            government's comprehensive plan. Under ï¿½380.27(2) FS there is no formal requirement to attempt

            to relocate state-financed infrastructure that is vulnerable to coastal storm damage or to consider

            withholding state support where that vulnerability cannot be reduced.




            Governor Graham's 1986 letter extended the reach of the 1981 executive order by explicitly stating

            -that "[t1he state should not pay to expand infrastructure or economic development in any designated

            unit of the federal Coastal Barrier Resource System" (CBRS units). This policy is not preserved through

            -the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) FS since there are no requirements in Chapter 163 FS or 9J-5.012 FAC

            regarding CBRS units. This deficiency could be rectified by amending ï¿½380.27 FS to include a

            consistent state policy similar to that governing bridges to barrier islands that parallels the language

            of Graham's 1986 directive.






                                                              247










                           Ootion 21:      Amend Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5 of the

                                           Florida Administrative Code so as to mandate use of a single definition of the

                                           Coastal High Hazard Area by all local governments and state agencies that is

                                           consistent with risk levels that are explicit or implicit in other state policies

                                           governing natural hazards.




                   Chapter 380.27(2) FS altered the reach of the state's coastal infrastructure policy from barrier islands

                   to areas designated as Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHAs). However, neither Chapter 163 FS nor 9J-

                   5 FAC establishes a uniform definition of the CHHA to be used by local governments. The result has

                   been significant variation in the geographic reach of the state's coastal infrastructure policy. The 1993

                   ELMS bill language urging use of the Category 1 storm evacuation zone as the definition of the CHHA

                   for planning purposes is ambiguous since it is not binding on the most important planning issues tied

                   to the CHHA: mitigation, redevelopment, and coastal infrastructure. Our analysis also demonstrates

                   that a CHHA linked to the Category 1 evacuation zone will be less protective in many parts of the state

                   for areas along open sandy shores than one tied to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCU. A

                   CHHA linked to the Category 3 evacuation zone combined with the CCCL would be more consistent

                   with other state and federal policies concerned with coastal storm damage which target hazards with

                   1 00-year return frequencies.




                           Option 22:      Initiate action through the Office of the Governor to clarify the conditions under

                                           which state agencies are to adhere solely to the provisions of ï¿½380.27(2) of

                                           the Florida Statutes as opposed to Executive Order 81-105.




                   Governor Graham's 1986 letter refers to the need for policies to guide agency actions during the

                   "phase-in period of new growth management measures." However, the closing of the letter states that

                   "Whese policies ... shall remain in effect until local governments implement plans, programs, and



                                                                      248










             regulations that conform with or exceed the measures outlined above." No mechanism is in place to

             certify whether local government comprehensive plans and regulations conform with the intent of the

             1981 executive order. As noted in the preceding section of planning and regulatory mandates, the

             state currently has no authority to review the substance of local land development regulations.

             Guidance from the Governor's Office is needed on how to effect this transition.




                    Option 23:      Establish a formal process for coordinating state agency review of coastal


                                    infrastructure decisions.




             There is no mechanism in place for assuring consistent or coordinated review by state agencies under

             either E.O. 18-105 or ï¿½380.27(2) FS. The State Coastal Management Program within DCA prepares

             an annual report on the state's coastal infrastructure policy, but to our knowledge it has no means of

             formally monitoring, much less coordinating, such decisions. Massachusetts, which adopted a coastal

             infrastructure policy in 1980 that is similar to that contained in Florida's 1981 executive order, has

             been successful in implementing the policy through three gubernatorial administrations (see Chapter

             5).  The Massachusetts State Coastal Management Program coordinates the program through

             memoranda of agreement with applicable state agencies and formal guidelines on implementing the

             policy.




                    Option 24:      Repeal ï¿½380.27(2) of the Florida Statutes, and return to a centralized state

                                    decisionmaking process that assesses the appropriateness of state expenditures

                                    for coastal infrastructure based on state policy objectives, including minimizing

                                    short-term and long-term public costs of coastal storm damage.




             The problems inherent to achieving state policy objectives through local planning and land development

             regulations can be entirely avoided by returning to a capital investment decisionmaking process that



                                                              249










                   is keyed to state interests. Such a process would not prevent local governments from subsidizing

                   provision of coastal infrastructure, but it could be structured so that all liability for long-term

                   maintenance and repair, including post-storm reconstruction, would lie with the local government

                   and/or private sector entities that choose to build the facilities initially. Such a policy would contribute

                   to reducing both the risks and the costs of storm damage to the extent that it discourages development

                   in areas prone to coastal storms. Where development proceeds despite withholding of state financial

                   support, the state's objective of allocating costs t    o the private sector in proportion to risk is still


                   achieved.




                   One element of the state's infrastructure policy remains unambiguous and independent of the

                   provisions of local comprehensive plans. The barrier island bridge policy contained in ï¿½380.27(2) FS

                   has reportedly operated successfully. However, its scope is very restricted and does not offer equal

                   comparable constraints to develop    ment of interior islands which are subject to threats from coastal

                   storms that are largely similar to those on barrier islands.




                           Option 25:       Extend the state's barrier island bridge policy to all unbridged coastal islands.




                   Limitation of Florida's current policy (ï¿½380.27(l) FS) restricting state expenditures for bridges and

                   causeways to unbridged islands that qualify as barrier islands does not provide equal protection to all

                   hazardous coastal islands. In areas such as the southwest coast, for instance, the storm surge and

                   wind damage vulnerability of many sheltered islands is not significantly different from that of barrier

                   islands that front the Gulf. Thus the risks to public safety, private property, and public infrastructure

                   are comparable as are the potential costs incurred by state and local governments in planning for,

                   responding to, and mitigating the damage from coastal storms.







                                                                       250











            Options for Enhancing Education and Information


            The principal education and information policy instrument that may contribute to minimizing the threats

            and costs of coastal storm damage, aside from technical assistance in concert with other state

            programs, is use of a hazard disclosure mechanism to alert the purchasers of coastal property to the

            hazards of such sites. The current notice requirements governing the state's CCCL permit program

            do not provide direct notice to individuals contemplating purchase of coastal property that is prone to

            coastal storm damage.




                    Option 26:      Enact legislation modelled on the proposed Massachusetts bill that would

                                    require early and accurate notice to prospective buyers of property within some

                                    clearly defined coastal hazard area.




            The Massachusetts Coastal Management Program has sponsored state legislation requiring notification

            of prospective purchasers of residential real estate of coastal flooding and erosion hazards by sellers

            and real estate agents. It is designed to avoid the shortcomings of similar notice requirements that

            have been tried in California for earthquake risk zones but have been ineffective, in part because of

            the late timing and form of the notice given (see Chapter 5). There is also a lender notice requirement

            under the National Flood Insurance Program, and in North Carolina and South Carolina. North

            Carolina's is linked to its coastal permitting program, while South Carolina requires notification during

            real estate transactions. Aside from an analysis of the California notice requirement, we have found

            little information on the effectiveness of such measures. North Carolina's appears to be motivated at

            least in part to limit the liability of the Coastal Resources Commission which administers the state

            permitting program.




            REDUCE VULNERABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
            INFRASTRUCTURE TO STORM DAMAGE


            Policy instruments that limit development in coastal areas subject to storm damage will also serve to


                                                               251











                   reduce the vulnerability of public facilities and infrastructure if the result is to limit the extent to which

                   new facilities and infrastructure are built in hazardous areas. Thus policy options focused on coastal

                   land acquisition, local government planning mandates, and the state's coastal infrastructure policies

                   will also contribute to achieving this policy objective. Relevant policy options include Options 5

                   through 9, 17 through 19, 2 1, and 25. One additional option is presented here concerning the recently

                   created Hurricane Catastrophe Fund.




                            Option 27:      Require that the cost-effectiveness of relocation of infrastructure vulnerable to

                                            coastal storm damage be assessed as a condition to any grants made from the

                                            Hurricane Catastrophe Fund for protecting local infrastructure.




                   The Hurricane Catastrophe Fund will provide grant funds to local governments, state agencies, and

                   nonprofit charitable organizations for projects to protect local infrastructure from hurricane damage.

                   While such grants will contribute to this policy objective, they may better achieve this objective and

                   others if applicants are required to evaluate the option of relocating the vulnerable infrastructure.




                   ALLOCATE PUBLIC COSTS TO PRIVATE SECTOR
                   IN PROPORTION TO RISK


                   Few of the state's existing policies or programs offer the potential to more equitably allocate the public

                   costs of storm hazard mitigation to those in the private sector who choose to occupy areas prone to

                   coastal storm damage. Where local governments create special districts to pay the local share of

                   beach erosion control projects that are partially supported by the state and federal governments, this

                   objective is roughly attained. Where federal, state, and local funds are withheld for constructing and

                   repairing infrastructure that supports development in areas subject to coastal storm damage, private

                   property owners are forced to assume a higher proportion of the costs they otherwise impose on the

                   public sector.




                                                                        252










            A strategy that could be employed to achieve this objective, and the broader goal of minimizing the

            public costs of storm damage, would be to assess property owners for all of the public costs of

            planning for, responding to, and mitigating coastal storm damage, in accordance with the risks posed

            by the uses people make of land that is susceptible to such storms. Two options are outlined here.

            One builds upon two recent legislative initiatives that created the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and the

            Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Assistance Trust (EMPAT) Fund. The other involves

            creation of regional special purpose districts to provide storm hazard planning and management

            services based on fees tied to different risk zones.




                   Ootion 28:      Impose a risk-based surcharge on all commercial and residential property

                                   insurance policies to cover the costs of planning for, responding to, and

                                   mitigating coastal storms.




            Prior to creation of the EMPAT fund, virtually all state emergency management costs, other than those

            covered by federal assistance under the Disaster Relief (Stafford) Act, have been funded from the state

            general fund. Thus members of the public who live in less hazardous areas of the state have subsidized

            planning, recovery, response, and mitigation initiatives for those who live in areas more prone to

            disasters. The EMPAT Fund, created during the 1993 session of the State Legislature, imposes a flat,

            annual surcharge on property insurance policies sold in the state to raise additional funds for such

            purposes: $2 per residential policy and $4 per commercial policy. Proceeds are to be used to

            supplement existing general revenue funds for state relief assistance for non-federally declared

            disasters, administration of state and local emergency management programs, and grants for projects

            to enhance emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.




            While the EMPAT Fund generates more revenue, it does nothing about the inequitable fashion by which


            s
            state emergency management services are funded. An approach similar to the surcharge could be



                                                             253











                   employed, however, to cover all of the state (and perhaps local) costs of emergency preparedness,

                   response, recover, and mitigation tied to coastal storms. To achieve the policy objective of allocating

                   public costs in accordance with risks imposed by private sector actors, the surcharge would have to

                   be based on some measure of risk. Such a measure might be derived from the formula being

                   developed for assessing premiums against property insurance companies in the state for financing the

                   Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, which was created during the 1993 special legislative session. That

                   formula is to be developed on a zipcode basis through an analysis of simulated storm events to predict

                   damage estimates based on wind speed, angle of approach, terrain, types of construction, and other


                   factors.




                           Option 29:      Establish regional hurricane mitigation districts as a means of coordinating and

                                           providing the emergency management services necessitated by hurricanes and

                                           other severe storms and for assessing the costs for those functions on the basis


                                           of relative risk.




                   One of the major shortcomings of Option 28 is that not all property is covered by property insurance.

                   However, it has the benefit of using a taxing vehicle that has already been legitimized. An alternative

                   model that would reach all property owners is one modeled in part on the regional water management

                   districts which are financed by ad valorem taxes based on a uniform millage rate within each district.

                   The water management districts have set a precedent, supported by state case law, that allows the

                   legislature to allocate a state function to special districts. However, the millage rate within a district

                   must be constant. Thus a risk-based system might be designed so that individual district boundaries

                   are defined by broad categories of risk (perhaps some combination of SLOSH storm surge zones and

                   hurricane wind frequency zones).



                   It is our understanding that such districts could contract with other state agencies to provide specific


                                                                      254










            services. Therefore, it is possible to create a system that maintains the central functions of the

            Division of Emergency Management (DEM) within the Department of Community Affairs, while

            assigning other functions to the regional hurricane mitigation districts that are more effectively

            accomplished at that scale. The ad valorem taxes raised by the districts could be used to finance all

            contracted DEM services and those of the districts that are connected with preparedness, response,

            recovery, and mitigation of coastal storms and hurricanes. These might include the state share of

            federal ï¿½404 hazard mitigation grants and ï¿½409 hazard mitigation plans as well as the funds for a

            dedicated storm mitigation land acquisition program such as that described in Option 6.




                                              FORGING A FEASIBLE STRATEGY




            We have presented a menu of options in the preceding section that spans a broad range from fine-

            tuning regulatory programs to a radi cal restructuring of how storm hazard management is administered

            and funded. As we note in the preface, most initiatives that would enhance attaining the goals of

            protecting coastal environmental resources and protecting life and property require additional

            intervention by the state, either through planning and regulatory mandates to local governments or

            through direct regulation or manipulation of the development of coastal lands prone to storm damage.

            If new regulatory and land acquisition initiatives are avoided entirely, the most the state can do is

            attempt to limit its costs by transferring them to those who choose to occupy lands that are at greatest

            risk of coastal storm damage. The resultant increases in the costs of living and working in hazardous

            coastal areas may deter development in, and promote retreat from, the most hazardous locations. If

            the cost increases are not sufficient to motivate changes in behavior, the state will, at the least, have

            reduced its costs and more equitably allocated the costs it must bear to those who incur them.



            A feasible strategy for enhancing achievement of the state's storm hazard mitigation goals must take

            account of the constraints posed by the physical and social environment. As we have demonstrated



                                                              255











                   here, policy instruments that focus on development will be constrained by the extent to which coastal

                   land has already been subdivided and built upon. Policies that target the post-storm window of

                   opportunity are constrained by the infrequency of such opportunities, the small and sometimes

                   discontinuous areas that are affected, the brief interval of the opportunity, and the great reluctance

                   of people to abandon their financial and emotional investments in coastal property. New initiatives are

                   also constrained by political forces that oppose state government intervention in land use

                   decisionmaking by local governments and the private sector and, perhaps, by a limited political

                   constituency that views storm hazard mitigation as a priority for investment of public resources.




                   In the final sections that follow, we characterize configurations of policy options that can contribute

                   to advancement of the state's storm hazard mitigation goals as 1) fine-tuning, 2) incremental change,

                   and 3) policy innovations. Fine-tuning of existing statutes, regulations, and programs will generally

                   have modest impacts.        Some    of the incremental changes, however, may yield substantial

                   enhancements over current policies and programs. The most significant improvements, however, will

                   require innovations that necessitate substantial changes in the allocation of public resources or in the

                   role of state government in influencing the behavior of its citizens.




                   PROTECTING COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES


                   Our analysis suggests that greater protection of coastal resources can be partly accomplished through

                   a combination of fine-tuning of existing statutes (Option 5) and incremental changes to current

                   regulations (Options 1-3), land acquisition mechanisms (Options 7 and 8), economic incentives for

                   relocating imminently endangered structures (Option 9), and state expenditures for analyzing critically

                   eroding beaches (Option 10). Substantial gains in achieving this goal, however, will require two major

                   policy innovations: 1) establishing a separate and dedicated source of funding for acquiring lands to

                   achieve storm hazard mitigation objectives (Option 6); and 2) requiring the relocation of habitable

                   structures at sites with receding shorelines before they interfere with natural beach processes and



                                                                     256










            intrude upon the sovereign beach (Option 4).




            PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY


            Enhancing protection of life and property from the hazards of coastal storms will require policy

            initiatives focused primarily on two objectives: 1) reducing the vulnerability of private buildings and

            -facilities; and 2) managing the development and redevelopment of land. Current policies that address

            -the third objective under this goal, altering the coastal environment to protect life and property, appear

            adequate. Progress on the first objective may be more feasible because it involves incremental changes

            -to existing state regulatory and funding programs. Significant advances on the second objective will

            require a substantial departure from recent views of the state's role in guiding and influencing land use

            planning and regulation.




            ]Reducing the Vulnerability of Buildings and Facilities

            Extension of the state's regulation of design and construction standards to all areas of the state's

            coasts (Option 11) coupled with revisions to the state's mandates governing local building codes

            (Option 12) can resolve the problem of inconsistent protection of habitable structures that face

            comparable risks from coastal storms. Effective application of these standards under post-storm

            conditions can be increased by incremental change to the substantial improvement/damage threshold

            under the state's coastal construction regulatory programs (Option 13), expanded capacity to enforce

            building codes in post-storm circumstances (Option 14), and initiatives to assure that property owners

            hold adequate insurance to cover bringing substantially damaged structures up to code (Options 15

            and 16). Option 16, which suggests employing the leverage generated by creation of the Hurricane

            'Catastrophe Fund, represents a more significant innovation that will require further study and, perhaps,

            substantial political leadership.







                                                                257












                   Managing Development and Redevelopment to Minimize Threats


                   Fine-tuning of the CARL land acquisition process may marginally enhance its applicability in post-storm

                   circumstances (Option 18), but the more radical step of creating a separate, dedicated source of funds

                   for storm hazard land acquisition (Option 6) appears essential if purchase of fee-simple property rights

                   is to have any substantial impact on the development or redevelopment of coastal land.




                   Incremental changes to the state's barrier island bridge policy (Option 25) would provide more

                   consistent state policy governing one form of growth-inducing infrastructure, but the current dichotomy

                   between the state's earlier infrastructure policy, set forth in Governor Graham's 1981 executive order,

                   and the policy established through 1985 amendments to Chapter 380 FS, necessitate more substantial

                   changes if a consistent and effective state policy governing coastal infrastructure is to be achieved.




                   Absent any change to Chapter 380 FS, clarification is needed from the Governor's Office on the

                   present status of the 1981 executive order (Option 22), and a formal process is needed to coordinate

                   state agency decisions on coastal infrastructure (Option 23). If the state is to rely entirely on the

                   mechanism defined in Chapter 380 FS, and there is a commitment to using that process to achieve

                   state policy objectives, a combination of marginal and innovative policy changes will be required.

                   Incremental changes are needed in the statutes and regulations governing the coastal elements of local

                   comprehensive plans (Options 20 and 21) to achieve a consistent statewide policy that includes policy

                   objectives defined in the earlier executive order. To be effective, however, these must be coupled with

                   significant changes in the state's authority to mandate amendments to local comprehensive plans and

                   adoption of local land development regulations that will achieve storm hazard mitigation goals (Option

                   17). A third option, which also represents a major shift in current policy, is to return to a centralized

                   state policy that is uncoupled from the local planning process (Option 24). Such a policy would permit

                   the state to make its own judgments as to what circumstances warranted expenditure of state funds

                   for infrastructure that will create potentially greater state liability for the costs of storm damage.



                                                                     258










             Two other options which constitute entirely new initiatives may further contribute to the state's ability

             to influence the development of land so as to minimize the threats posed by coastal storms: 1)

             mandating provision of hazard disclosure information to prospective purchasers of property in

             hazardous coastal areas (Option 26); and 2) directing the Florida Communities Trust to actively buy

             and sell real property to reduce development densities in areas prone to coastal storm damage (Option

             19).




             MINIMIZING THE PUBLIC COSTS OF STORM DAMAGE


             The options listed for achieving the objective of minimizing the threats of coastal storm damage

             through managing the development and redevelopment of coastal land (Options 17-26) will have similar

             impacts on reducing the public costs that result from such development and redevelopment. Most of

             these options will also reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure by limiting the installation of

             infrastructure in areas most prone to coastal storm damage. Option 27, which fine-tunes provisions

             governing grants from the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, would also contribute to this policy objective.




             The greatest gap in the state's current array of policy instruments is the absence of effective means

             of allocating the public costs of coastal storms to those who incur them by occupying hazardous

             coastal lands. Options 28 and 29, both of which constitute major departures from current state

             policies, offer alternative means of addressing this gap. Option 28 is constrained by its linkage to

             property insurance policies which are not held by all owners of coastal property. Option 29 is more

             inclusive but will require significant further study and debate. Neither of these options need stand

             alone. They are complementary to all the other policy instruments and are best viewed as providing

             balance to a comprehensive set of policies that address all three of the state's storm hazard mitigation

             goals.







                                                               259












                                                    ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 6




                 1. These data evidently are limited to areas under the jurisdiction of the state's CCCL permitting
                 program. Thus, they exclude Monroe County, the Big Bend counties from Pasco north to Wakulla, and
                 portions of some other counties (e.g., Collier) that do not have sandy shorelines.





















































                                                                260











                                                   REFERENCES CITED




            American Society of Civil Engineers. 1990. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
                    New York, NY: The Society.

            Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. 1992. Floodolain Management 1992: State and Local
                    Proarams. Madison, WI: The Association.

            Bay County Planning Department. 1991. Bay County Comr)rehensive Plan. Panama City, FL: The
                    Department.

            Beaches 2000 Planning Group. 1988. Beaches 2000 Report to the Governor. Dover, DE: Delaware
                    Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

            Berke,  Philip R. and Timothy Beatley. 1993a. Planning for EarthQuakes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
                    Press.


            Berke,  Philip R. and Timothy Beatley. 1993b. "Reducing Natural Hazard Risks through Growth
                    Management: Federal and State Policy Experience."           Paper presented at the National
                    Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Philadelphia, PA, October 31.

            Berke,  Philip R. and Steven P. French. Forthcoming. "The Influence of State Planning Mandates on
                    Local Plan Quality." Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41 p.

            Benoit, Jeff. 1993. Massachusetts Coastal Management Program, Boston, MA. Telephone interview.
                    October 1.


            @Boland, Jerry D. 1993. Director, Taylor County Public Health Unit, Perry, FL. Personal interview,
                    December 16.


            Brock, 0. Greg. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands,
                    Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. July 28.

            Buchanan, David. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and
                    Parks, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. July 29.

            Burby, Raymond, Beverly Cigler, Steven French, and others. 1991. Sharing Environmental Risks: How
                    to Control Government's Losses in Natural Disasters. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

            Burby, Raymond J. and Linda C. Dalton. 1993. "State Planning Mandates and Coastal Management."
                    New Orleans, LA.: College of Urban and Public Affairs, University of New Orleans, Working
                    Paper No. 14.

            Busacca, Peggy. 1993. Director, Brevard County Planning Department, Melbourne, FL. Telephone
                    interview. August

            Chiu, T.Y. and Robert G. Dean. 1984.           Methodoloov on Coastal Construction Control Line
                    Establishment. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design Memorandum No. 84-6. Tallahassee,
                    FL: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores.










                  Chiu, T.Y. 1993. Florida State University, Florida Beaches and Shores Research Center, Tallahassee,
                          FL. Telephone interviews. April, July, and December.

                  Christie, Donna R. 1991. Florida Ocean and Coastal Law and Policy. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State
                          University College of Law.

                  Coats, Lisa. 1993. Monroe County, Florida, Department of Emergency Management. Telephone
                          interview. November 11.


                  Conger, Paul. 1994. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview.
                          Jarroary 19.

                  Deadman, Richard. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone
                          interview. July 27.

                  DeGrove, John. 1984. Land, Growth and Politics. Chicago, IL.: APA Planners Press.

                  Devereaux, Al. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores,
                          Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. December 30.

                  ELMS Coastal Management Working Group. 1992. Report to the ELMS Committee. Unpublished
                          memorandum. November 10.


                  Farr, James. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Coastal Management Program,
                          Tallahassee, FL. Personal and telephone interviews. June 22 and July 15.

                  Flack, Deborah E. 1993. Flack and Associates, Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. August 18.

                  Flood, Philip G. 1991. "Methodology for Evaluation of Identified Vacant Beachfront Property in
                          Florida." Department working document. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Natural
                          Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores.

                  Flood, Philip G. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores,
                          Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. July 26, 1993.

                  Florida Communities Trust. 1992. Annual Revort to the Governor and Legislature 1991-92.
                          Tallahassee, FL: The Trust.

                  Florida Communities Trust. 1993a. "Notice of Application Period." Notice to appear in June 18, 1993,
                          edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Tallahassee, FL: The Trust.


                  Florida Communities Trust. 1993b. "Preservation 2000 Bond Series 2A Funding Cycle Projects
                          Selected for Funding." Unpublished data sheet. Tallahassee, FL: The Trust.

                  Florida Communities Trust. 1993c. "Common Questions Concerning the Preservation 2000 Program."
                          Technical Assistance Bulletin #3. Tallahassee, FL: The Trust.

                  Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management. nd. Community Rating
                          System: A Comprehensive Approach to Floodplain Management. Tallahassee, FL.: The
                          Department.




                                                                   262










             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1986. Selective Public Acauisition of Floodprone Land and
                      Structures in a Post-Flood Situation. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1989. The State Land Development Plan. Tallahassee, FL:
                      The Department.

             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1990. Coastal Infrastructure Policy Update. Tallahassee, FL:
                      The Department.

             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1991. Coastal Infrastructure Policy Update. Tallahassee, FL:
                      Thd-Department.

             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1992. Coastal Infrastructure Policy Implementation Report.
                      Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1993a. Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report - A Report on
                      the State's Coastal Barrier Areas. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida  Department of Community Affairs. 1993b. FY 1993-94 Application Packet December 1993
                      Version. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida  Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management. 1993c. Draft Hazard
                      Mitioation Plan for the State of Florida. Tallahassee, FL.: The Department.

             Florida  Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores. 1993. Status of
                      Comorehensive Beach Manauement Plannina. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. 1990a. "Coastal Armoring
                      Policy." Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. 1990b. "Florida
                      Undeveloped Coastal Beach Resources Inventory Summary of Undeveloped Properties."
                      Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. 1992. Beach Conditions in
                      Florida. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. 1993. Draft copy of partially
                      revised Comorehensive Beach Manauement Plan. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. 1993. "Beach Access
                      Initiative." Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands. 1989. Untitled staff worksheet
                      prepared by "JHB." November 11. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands. 1993. Conservation and Recreation
                      Lands Annual Rer)ort 1993. Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

             Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Land Use Planning and Biological Services. 1992.
                      State Recreation and Parks Land Acauisition Prourarn Annual Rer)ort. Tallahassee, FL: The
                      Department.


                                                                  263











                   Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Policy and Planning. 1993. Beach Redevelopment.
                            Tallahassee, FL: The Department.

                   Florida Environmental Land Management Study Committee. 1993. Building Successful Communities.
                            Tallahassee, FL: The Committee.


                   Florida House Committee on Natural Resources. 1993. A Review of the Florida Communities Trust.
                            Tallahassee, FL: The Committee.

                   Florida Interagency Management Committee, Winter Storm Task Force. 1993. Final Regort.
                            Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Community Affairs.

                   Florida Joint Legislative Management Committee, Division of Economic and Demographic Research.
                            1992. Florida's Environmental Land Acauisition Proarams: A Review and Analysis of Policies
                            and Procedures. Tallahassee, FL: The Committee.

                   Foster,  Emmett R. 1992. "Thirty Year Erosion Projection in Florida: Project Overview and Status." In
                            Billy L. Edge (ed.), Coastal Engineering 1992 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International
                            Conference pp. 2057-2070. New York, NY.: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                   Foster,  Emmett R. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and
                            Shores, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. June 11.

                   Freshour, Peggy. 1993. Lee County, Florida. Telephone interview. August 2.

                   Frye, Chris. 1994. Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia. Telephone
                            interview. January 18.

                   Gluckman, David. 1994. The Florida Land Trust Association, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview.
                            January 19.

                   Gluckman, David and Clay Henderson. 199 1. "State Land Acquisition Programs." In Robert Hutchinson
                            (ed.), Land Preservation for Floridians. Tallahassee, FL: The Florida Land Trust Association.

                   Godschalk, David. 1987. "The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act: A New Federal Policy Task." In
                            Rutherford H. Platt, Sheila G. Pelczarski and Barbara K.R. Burbank leds.), Cities on the Beach -
                            Management Issues of Develor)ed Coastal Barriers. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.

                   Godschalk, David R., David J. Brower, and Timothy Beatley. 1989. Catastrophic Coastal Storms -
                            Hazard Mitioation and Development Management. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

                   Graham, Bob. 1981. Governor, State of Florida. Executive Order Number 81-105. September 4.

                   Graham, Bob. 1986. Governor, State of Florida. Letter Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department
                            of Community Affairs. August 8.

                   Green, Kirby. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores,
                            Tallahassee, FL. Personal interviews. June 22, July 14, August 18.

                   Grenell, Peter. 1989. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA. Memorandum to State
                            Coastal Conservancy. March 16.



                                                                       264










            Grenell, Peter. 1993. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA. Telephone interview.
                    October 15.


            Heber, John. 1993. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Environmental
                    Health, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. July 27.

            Hebert, Paul J., Jerry D. Jarrell, and Max Mayfield. 1993. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense
                    -United States Hurricanes of this Century (and Other Freouently Reauested Hurricane Facts).
                    Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service.

            Hernandez, Debra. 1993. South Carolina Coastal Council, Columbia, SC. Telephone interview. October
                    19.


            Huber, Harry. 1993. Collier County, Florida. Telephone interview. August 3.

            Hutchins, Mariah. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs,             Division of Emergency
                    Management, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. July 23.

            Janereth, Martin. 1993. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Great Lakes Shorelands Section,
                    Lansing, Mi. Telephone interview. October 20.

            Jarrell, Jerry D., Paul J. Hebert, and Max Mayfield. 1992. Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal
                    County Por)ulations from Texas to Maine. Washington, DC: National Technical Information
                    Service.


            Jones,  L. Douglas. 1993. Nassau County, Florida. Telephone interview. August 2.

            Knight  Caroline. 1994. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Coastal Management Program,
                    Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. January 10.

            Komar,  Paul D. 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

            Koutnik, Frank. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management,
                    Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. May 28.

            Kunreuther, Howard. 1976. "Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection." Public Policy 24: 227-261.

            Leatherman, Steven P. 199 1. "Coasts and Beaches." In G.A. Kiersch (Ed.), The Heritaae of Enaineerina
                    Geolony: The First Hundred Years, pp. 183-200. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of
                    America.


            Leitman, Steve. 1990. "Comments on Gulf County Comprehensive Plan and for Settlement
                    Agreement." Provided as a consultant to 1000 Friends of Florida. Tallahassee, FL.: unpublished
                    manuscript.

            Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1992a. "Guidance Concerning the Application
                    of Title 5 of the State Environmental Code and the Wetlands Protection Act in the Aftermath
                    of Major Coastal Storms." Boston, MA: The Department.

            Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1992b. "Storm Damage, Rebuilding
                    Structures in Barrier Beaches, Coastal Dunes and Coastal Beaches - Supplemental Information."
                    Boston, MA: The Department.


                                                            265










                   McCarron, Keith. 1993. "Florida Communities Trust Enters Third Funding Cycle." Florida Planning
                           (April): 5.

                   McDonald, Michael. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
                           Management, Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. May 28.

                   McKay, Patricia. 1993. 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. August.

                   Metzger, Patricia M. et al. 1993. Proposed Post-storm Redevelopment Policies and Management
                           Ornions for Florida's Beachfront Areas Phase One. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: FAU/FIU Joint Center
                           for Environmental and Urban Problems.


                   Murley, James. 1993. 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone and personal interviews.
                           June 22 and August 18.

                   Murray, M. 1993. Wakulla County, Florida, Office of Civil Defense. Telephone interview. December
                           1 .

                   National Research Council. 1990. Managina- Coastal Erosion. Washington, DC: National Academy
                           Press.


                   Nave, Robert. 1992. "Issue Paper on Post-Disaster Redevelopment." Tallahassee, FL.: Florida
                           Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management.

                   Nave, Robert. 1993. Director, Division of Emergency Management, Florida Department of Community
                           Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. January.

                   Nicholson, Jack. 1993. Florida Department of Insurance, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interviews.
                           December 20 and 21.


                   North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Division of Coastal
                           Management. 1988. Getting to the Beach A Report on the North Carolina Public Beach Access
                           Prouram 1981-88. Raleigh NC: The Department.

                   O'Connell, Daniel W. 1980. "Land Use and Growth Management Controls." In Earl J. Baker (ed.),
                           Hurricanes and Coastal Storms Papers Presented at a National Conference pp. 99-102.
                           Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant College.

                   Owens, David W. 1983. "Land Acquisition and Coastal Resource Management: A Pragmatic
                           Perspective," William and Mary Law Review 24: 625-667.

                   Owens, David W. 1985. "Coastal Management in North Carolina: Building a Regional Consensus."
                           Journal of the American Planning Association 51(3): 322-29.

                   Owens, David W. 1991. University of North Carolina Institute of Government, Chapel Hill, NC.
                           Telephone and personal interviews. May 30 and June 21.

                   Palm, Risa. 198 1. Real Estate Auents and S[)ecial Studies Zones Disclosure: The Resr)onse of California
                           Homebuyers to Earthquake Hazards Information. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science,
                           University of Colorado.

                   Peery, Anne. 1994. Florida Communities Trust, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. January 19.

                                                                     266










            Pineau, Kenneth. 1993. Collier County, Florida, Department of. Emergency Management. Telephone
                   interview. November 18.


            Platt, Rutherford, et al. 1992. Coastal Erosion - Has Retreat Sounded? Boulder, CO: University of
                   Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science.


            Pratt, Anthony. 1993, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
                   .Shoreline and Waterway Management Section, Dover, DE. Telephone interview. November 9.

            Raffington, Jasmin. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Coastal Management Program,
                   Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. August 5.

            Rothenberg, Daniel. 1993. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Resources
                   Management Division, Hartford, CT. Telephone interview. October 26.

            :Saffir, Herbert. 1992. "An Evaluation of Present-Day Hurricane Resistant Building Codes." Journal of
                   Coastal Research 8(2): 492-495.


            @Schmahl, George P. and Douglas W. Heatwole. 1989. "Coastal Barrier Island Management in Florida."
                   In Donald K. Stauble and Orville T. Magoon (editors), Barrier Islands: Process and Management.
                   Barrier Islands: Process and Management pp. 197-207. New York: American Society of Civil
                   Engineers.

            Shaw, Richard. 1993. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
                   Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC. Telephone interview. October 14.

            Simpson, R.H. and Miles B. Lawrence. 1971. Atlantic Hurricane Freguencies Along the U.S. Coastline.
                   NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-58. Fort Worth, TX: National Weather Service.

            Smalley, Len. 1993, City of Longboat Key, Florida, Telephone interview. August 3.

            Smith, Mary Kathryn. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone
                   interview. July 16.

            Smith, Mary Kathryn. 1994. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone
                   interview. January 3.

            Speights, Charles. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
                   Management, Tallahassee, FL. Personal and telephone interviews. May 12, July 16, September
                   14.


            Starrett, Ben. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
                   Coordination, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. December 22.

            Stronge, William B. 1993. Regional Research Associates, Boca Raton, FL. Personal interview. August
                   18.

            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study Regional Inventory Report: South
                   Atlantic - Gulf Renion, Puerto Rico and the Virain Islands. Atlanta, GA: The Corps.

            U.S. Department of Interior. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System - Executive
                   Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


                                                            267










                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management. Agency. 1992a. Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Rer)ort -
                          FEMA 955-DR-FL Hurricane Andrew. Atlanta, GA: The Agency.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992b. Building Performance: Hurricane Andrew in
                          Florida. Washington, DC: The Agency.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992c. Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report:
                          EEMA 952-DR-FL. Atlanta, GA: The Agency.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992d. Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report:
                          FEMA 966-DR-FL. Atlanta, GA.: The Agency.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Administration. 1992e. National Flood
                          Insurance Program Community Status Book. Washington, D.C.: The Agency.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992f. "Chapter-by Chapter Recommendations for
                          Improving Initial Draft of Florida's State Hazard Mitigation Plan." Report transmitted from FEMA
                          Region IV Office to Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
                          Management. June 29.

                  U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992g. National Flood Insurance Program Community
                          Ratina System Coordinator's Manual. Washington, D.C.: The Agency.

                  U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. Coastal Barriers: Development Occurring Despite Prohibitions
                          Against Federal Assistance. Report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
                          Senate. Washington, D.C.: The Office.

                  Wiehle, Dana M. 1993. Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
                          Memorandum to Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental
                          Protection. July 17.

                  Wilson, Susan Wall. 1993. Region IV, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Atlanta, GA. Personal
                          interview. May 21.

                  Wonnacott, Ann. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
                          Management, Tallahassee, FL. Telephone interview. January 7.

                  Woodcock, Suzanne Bellamy. 1993. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL.
                          Personal interview. May 20.

                  Woodruff, Payton. 1993. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and
                          Shores, Tallahassee, FL. Personal interview. March.













                                                                    268











                                                      APPENDIX A


                            A COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE
                                   COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE,
                                              THE FEMA V-ZONE, AND
                                   SLOSH HURRICANE STORM SURGE ZONES




                                                     INTRODUCTION




           In preparing the coastal element of their comprehensive plans, local governments are required to

           designate a coastal high hazard area (CHHA). State regulations allow local governments to base

           -their CHHAs on a number of references including coastal velocity zones (V-zones) designated by

           -the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Flood Insurance Program,

           -the coastal construction control line (CCCL) delineated by the Florida Department of Environmental

           Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes, and

           hurricane evacuation zones. Hurricane evacuation zones, which are defined by county emergency

           management officials, typically conform more or less with the storm surge zones delineated by

           SLOSH model analyses prepared for individual counties by regional planning councils or the Florida

           Department of Community Affairs.' The 1993 ELMS bill directs all local governments to use the

           Category 1 storm evacuation zone as a common basis for defining the CHHA for "planning

           purposes."




           This appendix analyzes the spatial relationship between V-zones, CCCLs, and SLOSH storm surge

           zones for different hurricane categories. This analysis shows that in many places along the coast,

           the landward extent of the CCCL exceeds that of the Category 1 storm surge zone, and in some

           cases, the Category 3 zone. We also found that the correspondence between categorical storm

           evacuation zones and SLOSH storm surge zones varies substantially among the counties. Our

           results suggest that CHHAs based on a combination of the CCCL and the Category 3 storm surge

           zone (or corresponding evacuation zone) will provide a more uniform definition of the CHHA that is











                   more nearly consistent with levels of risk typically accounted for in other planning strategies that

                   concern natural hazards (see discussion in Chapter 3).




                                                              METHODOLOGY




                   To assess the relationship between these three policy instruments; the FEMA V-zone, the SLOSH

                   model storm surge/hurricane evacuation zones, and the coastal construction control line (CCCL),

                   seven study areas were selected in the state. Counties were selected as study areas because maps

                   for all three policy instruments are prepared on a county wide basis and emergency management

                   functions are located at the county level. The selected counties are distributed throughout the

                   state, and possess unique geographic features. The distribution of counties also takes into account

                   the effects of hurricanes making landfall from a variety of directions at different locations in the

                   state. The study area includes Duval, Brevard, Dade, Monroe, Collier, Sarasota, and Wakulla


                   counties.




                   The three maps used in this comparison are prepared by different sources. The FEMA V-zone is

                   recorded on flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) prepared for the National Flood Insurance Program

                   by FEMA. These maps are used to determine whether structures are eligible for U.S. government-

                   backed flood insurance based on their geographic location and relative elevation. The CCCL maps

                   are prepared by the Division of Beaches and Shores, of the Florida Department of Environmental

                   Protection (DEP), formerly the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These maps indicate

                   the location of the CCCL which is used to define that portion of the beach and dune system subject

                   to the erosion effects of a 100-year storm surge. The maps consist of a series of aerial

                   photographs. In areas of the state where there are no sandy beaches, such as Monroe and Wakulla

                   County, no CCCL map is prepared. The SLOSH storm surge maps, also known as hurricane storm

                   tide atlases, were prepared by the regional planning councils (RPCs) or the Florida Department of


                                                                     A-2










           Community Affairs. While most of the SLOSH maps are prepared for individual counties, some of

           the older maps were prepared for larger regions. Data for Duval and Dade County were taken from

           these older SLOSH model maps.




           Forty-seven measurement points were selected throughout the study counties. Measurement points

           were selected using two criteria. First, measurement points were identified where the relative

           positions between policy lines changed from the previous measure. Changes are often caused by

           geographic features which in turn play a significant role in influencing the path of damage caused

           by a storm. The second criterion employed was that a measurement point be easily indexed on all

           three maps. As often as possible, measurements were made from the intersections of labeled

           streets. In the cases where this was impossible, measurements were taken relative to geographic

           landmarks easily identifiable on all three maps.




           All measurements were made by hand using a drafting ruler with a 1/50 inch accuracy. Each map

           has a different scale. The SLOSH storm surge maps were least accurate. The scales of these maps

           ranged from 1 inch to 4,000 feet to 1 inch to 4,800 feet. Because of the scale and the thickness

           of the lines used to delineate the zones, measurements made from these maps have a margin of

           error of + /- 100 feet. The FIRMs indicating FEMA V-zones were considerably more accurate than

           the SLOSH model storm surge maps. The scale used on the FIRMs ranged from 1 inch to 500 feet

           to 1 inch to 1 , 000 feet. The measurements made from these maps have a margin of error of + /- 5

           feet, The CCCL maps are the most accurate; all are prepared to a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet. The
           margin of error for measurements made from these maps is + /- 4 feet.



           In addition to these measurements, the emergency management directors for each of the counties

           were contacted to determine the extent to which hurricane evacuation zones coincide with the


           boundaries of the SLOSH storm surge zones. As was made evident from these interviews, actual



                                                         A-3











                  evacuation policy often exceeds the boundaries established by the three policy lines. Factors such

                  as evacuation routes, remoteness of barrier islands, and the quality of housing stock all influence

                  the decisions made by the emergency management directors. It should be noted, however, that all

                  of the interviewees expressed a general interest in seeing a uniform designation for the CHHA.




                  The analysis is organized by county, moving from the northeast section of the state, south around

                  the Keys, and back north to the Big Bend. It should be noted that data for panhandle counties west

                  of Wakulla were unavailable at the time this analysis was conducted. The data used in this analysis

                  were collected between September 1 and December 1, 1993. The analysis of each county is

                  divided into three sections. The first describes the geographic features and political subdivisions of

                  the study area. The second summarizes the evacuation policy exercised by the county emergency

                  management director. The third describes in detail each measurement location and summarizes the

                  relationships between the policy lines from the three maps at each location. This third section

                  includes a brief description of the measurement location, a table that tracks the distance of each

                  policy line from the reference point, an index summarizing the location of each policy line relative to

                  the coast, and a table that includes the widths of each line relative to the most seaward line. Two

                  tables are included at the end of this appendix. Table A. 1 records the relative positions of the

                  various policy lines at all forty points throughout the state. Table A.2 presents a contact list for the

                  seven emergency management directors or staff that were interviewed.




                  ANALYSIS





                  DUVAL COUNTY


                  Features of the Study Area


                  Duval County has a sandy coast comprised of three barrier islands bounded on the west by the

                  Intracoastal Waterway and the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The CCCL map used in this study was



                                                                     A-4










           prepared on January 4,'l 981. The storm surge atlas (also referred to as the SLOSH model map)

           was funded by FEMA and published in June of 1988. The SLOSH model map is for northeast

           Florida (Nassau, Duval, and St. Johns counties). Only the section of the map for Duval County was

           used in this analysis. The FIRMs used in this study are dated August 15, 1989 and April 15, 1992.

           Separate FIRMs were consulted for the incorporated cities within the county. The FIRMs for

           Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville Beach, and Neptune Beach were dated April 17, 1989.




           The Atlantic coast of Duval County extends south from the county's northern border with the

           Nassau River. The first major barrier island is Little Talbot Island, bounded on the north by Nassau

           Sound. The island is labeled Little Talbot Island State Park on the CCCL map. Little Talbot Island is

           bounded on the south by Fort George Inlet. Fort George Island, which appears uninhabited on the

           CCCL map is bounded on the north by the Fort George Inlet and on the south by the mouth of the

           St. Johns River. Batton Island is asmall island located south of Fort George Island in the mouth of

           the St. Johns River. The island is labeled as Huguenot Park on the storm surge map. The main

           barrier island forming the inhabited coastal area of the county extends southward from the mouth

           of the St. Johns River beyond the Duval/St. Johns County border. The towns of Seminole Beach,

           Manhattan Beach, Atlantic Beach, Neptune Beach and Jacksonville Beach are located on this


           island.




           Emergency Mananement Contact Interview


           Hastings Williams, Jr. is the Director of Civil Defence for Duval County. The contact person that

           provided information for this report was Mr. Andrew Sykes. The interview was conducted by

           telephone on November 18, 1993. Mr. Sykes indicated that hurricane evacuation zones are based

           in part on the storm surge maps, but not exclusively. In the event of a Category 1 or 2 storm a

           voluntary evacuation order is given. The reason why people are urged to evacuate even for

           Category 1 or 2 storms is that it is difficult to get assistance to some of the coastal areas even



                                                          A-5











                  under the best conditions due to limited access. Also, the possibility of the storm increasing helps

                  shape this decision. With a Category 1 or 2 storm it is recommended that all mobile home dwellers

                  in the county evacuate. With a Category 3 or greater storm, the entire barrier islands are

                  evacuated. Mr. Sykes mentioned that there is no evacuation problem north of the St. Johns River

                  because the area is generally uninhabited. Big Talbot Island, most of which is owned by the state,

                  has approximately 12 dwelling units only.




                  Comparative Measurements


                  Measurement 1: The first measurement is taken in an area labeled Talbot Island State Park on the


                  SLOSH model map. The measurement reference point is located next to the first parking lot

                  complex north of Fort George Inlet, where Route Al A begins to turn southwestward. All


                  measurements are taken relative to the southwest corner of the southern intersection of the road


                  looping eastward to form the parki ng area north of Fort George Inlet and Route Al A.





                    V-zone        CCCL           Category 1    Category 2     Category 3     Category 4    Category 5

                    375'          960'           635'          (-) 210'       (-) 635'       (-) 42,980'   (-) 43,610'


                    Seaward       Seaward        Seaward       Landward       Landward       Landward      Landward



                  Going from land to the  Atlantic the zones are:

                  LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - Category 1 - CCCL -


                  ATLANTIC




                  The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

                  The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 325'.

                  The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 260'.

                  The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 585'.

                  The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 410'.


                                                                   A-6










           The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 42,345'.

           The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 630'.




           Measurement 2: This measurement is taken at Kathryn Abbey Hannah State Park in Manhattan

           Beach. The storm surge zones are interesting at this point because Pablo Creek lies approximately

           two miles landward from the coast. As a result, the area immediately landward of the reference

           point is within the Category 3 zone but it returns to Category 1 and 2 zones along the creek valley

           as one moves further landward. The effects of the St. Johns River valley are noticeable in the same

           fashion. This situation where lower category storm surge areas occur landward of higher category

           storm surge zones is also seen extensively in Wakulla County. All measurements are relative to the

           eastern side of Seminole Beach Road at the intersection with Wonderwood Drive.






            V-zone        CCCL          Category 1   Category 2    Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
            (EL- 17)


            400'          300'          315'         210'            25,345'        25,765'      26,085'

            Seaward       Seaward       Seaward      Seaward       Landward      Landward      La 2@@J


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - CCCL - Category 1  V-zone -

           ATLANTIC




           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 85'.

           The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 15'.

           The Category 2 zone is wider than the CCCL by 90'.

           The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 25,455'.

           The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 420'.



                                                         A-7










                     The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 320'.




                     Measurement 3: The effects of the St. Johns River are also exhibited in this measurement area.


                     The measurement is taken in the City of Atlantic Beach at the point where Second Street North

                     intersects with Seminole Beach Road. At this point Seminole Beach Road begins to turn southwest.

                     All measurements are relative to the eastern most side of Seminole Beach Road at the four way

                     intersection formed by Seminole Beach Road, Second Street North and another unlabeled

                     residential road heading south.





                       V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                       (EL-1 5)


                       820'             795'             845'             740'             210'               20,064'        1-) 21,860'

                       Seaward          Seaward          Seaward          Seaward          Seaward          Landward         Landn!Ld_@j


                     Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - CCCL - V-zone - Category I


                     ATLANTIC




                     The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 25'.

                     The  CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 25'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the CCCL by 55'.

                     The  Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 530'.

                     The  Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 20,274'.

                     The  Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 1,796'.







                                                                              A-8










           Measurement 4: The next measurement location seems to be characterized by a ridge line running

           just landward of the coast as the distance between each storm surge zone is very narrow at this

           point. It should be noted that, as with previous measurements, lower category storm surge zone

           fall landward of higher category zones in areas that include river valleys. The measure is taken in

           Neptune Beach. The Duval County Storm Tide Atlas indicates a "seawall, minimum elevation 11

           feet" along-the coast at this location. All measurements are relative to the east side of 3rd Street

           North, at the intersection of Florida Boulevard and 3rd Street North.





             V-zone       CCCL         Category 1    Category 2   Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
             (EL-21)

             1,000'       975'         900,          790,         315'            17,530'     H 20,380'
             Seaward    I Seaward     ISeaward      ISeaward     ISeaward      ILandward    I Land!2!L__J1


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone -


           ATLANTIC


           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 25'.

           The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 75'.

           The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 110'.

           The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 475'.

           The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 17,845'.

           The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 2,850'.




           Measurement 5: This measure is taken in Jacksonville Beach. Geographically, it shares similar

           features to previous measures but it is within a different political subdivision. The Duval County

           Storm Tide Atlas indicates a "seawall, minimum elevation 12 feet" along the coast at this location.




                                                        A-9












                 All measurements are relative to the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard (Route 212) and 3rd


                 Street North (A 1 A).






                   V-zone        CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
                   (EL- 17)

                   850,         865'           685'          580'                          17,110'     H 18,160'

                   Seaward      Seaward        Seaward       Seaward       At Reference  Landward      Lend=L-Ji


                 Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                 LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1   V-zone - CCCL -

                 ATLANTIC




                 The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

                 The V-zone is wider than the CCCL zone by 15'.

                 The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 180'.

                 The Category 2 zone is wider than the CCCL by 105'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 580'.

                 The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 17,1110'.

                 The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 1,050'.




                 Measurement 6: The final measurement is also taken at Jacksonville beach at the Duval County/St.

                 Johns County border. All measurements are relative to the east side of 3rd Street South WA) at

                 the border. Storm surge Category 1 is adjacent to Category 3 along AIIA, there is no Category 2

                 indicated at this point. Also, CCCL information is not available for this point because the line on the

                 map is not drawn to the St. Johns County border.








                                                                A-10













             V-zone       CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3   Category 4    Category 5
             (EL-20)

             350'         N/A                         N/A             420'          16,790'       19,750'

             Seaward                    At ReferenceI             I Landward    ILandward     ILand


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 1 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 350'.

           The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 770'.

           The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 16,370'.

           The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 2,960'.




           BREVARD COUNTY


           Features of the Study Area


           The date of the photography on the CCCL map used in this study area is October 25, 1985. This

           CCCL map has both an existing and a proposed CCCL drawn on it. In a conversation with Philip

           Flood, at DEP's Division of Beaches and Shores, it was made apparent that the proposed line is

           currently the legal CCCL and therefore it has been used as the reference for this study. The date on

           the entire map package is November 1986. The SLOSH model map, formally entitled the Hurricane

           Storm Tide Atlas for Brevard County/J.F.K. Space Center was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh

           and Jernigan, Inc. Category 1, 3 and 5 storm surge zones were indicated on this map. Only

           Category 1 and 3 storm surge/hurricane evacuation zones were used in this study. The date on this

           map is September 1990. The FIRMs used in this study are for Brevard County and the incorporated

           areas within the county. The FIRMs are dated April 3, 1989 and August 18, 1992.






                                                         A-1 1










                   The northernmost section of barrier island in Brevard County is the Canaveral National Seashore.

                   This parcel is formed from two spits of land that extend northward from Merrit Island. Merrit

                   Island, just northeast of Titusville, lies between Cape Canaveral and the mainland coastline. At the

                   widest points, both Cape Canaveral and landward lying Merrit Island are U.S. government property.

                   Merrit Island is the National Wildlife Refuge and Cape Canaveral is the J.F.K. Space Center and the

                   Air Force Station.




                   The southern tip of Merrit Island lies within the county's jurisdiction, extending in a narrow "barrier-

                   like" spit. This strip of land lies between the mainland and the Cape Canaveral barrier island. The

                   county section of Cape Canaveral begins at the City of Cape Canaveral, just south of Port

                   Canaveral. The county or incorporated cities govern the barrier island from this point to the

                   southern border of the county, at Sebastian Inlet.




                   As the majority of land on Merrit Island is U.S. government owned, and all the land on the Cape

                   north of Port Canaveral is also owned by the federal government, the CCCL and the FEMA V-zones

                   do not apply to these areas. It should be noted that these lands, as well as the entire "inner

                   coast," or mainland, are subject to Category 1 and 3 hurricanes to varying degrees even though

                   not subject to CCCL designation.




                   Emeraency Manaaement Contact Interview


                   Tony Carper, the Director of the Brevard County Office of Emergency Management, was contacted

                   on September 24, 1993, regarding the relationship between the storm surge zones on the SLOSH

                   model map and county evacuation protocol. Mr. Carper indicated that there is some

                   correspondence but not entirely. For all landfalling storms of Category 1, 2, or 3, everyone is

                   evacuated from the barrier islands. With Categories 4 or 5, they evacuate everyone to the east side

                   of US Route 1, between US Route 1 and the Indian River Lagoon. For all exiting storms (such as



                                                                    A-12










            Donna), an operational decision is made according to how bad the storm looks. If the exiting storm

            is of Category 3, 4, or 5, they would effect some evacuation to provide access and ensure the

            provision of emergency services. Mobile homes are automatically evacuated for all storms of

            hurricane intensity (all categories).




            As much of the county's coast is federal land and developed as U.S government installations, these

            areas are not directly under the county's jurisdiction. County orders to evacuate are not binding on

            the federal installations but they share a close relationship. While the federal authorities are not

            required to follow the county's lead, they are committed to do so. All federal employees are

            evacuated according to county guidelines (primarily because almost all of these people live in

            Brevard County). Mr. Carper went on to say that he "welcomes some uniform policy

            recommendations," regarding hurricane evacuation and indicated that "the CCCL and the V-zones

            have no practical relationship to evacuation as it is done in Brevard County,"




            Comparative Measurements


            Measurement 1: The first measurement is taken from the terminus, or seaward side of Jetty Road.

            All measurements are relative to the terminus of Jetty Road.





              V-zone        CCCL           Category 1     Category 3
              (EL-12)


              150,             60'          Soo,             3,650'
              Seaward       Landward       Seaward'       LandwardL__Jl

             On the flood insurance map this measure extends 120' seaward of the line drawn to represent the coast, on the CCCL
            map this measure is at the point where beach and ocean meet in the areal photo.

            2This point is marked on the hurricane map with a 15 inside a triangle. The landward extension of the Category 3 zone at
            this "point 15" is referenced to a map legend. The legend indicates that at this point, a Category 1 storm is 1.9 and a
            Category 3 storm is 3.6 feet above N.G.V.D.








                                                              A-13











                     Going from Land to the Atlantic the zones are:




                     LAND - Category 3 - CCCL - V-zone - Category 1               ATLANTIC




                     The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 350'.

                     The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 210'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the CCCL by 3,590'.




                     Measurement 2: The second measurement was taken at Cocoa Beach. The measurements are


                     relative to the seaward side of Al A (Atlantic Boulevard) at the Minuteman Causeway. The


                     measurements were taken at the southeast corner of the intersection.






                        V-zone          CCCL             Category 1       Category 3
                        (EL-13)


                        190,            50,               240'            160'

                        Seaward         Seaward          Seaward        I Seaward --J1


                     Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                     LAND - CCCL - Category 3 - V-zone - Category 1 - ATLANTIC




                     The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 50'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the V-zone by 30'.

                     The CCCL is wider than the Category 3 zone by 108'.









                                                                              A-14










           Measurement 3: The third measurement was taken at an area labeled "Shorty's Pocket" on the

           Hurricane map, between "Snug Harbor" and "Edwards Bay" as indicated on the Flood Insurance

           Rate Maps. This measurement point was selected because it appears as if the Category 3 zone

           abuts the oceanfront with no Category 1 zone being present. The Category 1 zone narrowed away

           since Measurement 2. All measurements are relative to the seaward side of A 1 A at 13th Street,

           the southeast corner.





             V-zone       CCCL          Category 1    Category 3
             (EL-1 3)

           -190,          20'           N/A           160'
             Seaward     IS@award     I             I Seaward


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND - CCCL - Category 3 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The Category 3 zone is wider than the V-zone by 30'.

           The CCCL is wider than the Category 3 zone by 140'.




           Measurement 4: The fourth measurement attempts to categorize the relationships between the

           zones at a point on the coast where the Category 3 zone has narrowed away, leaving the Category

           5 zone abutting the coast. This condition begins within Patrick Air Force Base and continues

           southward to Satellite Beach, approximately 3 3/4 miles. This measurement was taken 1 1/3 miles

           south of the northernmost indication of this strip, where federal ownership gives way to

           county/private land. All measurements are relative to the seaward side of A 1 A at the Pineda

           Expressway (4th Street). Both roads are 4 lanes and the measurements were taken from the


           southeast corner.




                                                         A-1 5













                       V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 3
                       (EL- 14)


                       270'                95'           N/A              N/A


                       Seaward          Landward



                     Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:


                     LAND - CCCL - V-zone - ATLANTIC




                     The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 365'.




                     Measurement 5: South of Satellite Beach, as we move from Plate 7 to Plate 8 on the Hurricane

                     zone map, a Category 3 zone returns along the oceanfront, running approximately 3 1/3 miles to a

                     point where the oceanfront is not subject to a hurricane categories (1, 3, or 5). The fifth

                     measurement was taken near the midpoint of this strip, adjacent to Indian Harbour Beach Park. All

                     measurements are relative to the southeast, seaward corner of AlA and Pinetree Drive.





                       V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 3
                       (EL- 13)


                       220'                              N/A              80,

                       Seaward        I At Reference   I                 ISeaward


                     Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                     LAND - CCCL - Category 3 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




                     The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the V-zone by 140'.

                     The CCCL is wider than the Category 3 zone by 80'.




                                                                              A-1 6










               Measurement 6: The conditions of the coast change at this reference point. The coastline is not

               affected by Category 1, 3, or 5 storms. This condition extends southward for 12 miles from the

               previous measurement. It is most likely the result of the presence of seawalls along the coast

               which are visible in the aerial photographs on the CCCL map. This measurement was taken within

               this zone, in the Town of Melbourne Beach. All measurements are relative to the southeast,


               seaward corner of A 1 A and Ocean Avenues (which appears to provide beach access).





                 V-zone            CCCL              Category 1        Category 3
                 (EL-13)


                 120'              H1001             N/A               N/A
                 Seaward        f  Landward       -6                 1                 1


               Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

               LAND - CCCL - V-zone - ATLANTIC




               The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

               The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 220'.




               Measurement 7: Within the 12 mile stretch of land that appears to be protected by a seawall and is

               not subject to Category 1, 3, or 5 storms at the oceanfront, there is a small stretch of beach near

               Coconut Point that appears to be subject to Category 1 hurricanes. The seventh measurement is

               taken in this area. All measurements are relative to the southwest, landward corner of All A and

               the no-name road just south of Coconut Point.





                 V-zone            CCCL             Category 1         Category 3
                 (EL-13)

                 320'                                120'              N/A'
                 Seaward           At Reference'    Seaward          I            --]I


                                                                           A-17














                       The CCCL runs through the reference point.

                      2A Category 3 hurricane should cover the Category 1 zone.


                      Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                      LAND - CCCL - Category 1 1 and Category 3 ?) - V-zone - ATLANTIC




                      The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                      The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 200'.

                      The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 120'.




                      Measurement 8: The next measurement was taken at Aquarina, where the coast'is categorized by

                      a narrow Category 1 zone followed immediately landward by a Category 5 zone, with the Category

                      3 zone being absent. It appears on the CCCL map as though there is a seawall present along the

                      coast at this point. The section of island covered by this area extend southward from the area of

                      Measurement 7, 6 1/2 miles to Sebastian Inlet. All measurements are relative to the southeast,

                      seaward corner of Al A and Beverly Court.





                       V-zone           CCCL              Category 1       Category 3
                       (EL- 13)

                       210'             H1001            so,                NIA'

                       Seaward          Landward        I Seaward                    --J1

                       A Category 3 hurricane should cover the Category 1 zone.



                      Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                      LAND - CCCL - Category 1 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




                      The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                      The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 130'.


                                                                               A-1 8










           The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 80'.




           Measurement 9: The ninth and final measurement was taken near Sebastian Inlet. Because of the


           variations in the V-zone and the linear nature of the CCCL, a point approximately 1600' north of

           the northern bank of the inlet was used for measurement purposes. All measurements are relative

           to the southeast, seaward corner of A 1 A and the access road 1600' north of Sebastian Inlet.





             V-zone        CCCL          Category 1    Category 3
             (EL- 13)

             410'          108'          80,            N/A'

           ,I Seaward      Seaward       Seaward      1           11

           1 A Category 3 hurricane should cover the Category 1 zone.


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND -Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone - ATLANTIC



           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 302'.

           The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 28'.'




           DADE COUNTY


           Features of the Study Area


           The date on the FIRMs used in this study is January 20, 1993. The date on the Storm Tide Atlas

           (SLOSH model map) is December 1989. The date on the CCCL map is August 30, 1992, (just six

           days after Hurricane Andrew). Dade County is marked by a series of coastal barrier islands, or

           keys, separated from the mainland coast by Biscayne Bay. The northernmost set of coastal barrier

           islands extends south from Broward County. This set of islands lies from the Broward County




                                                          A-1 9











                  border southward to Bakers Haulover Cut. Moving from north to south, the eastern shore of the

                  island includes Golden Beach, Sunny Isles, and Haulover Beach. South of the cut, another long

                  barrier island extends southward. This island includes the jurisdictions of Bal Harbour, Surfside, and

                  Miami Beach. Shielded by this barrier island is a series of smaller islands contained within Biscayne

                  Bay. These islands, from north to south, are Bay Harbor Islands, Normandy Isle, Treasure Island,

                  portions of Miami Beach, Sunset Islands, and Lumus Island. Because these islands do not directly

                  face the Atlantic Ocean, they do not appear on the CCCL map.




                  South of Miami Beach, separated by Government Cut, lies Fisher Island. South of Fisher Island,

                  separated by Norris Cut, lies Virginia Key. South of Virginia Key is Key Biscayne. The southern tip

                  of Key Biscayne is labeled Cape Florida on all three maps. The Cape forms the southernmost limit

                  of the CCCL map and the storm surge map. This northern set of barrier islands shields

                  approximately half of the county's coastline. South of Cape Florida there is an open area of coast,

                  making up approximately 20% of the coastline, which is unprotected by barrier islands. This large

                  gap is labeled Biscayne Channel. There is a tiny island, labeled Soldier Key, within the Biscayne

                  Channel. South of Biscayne Channel is a set of barrier islands that shields the remaining 30% of

                  the county's Atlantic frontage to its border with Monroe County. This barrier island set, from north

                  to south, is comprised of a small group of keys labeled as Ragged Keys. South of these keys lies

                  Sands Key, which is separated on the south by Sands Cut. Elliot Key lies south of Sands Cut and is

                  a much larger barrier island, making up the majority of the land mass in this set of islands. South of

                  Elliot Key lies an agglomeration of other smaller keys. The next key south of Elliot Key, facing the

                  Atlantic, is Old Rhodes Key followed by Swan Key. These keys form the border with Monroe

                  County. These barrier islands make up the City of Islandia. It should be noted that the City of

                  Islandia is not included on the CCCL map or the storm surge maps so no comparative


                  measurements were taken from that location.






                                                                   A-20











            Interview with Emergency Management Contact


            Kathleen Hale is the Director of Emergency Management for Dade County. Sandra Jones was the

            st aff person from the office that provided information for this study. The general policy for

            hurricane evacuation in Dade County errs on the side of being overly cautious. Miami Beach and

            Key Biscayne, the primary population centers along the coast are evacuated during all hurricanes

            (all categories). More generally, all population east of the Intracoastal Waterway is evacuated

            during all hurricanes. This would include people living in the City of Islandia. Also, all mobile homes

            in the entire county are evacuated during all hurricanes, from Category 1 through 5.




            Comparative Measurements


            Measurement 1: This measurement is taken just south of the Broward County border in Golden

            Beach. The Golden Beach section of the barrier island appears much more developed on the CCCL

            map than the southern half of the island that includes Haulover Beach. All measurements are


            relative to the western side of Avellino Drive at the intersection of Navona Avenue. As was the


            case with measurements taken in Duval County, lower category storm surge zones are present

            landward of higher category zones.





             V-zone        CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4     Category 5
             (EL-10)

             1,230'        1,000'        1,350'        1,300'        1,275'         1,250'        1,200'
             Seaward       Seaward       Seaward       Seaward       Seaward       Seaward        SeanLd.@l


            Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

            LAND - CCCL - Category 5 - V-zone - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 -

            ATLANTIC




            The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.




                                                          A-21










                 The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 50'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 25'.

                 The  Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 by 25'.

                 The  V-zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 20'.

                 The  Category 5 zone is wider than the V-zone by 30'.

                 The CCCL is wider than the Category 5 zone by 200'.




                 Measurement 2: The second measurement is taken at Haulover Beach. Measurements are relative


                 to the western side of the southern entrance to the large parking lot located south of the Haulover

                 Beach Golf Course. From this reference point, the Category 5 storm surge limit extends landward

                 to Collins Avenue. South of this reference point, all storm surge categories extend across the

                 Intracoastal Waterway and have an effect on the mainland.





                   V-zone        CCCL          Category 1   Category 2    Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
                   (EL-1 1)


                   900,          500,          650'         625'          600'          575'          400'

                   Seaward     I Seaward     I Seaward      Seaward       Seaward       Seaward       Seaw


                 Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                 LAND - Category 5 - CCCL - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - V-zone -

                 ATLANTIC




                 The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                 The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 250'.

                 The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 25'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 25'.

                 The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 25'.



                                                                A-22










           The CCCL is wider than the Category 4 zone by 75'.

           The Category 5 zone is wider than the CCCL zone by 100'.




           Measurement 3: The same geographic features present in the previous measurement are also

           present across Bakers Haulover Inlet, in the jurisdictions of Bal Harbour and Surfside. The features

           of the coast-begin to change in the Atlantic Heights section of Miami Beach and southward, east of

           Normandy Isle. In this area, the storm surge zones are not marked along the coastline due to the

           presence of a seawall that is visible on the CCCL map. This area is where the third measurement

           reference point is located. The third measurement is taken at the southeast corner of the


           intersection of Collins Avenue and 65th Street.






             V-zone       CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
             (EL-10)


             550'          180,          275'         N/A           N/A           N/A           N/A

             Seaward     ISeaward      ISeaward      I             I             I             I


           Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

           LAND - CCCL - Category 1 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




           The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 275'

           The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 95'.




           Measurement 4: This relationship caused by the seawall continues southward along Miami Beach to

           Government Cut. There are areas, especially along the coastline of the City of Miami Beach, where

           the sandy beach is very wide. The fourth measurement is taken at a point where the beach is quite

           wide. All measurements are relative to the southeast corner of Lincoln Road and Collins Avenue.




                                                         A-23
















                       V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                       (EL- 10)


                       790'             350'             1,150'           NIA              N/A              NIA              NIA


                       Seaward          Seaward          Seaward



                     Going from land to the     Atlantic the zones are:

                     LAND - CCCL - V-zone - Category 1            ATLANTIC




                     The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 360'.

                     The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 440'.




                     Measurement 5: The seawall that was present in the previous measurements does not show up

                     along the coast of Fisher Island, which is bounded on the north by Government Cut and on the

                     south by Norris Cut. The island is within the City of Miami Beach. While this measurement is made

                     on Fisher Island, measurements were difficult to make due to a lack of labeled roads on the FIRMs.

                     The measurement point selected is at the eastern end of the northernmost road on the island. The

                     road ends very near the jetty forming the southern side of the Government Cut. Measurements are

                     taken from the western side of this point. It should be noted.that the Category 5 storm surge zone

                     is located across the Intracoastal Waterway, on the mainland.





                       V-zone           CCCL             Category I       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                       (EL-9)

                       50'              400'             50,              250'             1,050'           1,150'           20,000'

                       Landward       I Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward         Land


                     Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:




                                                                             A-24










              LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - CCCL - Category 2 - V-zone/Category 1


              ATLANTIC




              The V-zone and the Category 1 zone appear to be the most narrow.

              The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone/Category 1 zone by 200'.

              The CCCL is wider than the Category 2 zone by 150'.

              The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 560'.

              The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 by 100'.

              The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 18,850'.




              Measurement 6: This measurement is taken at Virginia Key, which lies south of Fisher Island. The

              area along the key at Virginia Beach appears to be of a lower elevation as the entire southern

              section of the key is affected by a      Category 2 storm surge. The measurements are taken at the

              east-west road leading into the Virginia Beach parking area. It should be noted that the effects of a

              Category 2 storm surge extend across Biscayne Bay to the mainland.





                V-zone          CCCL             Category 1       Category 2        Category 3      Category 4       Category 5
                (EL- 11)


                400'            700'             500,             23,550'           23,600'         23,650'          23,700'
                Seaward         Seaward        I Seaward          Landward       I  Landward        Landward       I Land=ï¿½@l


              Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

              LAND - Category 5 -Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - Category 1 - CCCL -

              ATLANTIC




              The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

              The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 200'.




                                                                     A-25











                 The V-zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 100'.

                 The Category  2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 23,950'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 50'.

                 The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 50'.

                 The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 50'.




                 Measurement 7: This measurement is taken on Key Biscayne. The coastline is marked by a seawall

                 that extends along the entire Atlantic coastline. All measurements are relative to the eastern most

                 end of Ocean Lane Drive in the City of Key Biscayne.





                   V-zone       CCCL          Category I    Category 2   Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
                   (EL-1 1)


                   620'         360'          600,          N/A          N/A           N/A           N/A

                   Seaward      Seaward       Seaward     I             I            I             I             I


                 Going from land to the Atlantic the-zones are:

                 LAND - CCCL - Category 1 -V-zone - ATLANTIC




                 The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                 The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 20'.

                 The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 240'.




                 MONROE COUNTY


                 Features of the Study Area


                 The Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas used in this study is dated December 1989. The dates on the

                 FIRMs used in this study are October 17, 1989 and November 4, 1992. The November 4, 1992,

                 series is labeled "revised." Measurement source data for Monroe County are limited. Because there




                                                               A-26










           are no sandy beaches along the Keys or the mainland (Everglades) portion of the county, no CCCL

           has been established. Additionally, as the mainland portion of the county as well as a significant

           portion of Florida Bay are within the Everglades National Park, no storm surge/hurricane evacuation

           data are available for these areas. Also, unlike other counties, the storm surge maps indicate the

           extent of Category 2, 3, and 5 hurricanes only.




           The Florida Keys are the only section of Monroe County that can be included in this study. All

           measurements are taken relative to the Atlantic Ocean. The majority of the Keys fall within the

           Category 2 storm surge zone. There are some sections along U.S. Route 1 that are above this

           zone. Road sections approaching the bridges that connect the keys are usually within the Category

           3 storm surge zone, while the bridge footings appear to be within the Category 5 storm surge zone.

           The actual bridges do not appear as being within any storm surge zone. Measurements are taken at

           those few places within the keys where there appears to be a significant enough elevation

           difference to cause a differentiation in the storm surge zones.




           Interview with Emeraency Manaaement Contact


           William Wagner is the Director of Emergency Management for Monroe County. The contact person

           that was interviewed for this study was Lisa Coats. The interview was conducted by telephone on

           November 11, 1993. Ms. Coats indicated that because Monroe County is comprised of a chain of

           islands, all of which are particularly vulnerable to hurricane damage, evacuation is a serious issue.

           Monroe County, because of its vulnerability, has no hurricane shelters. When evacuation orders are

           given, people must leave the Keys via U.S. Route 1.




           In the event of Category 1 or 2 storm, all mobile home dwellers and tourists will be advised to

           leave the county. The Emergency Management staff will make a judgement call as to whether to

           evacuate all other permanent residents of the Keys depending on where the storm is likely to hit. In



                                                          A-27










                  the event of a Category 3 or stronger storm, all people will be evacuated from the Keys. These

                  people are directed to go to Florida International University in Dade County, where temporary

                  shelter will be provided.




                  Comr)arative Measurements


                  Measurement 1: This measurement is taken on Key West. All measurements are relative to the

                  northeast corner of Whitehead Street and Truman Avenue.





                   V-zone        Category 2    Category 3    Category 5
                   (EL-10)


                   1,600'        850'          450'
                   Seaward     I Seaward     I Seaward     I At Refere2!j_jj


                  Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

                  LAND - Category 5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




                  The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                  The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 750'.

                  The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 400'.

                  The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 450'.




                  Measurement 2: To demonstrate the elevation effect that the bridges connecting the various keys

                  have on the storm surge zones, the next measurement is taken on Big Pine Key. The entire Key is

                  within the Category 2 storm surge zone. All measurements are relative to the northeast corner of

                  the intersection of Ships Way and the Overseas Highway (U.S. Route 1). The Category 2 storm

                  surge zone transitions directly to a Category 5 zone along the south side of U.S. Route 1, i.e.

                  Category 3 = Category 2.




                                                                A-28

















                V-zone          Category 2       Category 3      Category 5
                (EL-1 1)


                5,100,          300'             300'

                Seaward         Seaward          Seaward        IAt Refere22jjj


              Going from land to the     Atlantic the zones are:

              LAND - Category 2 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




              The V-zone appears to be the. most narrow.

              The Category 2/3 zone is wider than the V-zone by 4,800'.

              The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 300'.




              Measurement 3: This measurement is taken at the same point as the previous measurement. The

              difference is that this measurement is taken due east along the tangent formed by U.S. Route 1,

              relative to the eastern shore of Big Pine Key.




                V-zone          Category 2       Category 3      Category 5
                (EL-1 1)


                9,675'          1,300'           800,


                Seaward         Seaward          Seaward         At Reference



              Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

              LAND - Category 5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




              The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

              The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 8,375'.

              The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 500'.

              The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 800'.



                                                                     A-29










              Measurement 4: Upper Matecumbe Key and Plantation Key, especially along the central axis that

              U.S. Route 1 passes through, appear to have higher elevations and are marked by higher storm

              surge/hurricane evacuation zones. The next measurement is taken on Upper Matecumbe Key

              relative to the southern coast of the Key at the southwest corner of the intersection of Old Road

              (Old U.S. Route 1) and the first road cutting toward the southern shore (as indicated on FIRM

              12087C1118G).





                V-zone     Category 2  Category 3 Category 5
                (EL-1 1)


                450'       200'        600'       900,

                Seaward    Landward    Landward   Landward -J1


              Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

              LAND - Category 5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - ATLANTIC



              The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

              The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 650'.

              The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 400'.

              The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 300'.




              Measurement 5: The features present in the previous measurement, where there appears to be

              higher elevations along the center of the Keys that U.S. Route 1 bisects, become most pronounced

              in Key Largo. Key Largo is the largest of all of the islands in Monroe County. The island's size

              appears to have little effect on the storm surge zones, with higher zones being confined to the U.S.

              Route 1 corridor. The rest of Key Largo falls within the Category 2 storm surge zone. The final

              measurement is taken in Key Largo relative to the northwest corner of the intersection of Kay Drive

              and the Overseas Highway (U.S. Route 1), just south of Tarpon Basin. The measurements are




                                                     A-30











            taken along a north-south axis parallelling Kay Drive.





              V-zone        Category 2     Category 3    Category 5
              (EL-1 1)


              2,500'        1,700'         1,300'        300'


              Seaward       Seaward        Seaward       Seaward



            Going from land to the Atlantic the zones are:

            LAND - Category 5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - ATLANTIC




            The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

            The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 800'.

            The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 400'.

            The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 1,000'.




            COLLIER COUNTY


            Features of the Study Area


            The date on the CCCL map used in this study is April 7, 1979. The Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas for

            Collier County was prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is dated June

            1991. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps available for Collier County were dated June 3, 1986, and

            August 3, 1992. The northern portion of Collier County's coastline is characterized by a series of

            spits, forming barrier-like protection for the mainland. The two primary spits of land are separated

            by the Cocohatchee River. The northern-most stretch of land, extending to the Lee County border,


            is identified as the Barefoot Beach State Preserve. The southern stretch of land is identified as the


            Deenor Wiggins Pass State Recreational Area. The mouth of the Cocohatchee River is identified as

            Wiggins Pass. Along this northern third of Collier County's coastline, the relative extent of the

            Category 1, 2 and 3 storm surge zones remains rather constant and not extremely extensive. The



                                                            A-31










                 exception is at Wiggins Pass and northeast along the Cocohatchee floodplain. Within this region,

                 the landward extent of all three storm surge zones is amplified.




                 The southern two thirds of Collier County are markedly different from the northern third. Just

                 south of Barefoot Beach State Preserve lies Marco Island, a moderately developed barrier island.

                 South of Marco Island, the coastline changes its north-south orientation, heading markedly

                 southeast. This southeastern run of coastline is identified as Ten Thousand Islands. As the name


                 implies, there are numerous islands separated from the mainland by a series of bays, the largest of

                 which are, going from the northwest to the southeast, Gullivan Bay, Fakahatchee Bay and

                 Chokoloskee Bay. All of the islands fall within the extent of the weakest storm surge category,

                 Tropical Storm. The only exception is the developed island, Chokoloskee, which lies within the

                 Category 1 storm surge zone. Therefore, all land masses seaward of the mainland are subject to

                 Category 1 hurricanes.




                 Even though many of the islands appear uninhabited, FEMA V-zones have been drawn. The CCCL,

                 however, does not extend south of Marco Island. The reasons for this are probably twofold. First,

                 the majority of the land within this region falls within the Everglades National Park, and as federal

                 land it would be exempt from the CCCL designation. Second, because the land is within the

                 Everglades, the coastline is probably made up of mangrove swamps. Since the coastal islands

                 would have non-sandy beaches, the CCCL would not apply to these areas. Within this region, only

                 comparisons between the V-zone and the storm surge zones are possible.




                 Interview with Emernency Management Contact


                 Kenneth Pineau, the Emergency Preparedness Director for Collier County was interviewed on

                 November 18, 1993. Mr. Pineau commented that as a rule they "don't want to evacuate more than

                 they have to." With this being said, Mr. Pineau noted that in the event of a tropical storm (which



                                                                A-32










              has 65-75 mph winds but is less intense than a Category 1 hurricane) storm shelters are opened

              for mobile home dwellers. In the event of a Category 1 storm, all of Marco Island is evacuated, as

              well as all islands and areas on the mainland west iseaward) of U.S. Route 41 southeast of Naples.

              This area generally corresponds to the Category 1 storm surge zone, although in some places it

              includes Category 2 areas. Northwest of the intersection of Route 41 and County Road 858, the

              zones indicated on the storm surge map correspond with the county's evacuation strategy.




              Comoarative Measurements


              Measurement 1: The first landmark where the comparative measurements were taken is just south

              of the Lee County-Collier County line where Bonita Beach Road intersects with the road that runs

              along the county line. All measurements are relative to the southwest corner of Bonita Beach Road

              and the road running along the Collier-Lee border.





                V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3
                (EL- 13)


                H 630'           400'             H 5,300'         W 5,850'         H 7,700'
              11 Landward     J  Seaward'       I Landward       I Landward       I Landwarf __J1

              1 Due to the poor resolution of the serial photograph on the CCCL map, the margin of error may be increased to + /- 50 feet.

              2The category 3 storm surge zone extends beyond 7700'. Because Collier County is bordered by Lee County at this point,
              the extent of the Category 3 zone is not mapped into the neighboring county. This inland border with Lee County runs
              north-south for several thousand feet. It should be noted that 5000' due south along the same parallel as the border, the
              landward extent of the Category 3 zone is 36,700' (approximately 6 1/2 miles).


              Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

              LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - V-zone - CCCL - GULF




              The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

              The V-zone is wider than the CCCL by 1,030'.

              The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 4,670'.




                                                                       A-33










                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 550'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 1,850'.



                     Measurement 2: The second measurement is taken in a residential subdivision identified as Maples

                     Park. This point lies south of the area affected by the Cocohatchee River floodplain, All

                     measurements are relative to the southernmost edge of the cul-du-sac of Egret Avenue.





                       V-zone          CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3
                       (EL-14)

                       (-) 750'           475'             2,000'        H 2,400'             18,900'
                       Landward        Landward         Landward         Landward         Landwaï¿½-Ji


                     Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - V-zone - CCCL - GULF




                     The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

                     The V-zone is wider than the CCCL by 275'.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 1,250'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 4,000'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 16,500'.



                     Measurement 3: The third measurement is taken at a point approximately 11 1/2 miles south of

                     Naples Park at a point where the Category 1, 2 and 3 zones begin to extend a much greater

                     distance inland. This measurement is taken at Venetian Bay, which lies within the City of Naples.

                     All measurements are relative to the southwest corner of Parkshore Drive and Gulf Shore


                     Boulevard.







                                                                             A-34













                  V-zone           CCCL              Category 1        Category 2         Category 3
                  (EL- 13)

                  1,010'           465'              H 2,450'          H 3,200'           H 41,200'
                  Seaward          Seaward           Landward          Landward           Landwar@._Jl


               Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

               LAND - Category 3 -'Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone - GULF




               The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

               The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 545'.

               The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 2,915'.

               The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 750'.

               The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 38,000'.



               Measurement 4: Near the source of the Gordon River-Naples River Valley there is a region that

               appears to have a higher elevation seaward of the Gordon River. The fourth measurement is taken

               within this region of higher apparent elevation. All measurements are relative to the southwest

               corner of 1 st Street North (Gulf Shore Boulevard) and 4th Avenue North.





                  V-zone           CCCL              Category 1        Category 2         Category 3
                  (EL-13)


                  290'             115,                                H950,              W 5,200'
                  Seaward          Seaward           At Reference' I   Landward           Landwar@@I

                The Category 1 runs through the reference point.


               Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

               LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone - GULF




               The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.


                                                                            A-35










                     The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 175'.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 115'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 900'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 4,300'.




                     Measurement 5: Approximately six miles south from the previous measurement point, just north of

                     Gordon Pass, the storm surge zones all widen in the extent of their landward incursion.

                     Measurement five is taken in this region. All measurements are relative to the southwest corner of

                     Gordon Drive and Bay Road.





                        V-zone          CCCL             Category 1        Category 2       Category 3
                        (EL-13)


                        220,            80,                 17,600'        H 37,350'           160,500'

                         andward        Seaward           Landward'        Landward'        Landwardl



                       The extent of the storm surge zones, in miles, is as follows: Category 1extends 3 and 1/3 miles, Category 2 extends 7
                     miles, and Category 3 extends 30 and 1/3 miles. The Category 3 zone ends within the Big Cypress National Preserve and
                     National Wildlife Management Area.


                     Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1              CCCL - V-zone - GULF




                     The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 140'.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 17,680'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 19,750'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 140,750'.








                                                                              A-36










           Measurement 6: South of Gordon Pass, running for approximately 13 miles, lies Keewaydin Island.

           The landward extent of the three storm surge zones continues to increase throughout this region.

           Due south of Keewaydin Island lies the relatively developed Marco Island. The sixth measurement is

           taken on Marco Island. All  measurements are relative to the southern terminus of Henderson Court


           (at the cul-du-sac) bounded on the southeast by the Spinaker Waterway. Because it was difficult to

           locate the mference point on the FIRM and the CCCL map, they were excluded from this


           measurement.






             V-zone        CCCL          Category I    Category 2    Category 3
             (EL-13)

             N/A           N/A             122,500'    N 156,600'       161,000'
                         I             I Landward      Landward     ILandwar@@Jl

            The SLOSH model limit is at 161,000' (30.5 miles) at this point. The category 3 zone appears to extend beyond this limit.


           Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

           LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone - GULF




           The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

           The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 34,100'.

           The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 4,400'.




           Measurement 7: Marco Island is bordered on the south by Caxambras Pass. The coastline of the

           county extends southeast from Marco Island and is characterized by numerous sea islands forming,

           through their agglomeration, a barrier between the Gulf and the mainland. Because this area does

           not have sandy beaches, there is no CCCL designation. The seventh measurement is taken within

           this area, comparing the V-zone with the storm surge zones. This final measurement is taken at

           Everglades City, one of the only developed areas southeast of Marco Island. All measurements are




                                                          A-37











                      relative to the center of the traffic circle (round about) at the intersection of Broadway and

                      Copeland Avenue.





                        V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3
                        (EL-1 2)

                        1,800'           N/A              H 32,300'        W 49,100'        H 54,700'
                        Seaward'                          Landward       I Landward       I LandwaLd@jj

                       Unlike the previous FIRM maps, the map indicating the extent of the V-zone has a scale of 1 inch to 1000 feet. The
                      margin of error for the V-zone in this case is + or - 10 feet.

                      2The SLOSH model limit is at 54,700' (10.4 miles) at this point. The Category 3 zone appears to extend beyond this limit
                      to the northeast into the Big Cypress National Preserve.


                      Going from Land to the Gulf the zones are:

                      LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - V-zone - GULF




                      The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

                      The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 34,1100'.

                      The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 16,800'.

                      The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 5,600'.




                      SARASOTA COUNTY


                      Features of Study Area


                      The Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas used in this study was prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional

                      Planning Council and is dated December 1991. The Storm Tide Atlas aggregated information for

                      storm surge Categories 4 and 5, labeling the extent of these storms as 4/5. This hybrid category is

                      recorded in this study. The FIRMS used in this study are dated September 3, 1992. A separate

                      FIRM, dated May 1, 1984, was used for V-zone information within the incorporated boundaries of

                      the City of Venice. The CCCL map used in this study is dated January 1985.





                                                                               A-38










              The northern section of Sarasota County includes a series of barrier islands. From north to south,

              the islands are Longboat Key, Siesta Key, and Casey Key. Venice Inlet forms the southern

              boundary of this chain of keys. South of the City of Venice there is a section of coastline that is

              unprotected by barrier island. This strip of exposed coastline is approximately three and one half

              miles long. South of this exposed area, just north of the mouth of Alligator Creek, lies Manasota

              Key. Manasota Key extends south beyond the Sarasota County-Charlotte County border.




              Interview with Emergency Management Contact


              Greg D. Feagans is the Emergency Management Director for Sarasota County. Lori Park was the

              representative from this office who was interviewed for this study. The interview was conducted

              by telephone on November 18, 1993. Ms. Park indicated that the county uses the Hurricane Storm

              Tide Atlas as a guide for evacuation. It should be noted that all of the coastal barrier islands and

              exposed coastline fall within the tropical storm or Category 1 storm surge zones. In the event of a

              Category 1 storm, all coastal barrier islands are evacuated.




              Comr)arative Measurements


              Measurement 1: The first measurement is taken in Longboat Key. Heading south along Gulf of

              Mexico Drive from Manatee County, the measurement is relative to the northwest corner of the

              intersection of Longboat Key Drive and Gulf of Mexico Drive. It should be noted that Category 2 - 5

              storms extend across Sarasota Bay and affect the mainland.





                V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3      Category 4/5


                N/A              570'             300'             H 17,200'        H 17,500'       (-) 17,900'

                                Seaward           Seaward          Landward         Landward        LandnLd_@l


              Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:



                                                                      A-39










                     LAND - Category 4/5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - GULF




                     The CCCL appears to be the most narrow.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 270'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 17,500'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 300'.

                     The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 400'.




                     Measurement 2: The next measurement is taken on Siesta Key. Siesta Key is separated from the

                     mainland by Little Sarasota Bay. Some parts of the Key, specifically the northern sections, are

                     within the Category 2 storm surge zone but most of the Key is within the Category 1 storm surge

                     zone. As with the previous measure, Categories 2-5 extend well on to the mainland, totally

                     covering the barrier island. The Key widens in the northern section. This measurement is taken in

                     that area, relative to the northeast corner of the intersection of Beach Road and Ocean Boulevard.





                       V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3       Category 415
                       (EL-1 3)

                          170'          H1101            450'                12,300'       H 12,600'        H 13,900'


                       Landward         Landward         Seaward          Landward         Landward         Landward



                     Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 4/5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V-zone - CCCL - Category 1 - GULF




                     The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 660'.

                     The V-zone is wider than the CCCL by 60'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the V-zone by 12,130'.



                                                                              A-40










             The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 300'.

             The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 1,300'.



             Measurement 3: Along the section of Siesta Key that contains Hero Lagoon, the entire barrier

             island is subject to the effects of tropical storms. The third measurement is taken in this area. It

             should be noted that Category 2-5 zones extend across Little Sarasota Bay to the mainland. The

             Category 1 storm surge zone is not visible at this reference point. The measurement is relative to

             the northernmost intersection of Sanderling Road and Midnight Pass Road, at the southeast corner.

             Sanderling Road is alternatively labeled Turnstone Road. Midnight Pass Road becomes Port Lane

             east of this reference point.





               V-zone         CCCL            Category 1     Category 2      Category 3      Category 4/5
               (EL-13)


               1,165'         900,            N/A            (-)4.800,       W5,1001           10, 200'

               Seaward        Seaward                        Landward        Landward       Landwt@-Ji


             Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

             LAND - Category 4/5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - CCCL - V-zone - GULF




             The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

             The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 265'.

             The Category 2 zone is wider than the CCCL by 5,700'.

             The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 300'.

             The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 5,100'.




             Measurement 4: The next barrier island south of Siesta Key is Casey Key. Separated from Siesta

             Key by Midnight Pass, the northernmost section of this Key is effected by tropical storms and



                                                                 A-41










                 appears to have a low elevation, similar to Siesta Key. Casey Key narrows considerably with these

                 features continuing approximately six miles south to a point where the key widens slightly just

                 before Venice Inlet. The protected coastline west of Little Sarasota Bay and Blackburn Bay are

                 affected by storms of varying intensities, from 1 through 5, depending on the precise location. The

                 fourth measurement is taken relative to the northeast corner of Casey Key Road and Blackburn

                 Point Road, just west of the Blackburn Point Bridge. Lower intensity Storm surge zones occur

                 landward of some higher intensity zones in this area due to the effects of Little Sarasota Bay and

                 South Creek. It should be noted that the V-zone is labeled as a V1 6 zone at this point and the

                 Category 1 zone is not indicated on the map. Also, it appears on the CCCL map as if the Category

                 2 storm surge zone runs along a wall of crushed rocks that may be a revetment.





                   V1 6 Zone     CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4/5
                   (EL-17)


                   300'            120'        N/A           250'            3,650'      H5,9501
                 11 Seaward    I Landward    I             I Seaward      ILandward     ILandw!!@d@l


                 Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                 LAND - Category 4/5 - Category 3 - CCCL - Category 2 - V16 Zone - GULF




                 The V1 6 Zone appears to be the most narrow.

                 The Category 2 zone is wider than the V1 6 Zone by 50'.

                 The CCCL is wider than the Category 2 zone by 370'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the CCCL by 3,530'.

                 The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 2,300'.




                 Measurement 5: The next measurement is taken south of Venice Inlet within the City of Venice.

                 The effects of Dona Bay and Roberts Bay can been seen in the landward extent of the storm surge



                                                                A-42










            zones. Additionally, the Category 4/5 zone extends a considerable distance landward at this point.

            All measurements are relative to the northeast corner of the intersection of White Cap Circle 1which

            is the third street south of the inlet on the east), and Tarpon Center Drive.





             V-zone        CCCL          Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4/5
             (EL- 17)


             600'          150,          550,          H 7,200'        9,400'      H 57,600'


             Seaward       Seaward       Seaward       Landward      Landward      Landw



            Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

            LAND - Category 4/5 - Category 3 - Category 2 - CCCL    Category 1   V-zone - GULF




            The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

            The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 50'.

            The CCCL is wider than the Category 1 zone by 400'.

            The Category 2 zone is wider than the CCCL by 7,350'.

            The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 2,200'.

            The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 48,200'.




            Measurement 6: South of Roberts Bay and north of Alligator Creek is a considerable section of

            coastline, approximately 3 1/2 miles long, unprotected by barrier islands. The landward extent of

            the lower level storms is quite limited here, with the Category 3 storm surge zone running along the

            coast at this measurement point. The fifth measurement is taken relative to southeast (inside)

            corner of Alhambra Road and Castle Street.












                                                          A-43
















                       V-zone          CCCL             Category 1       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4/5

                       N/A                250'          N/A              N/A              50'                 61,400'

                                       Landward                                           Seaward          Landward



                     Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 4/5 - CCCL - Category 3 - GULF




                     The Category 3 zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The CCCL is wider than the Category 3 zone by 300'.

                     The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 61,150'.




                     Measurement 7: Manasota Key forms a barrier island that extends from just north of Alligator

                     Creek, south beyond the border with Charlotte County. Moving from north to south, the protected

                     bay, Lemon Bay, widens. As the bay widens, the Key becomes increasingly vulnerable to

                     hurricanes, perhaps from decreased elevation. The seventh measurement is taken along Manasota

                     Key at Manasota Beach, where Lemon Bay is quite narrow. This point lies directly across from the

                     City of Manasota. Measurements are relative to the northeast corner of Manasota Road and the

                     landing road of Manasota Bridge.





                       V-zone          CCCL             Category I       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4/5
                       (EL- 17)

                       330'            0501             300'             200'             H5901               53,000"
                       Seaward         Landward         Seaward          Seaward          Landward         Landward     J

                       The category 4/5 storm surge zone actually extends beyond this point. The distance given is the Sarasota
                     County/Charlotte County border.







                                                                             A-44










              Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

              LAND - Category 415 - Category 3 - CCCL - Category 2 - Category 1                   V-zone - GULF




              The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

              The Category 1 zone is wider than the V-zone by 30'.

              The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 100'.

              The CCCL is wider than the Category 2 zone by 250'.

              The Category 3 zone is wider than the CCCL zone by 540'.

              The Category 4/5 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 52,410'.




              Measurement 8: The final measurement is taken on Manasota Key at the Charlotte

              County/Sarasota County border. Lemon Bay has widened considerably at this point. The entire

              coastal barrier island is affected by a Category 1 storm. The Category 1 storm surge zone also


              extends to the mainland. Measurements are relative to the west side of Manasota Road at the


              border.






                V-zone           CCCL             Category 1       Category 2        Category 3      Category 4/5
                (EL- 17)

                610'             140'                5,900'        (-1 18,700'       H 40,000"       N/A
                Seaward          Seaward          Landward         Landward          Landward      I                I

               The Category 3  storm surge zone actually extends beyond this point. The distance given is the Sarasota
              County/Charlotte County border.


              Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

              LAND - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - CCCL - V-zone - GULF




              The V-zone appears to be the most narrow.

              The CCCL is wider than the V-zone by 450'.



                                                                       A-45











                 The Category 1 zone is wider than the CCCL by 6,040'.

                 The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 12,800'.

                 The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 21,300'.




                 WAKULLA COUNTY


                 Features of the Study Area

                 Because there are no high energy sandy beaches along the Gulf coast of Wakulla County, no CCCL

                 map has been prepared. The Storm Tide Atlas used in this study was still in the final stages of

                 preparation and therefore no reference date is available. The map was provided by Mike McDonald

                 of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The FIRM maps used in this study label the V-

                 zone as the V20 zone. The zone is referred to as V20 in this section of the study.




                 The Wakulla County coast is marked by low lying wetlands. The prevalence of ridges within this

                 area means that lower category storm surge areas may lie landward of higher category areas. Most

                 roads are not labeled on the FIRM, making comparisons between the maps difficult.




                 Interview with Emeruency Manaciement Contact


                 The Director of Civil Defence for Wakulla County is Mr. Murray, who was interviewed by telephone

                 on December 1, 1993. Mr. Murray indicated that Wakulla County is extremely vulnerable to coastal

                 flooding and storm surge. He mentioned that the low elevation of much of the county and the very

                 high tides experienced there can contribute to massive flooding. Depending on the severity of

                 storm, 80% of the county could be under water. A Category 1 storm has the potential to breach

                 State Road 98 in several places.



                 The major population areas of the county are located on the water, and half of the county's

                 population resides in mobile homes. When the Civil Defence office gives an evacuation order, they



                                                               A-46










            do not differentiate between mobile homes and permanent structures. A problem that Mr. Murray

            expressed regarding the mobile homes dwellers is that "they take perverse pride in riding out a

            storm and bragging about it afterwards." Part of the reason why it may be difficult to convince

            residents to evacuate is because the county suffered from extensive looting in the aftermath of

            Hurricane Kate.




            Mr. Murray indicated that he would make a judgment call regarding evacuation. Evacuation might

            be ordered in the event of a severe tropical storm or a Category 1 hurricane. Local shelters are not

            opened if the storm is going to be beyond the Category 2 level. In this case everyone must

            evacuate to Leon County or into Georgia.




            Comnarative Measurements


            Measurement 1: The first measurement is taken on the northern shore of Ochlocknee Bay, 8,750'

            (1.66 miles) west from the intersection with State Road 98 along County Road 372 (labeled as

            Surf Road on the SLOSH model map), to the eastern bank of the inlet that bisects this road.





              V20 Zone     Category 1    Category 2    Category 3    Category 4    Category 5
              (EL-1 6)

                           01,8001          19,400'       22,700'      35,000'     (-)36,700

              At Reference 1Landward     Landward      Landward     ILandward      Landw EL-JI


            Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

            LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1   V20 Zone - GULF




            The V20 Zone appears to be the most narrow.

            The Category 1 zone is wider than the V20 Zone by 1,800'

            The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 17,600'.




                                                          A-47










                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 3,300'.

                     The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 12,300'.

                     The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 1,700'.




                     Measurement 2: The next measurement is taken from the terminus of County Road 60 at a point

                     labeled "Skipper" on the FIRM. Measurements are taken due west from this location (West of

                     Oyster Bay).




                       V20 Zone         Category I       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                       (EL- 17)

                       03,200             13,200'          14,600'          15,000'           52,600'       (-)53,900

                       Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward          Landward        Landw!!d


                     Going  from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1 - V20 Zone - GULF


                                                                                                                                                      IL
                     The V20 Zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the V20 Zone by 10,000'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 1,400'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 400'.

                     The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 37,600'.

                     The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 1,300'.



                     Measurement : This measurement is taken in the Oyster Bay/Shell Point area at the intersection of

                     Kernegay Way and Shell Point Road.









                                                                             A-48
















                V20 Zone         Category I       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                (EL- 17)             -


                (-)9,600         H 8,800'         H9,9001          H 27,450'           29,800'       (-)63,200
                Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward         Landw!!I___Jl


              Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

              LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - V20 Zone - Category 1                      GULF




              The Category 1 zone appears to be the most narrow.

              The V20 Zone is wider fhan the Category 1 zone by 800'.

              The Category 2 zone is wider than the V20 Zone by 300'.

              The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 17,550'.

              The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 2,350'.

              The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 33,400'.




              Measurement 4: Moving east from Shell Point and Goose Creek Bay, the relationship between the

              storm surge categories normalizes, with no lower level categories being indicated landward of

              higher categories. The lands north of Apalachee Bay appear to be low lying as the lower category

              storms reach considerably far inland. The Wakulla/St. Marks River valley contributes to this effect.

              As there is not much development along the coast at this point, the next measure is taken relative

              to the northernmost tip of Sprague Island, which lies in the western portion of the mouth of the St.

              Marks River. The Category 3 storm surge limit extends 300' north of the Wakulla County border

              into Leon County.





                V20 Zone         Category 1       Category 2       Category 3       Category 4       Category 5
                (EL-17)

                H8,050           H 22,300'          27,500'          41,600'        N/A              N/A



                                                                      A-49







                     ILL, d -,,d        Landward         Landward         Landward

                     Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 - Category 1                   V20 Zone - GULF




                     The V20 Zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the V20 Zone by 14,250'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1 zone by 5,200'.

                     The Category 3 zone is wider. than the Category 2 zone by 14,100'.




                     Measuremenj 5: The final measurement is taken at the Wakulla County/Jefferson County border.

                     The relationships between the storm surge lines are normalized, with no lower category storm

                     surge areas being located landward of higher category areas. Also, the effects of the Wakulla and

                     the St. Marks rivers are not exhibited in this region. It should be noted that the Category 5 storm

                     surge extends beyond the limits of -the model, 1,300' past the Wakulla County border into Leon

                     County.





                       V20 Zone         Category I      Category 2        Category 3      Category 4       Category 5
                       (EL- 17)

                       (-)9,500         H 27,500'          42,700'        H 50,400'          61,700'       (-)65,700
                       Landward         Landward         Landward         Landward        Landward         Landw!!d@j


                     Going from land to the Gulf the zones are:

                     LAND - Category 5 - Category 4 - Category 3 - Category 2 -: Category 1                  V20 Zone - GULF




                     The V20 Zone appears to be the most narrow.

                     The Category 1 zone is wider than the V20 Zone by 18,000'.

                     The Category 2 zone is wider than the Category 1            zone by 15,200'.


                                                                             A-50










            The Category 3 zone is wider than the Category 2 zone by 7,700'.

            The Category 4 zone is wider than the Category 3 zone by 11,300'.

            The Category 5 zone is wider than the Category 4 zone by 4,000'.




                                               ENDNOTES TO APPENDIX



            1 .    SLOSH refers to the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes model developed by
                   the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association for estimating the landward extent of
                   storm surges generated by tropical depressions and hurricanes.

            2.     The accuracy of measurements taken from the SLOSH model map is +/- 100'. This brings
                   into question the relationship between the CCCL and the Category 1 zone in this example.













































                                                         A-51












                                   Table AA: Summary Table of the Relative Positions of the Policy Lines



                                   REGION        COUNTY MEASUREMENT             POUCY UNES

                                                                 NUMBER         (FROM LAND TO SEA)


                                   Atlantic    Duval                  I         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      VE Zone        Category I     CCCL
                                                                      2         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      CCCL           Category 1     VE Zone
                                                                      3         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      CCCL           VE Zone        Category 1
                                                                      4         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      Category I     CCCL           VE Zone
                                                                      5         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      Category I     VE Zone        CCCL
                                                                      6         Category S        Category 4      Category 3     Category I      VE Zone
                                               Brevard                I         Category 3        CCCL            VE Zone        Category 1
                                                                      2         OCCL              Category 3      VE Zone        Category 1
                                                                      3         OCCL              Category 3      VE Zone
                                                                      4         CCCL              VE Zone
                                                                      5         CCCL              Category 3      VE Zone
                                                                      6         OCCL              VE Zone
                                                                      7         CCCL              Category I      VE Zone
                                                                      8         CCCL              Category 1      VE Zone
                                                                      9         Category I        CCCL            VE Zone
                                               Dade                   I         CCCL              Category 5      VE Zone        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2 Category 1
                                                                      2         Category 5        COCL            Category 4     Category 3      Category 2     Category 1     VE Zone
                                                                      3         CCCL              Category I      VE Zone
                                                                      4         CCCL              VE Zone         Category 1
                                                                      5         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     CCCL            Category 2     VE Zone/Ca
                                                                      6         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      VE Zooe        Category I CCCL
                                                                      7         CCCL              Category 1      VE Zone
                                   Keys        Monroe                 I         Category 3        Category 2      VE Zone
                                                                      2         Category 2        VE Zone
                                                                      3         Category S        Category 2      VE Zone
                                                                      4         Category 5        Category 3      Category 2     VE Zone
                                                                      5         Category 5        Category 3      category 2     VE Zone
                                   Gulf        Collier                I         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     VE Zone         CCCL
                                                                      2         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     VE Zone         CCCL
                                                                      3         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     CCCL            VEZoi2e
                                                                      4         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     CCCL            VE Zone
                                                                      5         Category 3        Category 2      Category 1     CCCL            VE Zone
                                                                      6         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     CCCL            VE Zone
                                                                      7         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     CCCL            VE Zone
                                               Sarasota               I         Category 41S      Category 3      Category 2     Category I      CCCL
                                                                      2         Category 415      Category 3      Category 2     VE Zone         CCCL           Category I
                                                                      3         Category 4/S      Category 3      Category 2     CCCL            VE Zone
                                                                      4         Category 4/5      Category 3      CCCL           Category 2      V16 Zone
                                                                      5         Category 4/5      Category 3      Category 2     OCCL            Category I     VE Zone
                                                                      6         Category 41S      CCCL            Category 3
                                                                      7         Category 4/5      Category 3      CCCL           Category 2      Category 1     VEzone
                                                                      8         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     CCCL            VE Zone        I
                                   Big Bend    Wakulla                I         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      Category I     V20 Zone
                                                                      2         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      Category I     V20 Zone
                                                                      3         Category 5        Category 4      Category 3     Category 2      V20 Zone       Category I
                                                                      4         Category 3        Category 2      Category I     V2D Zone
                                                                      5         Category 5        Category 4      1 Category 3   Category2       Category I     V20 Zone













             Table A.2: Contact List For Emergency Management Coordinators



               BREVARD COUNTY                                        COLLIER COUNTY


               Tony Carper                                           Kenneth Pineau
               Director, Office of Emergency Management              Emergency Management Director
               1746 Cedar Street, Rockledge, 32955                   3301 E. Tamiami Trail
               (407) 633-1770                                        Naples, 33962
                                                                     (813) 774-8444


               DADE COUNTY                                           DUVAL COUNTY


               Kathleen Hale                                         Hastings Williams, Jr.
               Director, Emergency Management                        Director, Civil Defence
               5600 S.W. 87th Ave., Miami, 33173                     107 N. Market St., Jacksonville, 32202
               (305) 596-8700 or (305) 273-6700                      (904) 630-2472

               Contact: Sandra Jones                                 Contact: Andy Sykes


               MONROE COUNTY                                         SARASOTA COUNTY


               William Wagner                                        Gregg D. Feagans
               Emergency Management                                  Director, Emergency Management
               5192 Overseas Highway, Chaplin Building               P.O. Box 8, Sarasota, 34230
               Marathon, 33050                                       (813) 951-5283
               (305) 289-6018
                                                                     Contact: Lori Park
               Contact: Lisa Coats



               WAKULLA COUNTY


               Mr. Murray
               Civil Defence
               P.O. Box 1263, Crawfordville, 32327





                                                                                                                                                                         A co&i,:@




                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                                          f
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                           f
                                                                                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                                                                                          il
                                                                                                                                                                                           1