Coastal barriers resource manual federal and state program highlights

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

.. . . .... .... .
................. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..............

COASTAL ZG!NiE

INFORMATION CENTER

A COASTAL BARRIERS RESOURCE MANUAL
FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

cotmAl%%

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Tom Lewis, Jr., Architect, Secretary
KF November 1986
5627
C637
1986

A COASTAL BARRIERS RESOURCE MANUAL:
FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COAS,IAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Financial'assistance for this publication was provided
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, administered by the Office of ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Department
of Community Affairs.

November 1986
prop"ty Of CSC XIbr"T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. COASTAL BARRIERS: AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE MANUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. FEDERAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) . . . . 9
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) . . . . . 16

3. STATE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 21

Coastal Construction Control Line Program . . . 22
Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985:
Coastal Building Zones and Codes . . . . . . 30
Florida's Beach Management and Erosion
Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Coastal Management Elements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Plans . . . . 40
Coastal Barrier Executive order
(BO 81-105) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Coastal Barrier Infrastructure Policy . . . . . 49
Windstorm Insurance Risk Apportionment
(Chapter 627.351 (2), F.S.) . . . . . . . . . 51
Emergency Management (Chapter 252, F.S.;
Chapter 9G-13, F.A.C.) 0 . 0 * . . . . . . . 54
State Land Acquisition Programs . . . . . . . . 57

4. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS . . . . 72

Appendix: References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 1

COASTAL BARRIERS:

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MANUAL

Background

Florida has one of the highest rates of population growth in

the nation, and nowhere is this growth and its associated impacts

more evident than on the barrier islands and related landforms

which fringe -most of the state's coastline. Sixty percent of the

state's increase in population is projected to occur in coastal

areas, and by 1990 over eighty percent of the state's population

is expected to reside in coastal counties. Further, a majority

of the state's 32 million tourists visit and stay along the

beaches. This explosive growth carries with it the potential for

major property damage and loss of life. While there has been a

reduction in expected hurricane fatalities each"year since 1940,

primarily because of improved forecasting and warning systems,

the probability of catastrophe has increased because of the
reduced capability of the highway system to evacuate the '

increased coastal population. In addition, the value of coastal

property has risen dramatically: an informal survey of county

property appraisers indicates that beachfront property values are

increasing at an average rate of thirty percent per year.

Correspondingly, estimates for damages from an intense storm in

South Florida range between $1 billion and $5 billion.

The amenities associated. with beachfront living have

stimulated demand for residential, commercial and tourist

development in areas only marginally suited for such uses.

While construction and maintenance costs are higher in coastal

areas than on the mainland because of increased transportation

and siting requirements, a portion of these costs has been

publicly subsidized by flood insurance, beach nourishment and

erosion control projects, disaster assistance, and reconstruction

of public facilities. Thus, public dollars create incentives for

further coastal development. In turn, Floridians have witnessed

the visible destructi on of sand dunes and shorelines, inadequate

water supply and waste disposal capability, increased stormwater

runoff, blocked access to long stretches of beachfront, and air

and water degradation--all with full knowledge of the jeopardy to

life and property during major storm events. The dynamic but

fragile nature of coastalbarriers presents a classic example of

competition between development and resource protection.
Setting :. I
There are over 1.4 million acres of coastal barriers along

the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S., including over 295

islands. Approximately forty percent of this area is developed
or being developed; about thirteen percent is undeveloped and
unprotected by government or private groups. Development has

been averaging more than 6,000 acres per year.

Coastal barriers, which include bay barriers, tombolos,

barrier spits, and barrier islands, are typically described as

depositional geologic features which consist of unconsolidated

sedimentary materials and are subject to wave, tidal and wind

energies. Coastal barriers are generally unstable, shifting with

tides, currents, sea level changes, and storms. The typical

barrier will include most of the following characteristics: beach,

berm, dunes, barrier flats, overwash fans, saltmarsh or mangrovest

tidal flats, inlets, and lagoons.

The beach and berm are subject to regular wave action; both

may contract and expand on a seasonal basis. Dunes are wind-

generated and absorb the energies of the larger storms;

vegetation serves to stabilize dunes and enables them to

resist greater forces. Barrier flats are typically forested.

Salt marshes, tidal flats and lagoons represent the transition

zones into the estuaries and bays found behind barrier islands.

These are highly productive ecosystems which support a wide

variety of species, including commercially important fish and

shellfish.- The structure of coastal barriers is such that it

performs the following 'functions:

1) First-line defense against major storms by dissipation of
wave energy;

2) Habitat for endangered and threatened species;

3) Protection of estuaries used as nurseries and habitats
for commercial and recreationally important species;

4) Food supply points for migratory species;

5) A wide range of recreational opportunities, and;

6) Scientific, aesthetic, and archaeological centers.

In response to the public's concern over the difficult task

of balancing the social, economic, and physical needs of a

growing population while maintaining or enhancing environmental

quality, new initiatives have been taken by federal and State

government which are specifically directed toward coastal

barrier areas.

Legislation has been enacted to manage coastal resources

from cultural and environmental points of view, using regulatory

and financial mechanisms. Both federal and State programs are
removing development 'incentives and encouraging public

acquisition of coastal properties. Regulatory approaches include

performance standards, construction prohibitions, and management

schemes. Financial tools include revised insurance schedules and

withdrawals of and restrictions on disaster assistance.

In Florida, the 1985-Omnibus Growth Management Act, along

with the 1986 revisions, provides local government the ultimate

opportunity to address coastal issues in a coordinated manner.

Much attention has been focused on the integration of local,

regional, and State policies as well as on joint planning for and

consistency among local coastal plans. Thus, there is a need for

local governments to integrate federal and State coastal programs
within the coastal management elements of their comprehensive

plans.

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide the public and

local governments with a concise resource guide to federal and

State programs which have the potential to affect coastal

management decisions. Currently, there is no single document

available which provides an overview of coastal barrier

legislation, its regulatory provisions, programmatic intent,

planning requirements, or funding opportunities.

Content

The manual is designed to provide a general overview of key

federal and State coastal programs and their interrelationships

and to be a convenient reference for individual programs. Each

program is presented as a separate entry for ease of reference.

Program descriptions include highlights pertaining to statutory

authority, legislative intent, how programs are funded and

implemented, and what are the regulations and restrictions

regarding compliance with or admittance to each program.

The final chapter outlines the interactions between programs

at the state and federa-1 levels. The appendix includes a list of

statutory citations relevant to the programs discussed, a

bibliography, and a contact list of federal and State agencies

responsible for each program.

The manual highlights the following coastal regulatory and

management programs or policies:

o The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
o The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
o The Coastal Construction Control Line Program (CCCL),
Section 161.053, F.S.
o The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985: Coastal Building
Zones and Codes, Section 161.52 - 161.58, F.S.
o Florida's Beach Management and Erosion Control Program
o Coastal Management Elements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, F.S.
o The Coastal Barrier Executive order (EO 81-105)
o The Coastal Barrier Infrastructure Policy,
Section 380.27, F.S.
o Windstorm Insurance Risk Apportionment,
Section 627.351, F.S.
o Emergency Management,
Chapter 252, F.S., and Chapter 9G-13, F.A.C.
o State Land Acquisition Programs

Chapter 2

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Federal government involvement in the regulation of coastal

development has been primarily a response to minimize the need

for disaster assistance and to discourage development in areas

where human life may be in jeopardy. Recently, however, the

thrust of federal action has been expanded to address land use,

building practices, and environmental considerations as well.
While the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Coastal

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) are the most significant federal

programs dealing with coastal regulation, there are a number of

other programs under a variety of agencies which provide

mechanisms for the acquisition and management of coastal

properties (see Chapter 3). Current federal policies are

shifting the costs of construction and the risk of loss from the

federal government to the private sector and State and local

governments.

Two programs, not detailed in this manual, deserve brief

mention because of their impact on coastal construction and other

program provisions. Sections 401 and 402 of the Disaster Relief

Act of 1974 (42 USC 5171-2) permit and provide funds for the

repair and replacement of flood-damaged federal and local public

infrastructure, respectively. When local government decides it

is in the public's best interests not to restore facilitles,

federal funds of up to ninety percent of the original

infrastructure value may be used for new public facilities

elsewhere. Also, Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as

amended, enables local governments to request federal assistance

for the technical investigation and construction, within certain

cost limitations, of small flood-control projects. Such projects

must be in the overall public interest, complete, economically

justified, technically feasible, and environmentally sound.

Federal interest in the project is another important

consideration..

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)

Background

The National Flood Insurance Program provides previously

unavailable flood insurance to property owners and requires special

building designs and elevations in flood prone and coastal hazard

zones. Prior to the NFIP, the national and state response to flood

disasters was limited to the construction of seawalls, levees, and

dams, as well as providing financial relief after disasters. These

practices by-themselves did not encourage sound development in flood-

prone areas. Insurance by private companies was typically

unavailable; consequently, the federal government seized the

opportunity to use the carrot and stick approach to land use and

regulation. Traditionally, American courts have held that land may

be regulated by government but may not be taken without just

compensation. Therefore, implementation of the NFIP approach is

reflected by the fact that local governments may offer their residents

flood insurance if they adopt and enforce floodplain management

standards set'@by NFIP for the construction and renovation of
buildings.' By compliance with guidelines under the program, flood

risks are pooled nationwide and insurance premiums are reduced and the

loss of lives and property are minimized. The NFIP is administered by

the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

Legislative Intent

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was enacted

under the National Flood Insurance Act (Title XIII of the 1968

Housing and Urban Development Act) and is authorized by 42 U.S.C.

4001-4128. Its intent was to ameliorate personal hardship and

regional economic distress associated with flood disasters and to

reduce the insufficiencies of then existing construction methods

in special flood hazard areas. An additional goal was to

encourage state and local governments to adopt and enforce land

use measures which would restrict development in flood hazard

areas. Section 201 o f the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public

Law 93-288) authorizes funds for disaster preparation plans,

including land use neasures which minimize disaster risks.

Significant effort on the part of the FIA has been made to

reduce total program subsidy and to distribute rates more

equitably by charging those in high risk zones proportionally

more. The General Accounting Office has concluded that the Act

provides FEMA considerable freedom to establish such rates which

can minimize national sUbsidy and make the program more self-

sustaining. However, the Congress has not authorized each rate

request made by the FIA.

Regulatory Aspects

The program requires participating communities to adopt and
." ' I
enforce floodplain management standards designed to reduce or

avoid flood damage. Community participation in the program is

voluntary; local communities enter into an agreement with the

federal government to regulate development within flood hazard

areas. Floodplain management techniques include, but are not limited

to, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building and

health codes, and special-purpose coastal ordinances.

construction requirements in coastal high hazard areas (V-

zones) include the following:

o The lowest floor in all new construction must be
at or above the base flood elevation.

o The space below the base flood elevation must be free of
obstruction or be enclosed by break-away walls.

o Fill may not be used for structural support.

o All new construction must be landward of mean high tide.

o Alteration of dunes or mangroves which may increase flood
damage is prohibited.

Under Section 44 CFR 60.3, all participating communities are

required to provide development permits for all proposed

construction to determine whether such development is in a flood-

prone area. While standard building permits often satisfy this
requirement, idditional information is sometimes necessary. In

addition, FEMA requires all communities to submit bi-annual

reports on the numbers of permits and variances issued in

conjunction with other demographic data.

All structures in V-zones and new construction and substantial

improvements to existing structures are required to be elevated

at or above the base flood elevation. In A-zones, residential

structures must be at or above the base flood elevation by either

elevating or by using fill; non-residential structures may be

floodproofed to the base flood elevation in lieu of elevation of

the structure. FEMA requires floodproofing or elevation of the

entire structure when substantial improvements are made which

equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure

(excluding building and health code requirements) prior to

damages. Certification of lowest floor elevation, V-zone

anchoring, and floodproofing for non-residential structures

in A-zones are required under- the NFIP minimum criteria.

Protection for flood-related erosion was added to the

program by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The Act,

as amended, requires the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition for receiving any federal assistance for acquisition or

construction purposes on land within identified flood and erosion

areas. Where such hazards have been identified and where

communities are not participating in the program, federal grants,

loans, and guarantees from agencies such as the Small Business

Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the

Veterans Administration-are prohibited for acquisition and

construction within the hazard areas. In addition, disaster

assistance grants and loans for acquisition and construction will

not be provided. However, under the temporary housing program!

families may receive assistance that is not related to
acquisition and construction (e.g., provision for rental..units).
Under Florida's emergency management regulations, (Chapter

252, F.S.; Chapter 9G-13, F.A.C.) (pp. 54 - 56], participation in

the National Flood Insurance Program is a condition for

eligibility on the state's applications to FEMA for public

disaster assistance.

To qualify, a community must provide or demonstrate the

following;

1) Legislative/executive action indicating a need for
public assistance;

2) Citations of state and local ordinances regulating land
use;

3) A copy of adopted floodplain management regulations;

4) Demographic data;

5) A summary of other state and federal flood and erosion
control activities within the community;

6) A commitment to evaluate all flood and erosion hazards
and to carry out program objectives, and;

7) A commitment to cooperate with other agencies to provide,
maintain, and update all information relevant to program
objectives.

Upon adoption of minimum criteria for construction, management,

permitting, and enforcement, additional insurance limits are made

available..

Failure to adequat ely enforce locally adopted floodpl ain

management regulations or failure to comply with the criteria for

land management and use (Sec. 60 of 44 FR 31177) can result in a

community being suspended from the program. When a community is

suspended from the program, flood insurance policies cannot be
sold or renewed during the period of community ineligibiiity.

However, after suspension, three-year policies remain in force

through the current policy year and the premiums for years two

and three are refunded.

Since October 1, 1983, there has been a ban on flood

insurance coverage for new construction or substantial

improvement of structures on coastal barriers within the Coastal

Barrier Resource System, as described in the following chapter.

The Program's building standards still apply, however. Insurance

policies purchased for coastal barrier properties prior to that

date remain valid, if kept enforced.

Financial Aspects

Flood hazard areas are divided into zones of risk and

reported on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Flood Hazard Boundary

Maps, or Floodway Maps. Premiums and management measures are in

turn based on the degree of risk. Coastal maps may exhibit VIVIII

or velocity zones indicating extensive wave action associated

with major storms. There were a total of 38 rate schedules as of

January 1986.

Single-family residential coverage is limited to $185,000,
contents to $60,000; other residential and small business'is

limited to $250,000 with a $300,000 cap on contents. Insurance

"add-ons" are available for condominium owners and associations.

Minimum premiums were set at $50.00 regardless of coverage.

Policy Comments

The National Flood Insurance Program, through its land use

and construction requirements, influences the nature and cost of

development on coastal barriers. This "growth incentive" of the

NFIP has been partially mollified by recent actions to

redistribute rates and charging significantly higher premiums in

high-risk coastal areas.

The state has limited enforcement capabilities due to

inadequate staffing and money and a large number of participating

communities which result in limited site visits. Therefore, the

brunt of enforcement 'falls to local governments to ensure

compliance.

It is postulated that NFIP regulations actually encourage

development in coastal high hazard areas by virtue of making

insurance available where previously none existed. On the other

hand, some argue that the program has discouraged development in

these areas by requiring structures to be built to withstand

hurricane forces. There is merit in both philosophies.

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT (CBRA)

Introduction

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) was enacted as

Public Law 97-348 (16 USC 3501 et. seq.) in 1982. The Act is the

only federal law which specifically addresses coastal barriers.

Congress also recognized that certain federal programs subsidized

development which accelerated the loss of barrier resources,

threatened life and property, and expended millions of dollars

unnecessarily.

Coastal barriers and adjacent wetlands and estuaries are

acknowledged to: (1) provide habitat for migratory birds and

wildlife; (2) provide habitat and spawning grounds for

commercially and recreationally important species of fish and

shellfish; (3) contain scenic, recreational, and cultural value;

and (4) provide a buffer against storms. Wetlands on the bayside of

barrier islands, which are not directly referenced in the CBRA, are

specifically addressed under Section 404 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act of 1972 which strengthened Corps of

Engineers'-requlation of wetlands adjacent to navigable waters.
The Coastal Barrie'r Resource System (CBRS) was established

under the Act to designate those undeveloped coastal areas which

would be affected by the limitation on federal expenditures.

Thirty-three units, totaling 115.5 shoreline miles, of the CBRS

were designated in Florida. Alterations, generally to clarify
area boundaries were made in 1983 at the request of sta'@e-

agencies and private interests. The Department of the Interior

is currently reviewing and proposing revisions to the CBRS.

Congress must make any changes to the system.

Legislative Intent

This Act prohibits federal financial assistance for new or

expanded development on undeveloped coastal barriers which are

members of the Coastal Barrier Resource System. Financial

assistance includes loans, grants, guarantees, insurance

payments, rebates, and subsidies. The law's stated purpose is to

. . . minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of

federal revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other

natural resources associated with coastal barriers.11

Congressional intent is to restrict all federal expenditures and

indirect federal assistance which may encourage development, to

establish the CBRS, and to consider other conservation means as

well, although these lastmeasures are not specified further in

the Act. The CBRA does not alter private property rights on

coastal barriers, but withdraws federal subsidies for development

of lands within the Coastal Barrier Resource System.

Regulatory Aspects

The Act refers to "undeveloped coastal barriers" which are

defined as depositional features containing unconsolidated

materials subject to wave action and which protect landward

aquatic habitat. Also, the barrier must contain "few" manmade

structures, and human activities must not have significantly

impeded geomorphic and ecological processes. Finally, the

system unit must not be part of any existing federal, State, or local

area primarily established for wildlife, recreational, or

conservation purposes.

Section 5 of the Act specifies that no federal funds or

assistance (loans, grants, insurance, rebates, or subsidies) can

be used for the construction or major repair of structures,

roads, and access facilities, or the administration of projects

for erosion control or inlet and shoreline stabilization.

However, federal funds may be used for the maintenance and

reconstruction of infrastructure within the CBRS and may also be

used for the recreation and resource protection.

Exceptions to the restrictions of the Act permit federal

funds to be used for the following:

(1) exploration, extraction, and transportation of
energy resources;

(2) maintenance of existing jetties and channels;

(3) the repair, but not expansion, of public roads
considered to be essential links in a larger network;

(4) military activities essential for national security;

(5) construction, operation, and maintenance of Coast Guard
facilities, and;

(6) other projects consistent with the purposes of the
Act, including:
a) projects related to study and management of fish and
wildlife habitat, including acquisition;
b) establishment and operation of navigation aids;
c) projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 and the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972;

d) general scientific research;
e) assistance for emergency action pursuant to Sections
305 and 306 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
(42 USC 5145-46) and Section 1362 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC 4103) and
limited to actions to alleviate emergency;
f) maintenance and replacement, but not expansion, of
public infrastructure, and;
g) non-structural projects for shoreline stabilization
which mimic, enhance or restore natural systems.

The Act does not interfere with state and local rights to

protect, preserve, or restore coastal properties in their

respective jurisdictions.

Emergency assistance, pursuant to Public Law 93-288 (42 USC

5174) and carried out by FEMA, is available to remove debris,

protect life and property, provide shelter, restore services and

access, relocate individuals, and provide mortgage and rental

assistance. This federal assistance must, however be approved

through consultation of the FEMA Regional Director and the

Secretary of the Interior. Requirements for receiving disaster

assistance are specified in 44 CFR 205.

The Act provides for five-year reviews of system units

for minor and technical boundary changes, primarily to deal with

natural fluctuations.

Policy Comments

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is, in part, a limitation

on the National Flood Insurance Program. While both attempt to

minimize the impacts of flood risk on the federal treasury, the NFIP

aims to control development primarily through performance

standards (i.e., building codes and land use constraints), while

the CBRA withdraws federal financial assistance. The National

Flood Insurance Program only regulates areas based on the

existence of hazardous conditions, whereas the Coastal Barrier

Resources Act governs regions defined by density, infrastructure,

and habitat. It should also be noted that the prohibition of

flood insurance within CBRS units does not relax mandatory

compliance with NFIP building code and land use requirements.

The Governor's Executive Order (EO 81-105) and related

Letter to Agency Heads of August 8, 1986, address coastal

barriers, and in part restrict State funding for infrastructure

within the CBRA units'as well. as other specified areas (see pg.

45).

Chapter 3

STATE PROGRAMS

Florida has adopted a multi-program approach, involving

numerous State agencies, for managing its coastal barriers. The

following section of the manual will describe the measures, from

executive orders to building codes to legislative prescriptions,

which collectively affect coastal barriers and related areas.

The 1985 omnibus Growth Management Act has been a

catalyst for much of the recent attention being focused on

coastal barrier islands and beaches. The following two chapters

specifically highlight the 1985 and 1986 legislative initiatives

relating to coastal infrastructure policy, comprehensive

planning, and enhanced coastal construction requirements. The

text is not limited to the subject of growth management

legislation, however; several other significant State "coastal"

programs are reviewed. The intent is to provide an overview of

Florida's coastal management framework as it relates to coastal

barriers.

THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PROGRAM

Background

The Beach and Shore Preservation Act, Chapter 161, Florida

Statutes, was created by the Legislature in 1965 to preserve the

integrity of Florida's beaches and dunes through the regulation

of coastal development. Since initial passage, several

substantial amendments to Chapter 161 have been made. The most

significant change was the implementation of the Coastal
Construction'-Control Line (CCCL) Program, pursuant to Section

161.053, F.S, in 1971.

Although the control line program is extremely complex and

often misunderstood, it has a single responsibility to predict

the zone or area of severe impact of the 100-year storm event

(i.e., a major hurricane) and to administer regulations which

reduce structural damage and beach erosion within that zone.

Program Overview

Program jurisdiction is determined through the establishment

and periodic reestablishment of coastal construction control

lines on a county-by-county basis for sandy beaches fronting the

Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico. These legally recorded lines

of jurisdiction, which define the active beach-dune system, vary

from a few to several hundred feet landward of mean high water

(the average of recently reestablished lines is approximately

500 feet). Location is a function of predicted storm surge,

Coastal Construction Control Line
Program. Counties

N r

C@A

7--=z-4 -

erosion, existing topography and, of course, the change in

physical conditions since the time of previous establishment.

Permits from the State of Florida, through the Department of

Natural Resources, are required for all construction and

excavation activities seaward of established control lines. The

three-fold purpose of this permitting program is to insure that

if there is to be coastal construction seaward of established

control lines, it must be designed and sited in such a manner as

to protect beach and dune areas from damage; to insure that

construction activities at one location will not cause

accelerated beach ero sion on adjacent properties; and lastly, to

enhance the survivability of permitted structures under severe

storm conditions. ..

Control Line Establishment

Since 1971, the Governor and Cabinet, as head of the

Department of Natural Resources, have established coastal

construction control lines in all 24 eligible coastal counties.

Subsequentl.y, several counties have been resurveyed and restudied,

resulting in the relocation or "reestablishment" of their

coastal construction control line. Control line establishment is

an ongoing program in recognition of the dynamic nature of

Florida's beaches. The inadequacy of many of the control lines

established in the 1970s was addressed by the 1985 Legislature

when it directed the Department of Natural Resources to

"critical" priority to the reestablishment of all control lines

which have not been updated since June 30, 1980. This amendment

requires the Division of Beaches and Shores in the Department of

Natural Resources to greatly accelerate its restudy and

reestablishment schedule.

Control line establishment requires two significant efforts:

(1) field data collection, and (2) storm surge and erosion

analyses.

Topographic information relating to the condition of the
state's beaches is collected on a continuing basis. The basis of

field data collection,is the maintenance of reference monuments

installed at 1000-foot intervals along Florida's entire sandy

beach shoreline. Prior to control line reestablishment, beach

profiles are taken,at each monument from behind the dunes into

the surf, with special features such as vegetation and existing

structures noted and recorded using ground photography. off-

shore profiles are surveyed using the same reference monuments

extending from the surf to about 3000 feet offshore to water

depths of 2.5'.'to 35 feet.

The Department of Natural Resources, through the Division of

Beaches and Shores, considers this topographic information, along

with engineering/storm surge analyses, to determine if a landward

relocation of a control line is necessary to protect upland

property and to control beach erosion. If such studies indicate

the need for control line relocation, a public hearing must be

held in the affected county. Subsequently, the Department

considers the following:

� Results of public hearing;

� Ground elevations in relationship to historical storm and
hurricane tides;

� Effect of waves;

� Beach, offshore, and ground contours;

� Vegetation lines;

� Erosion trends;

� Dune or bluff lines, and;

� Existing upland development.

Coastal construction control lines are set by the Governor

and Cabinet, after a noticed public hearing, and become effective

upon filing with the Department of State. Descriptions of

established control.lines'may be found in Chapter 16B-26, F.A.C.,

and surveys are on file in each affected county and municipality.

Construction Seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line

Upon establishment of a coastal construction control line,

all construction and excavation activities seaward thereof

require a State permit from the Department of Natural

Resources. The rules and procedures to obtain such permits are

found in Chapter 16B-33, F.A.C. The Department may issue a

permit upon receipt of a completed application from a property

owner and after consideration of the facts and circumstances,

including:

adequate engineering data concerning
shoreline stability and storm tides related

to shoreline topography, design features of
the proposed structures or activities, and
potential impacts of the location of such
structures or activities including
potential cumulative effects of any
proposed structures or activities upon such
beach-dune system, which in the opinion of
the department, clearly justify such a
permit. (161.053 (5)(a))

Projects permitted under the control line program share many

common characteristics, including the following:

o All habitable structures are pile-supported, elevated
based on the projected 100-year storm surge, and designed
to withstand 140 mph winds.

o Existing beach topography is protected by a general
prohibition against major excavation.
o Maximum effort'is made to preserve all native,
stabilizing vegetation.

o Seawalls generally are not allowed, nor are all non-
essential coastal-protection structures.

o In severely eroding areas, structures are located as
far landward as is physically possible without regard to
the line of existing construction.

o All construction is designed to minimize erosive
effects.

o All activities contrary to program rule or practice are
mitigated by removal, prosecution, or civil fines of up to
$10-.000 a day.

There are several bxemptions to control line permitting

requirements:

(1) Structures intended for shore protection purposes
seaward of mean high water which are regulated by
another State permitting program administered by the
Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Section
161.041, F.S.

(2) Construction activities on vegetative non-sandy.shores.

(3) Modification of, maintenance of, or repair to any

existing structure within the limits of the existing
foundation, which does not require any addition to,
repair of, or modification of the existing foundation.
Not included in this exemption are seawalls and
additions or enclosures below the first floor of an
existing structure.

(4) Those structures existing or under construction prior
to establishment or reestablishment of a control line
(i.e., grandfathered structures).

(5) The construction of offshore structures.

(6) Construction or excavation activities on federally-
owned lands.

(7) Very minor activities, as described in 16B-33.04 (7),
F.A.C., may fall outside of the scope of program intent
and. thus be exempted from permitting requirements at
the discretion of staff.

A New Permit Consideration: Thirty-Year Erosion Projections

As part of the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act, the

Legislature created Section 161.053 (6), F.S. which prohibits the

Department of Natural Resources from issuing coastal construction

control line permits for most major structures proposed in a

location which, based on erosion projections, will be seaward of

the seasonal high water line within 30 years.

This provision is not applicable to coastal and shore

protection'structures, minor structures, piers, or intake and

discharge structures for a facility sited pursuant to Chapter

403, F.S. Further, when the application of the thirty-year

erosion projection would preclude construction of a structure,
the Department may issue a permit for a single-family dwelling

under the following conditions:
(1) The parcel was platted or subdivided before October 1,
1985;

(2) The owner of the affected parcel does not own an
adjacent, landward parcel;

(3) The proposed single-family dwelling will be located
landward of the frontal dune, and;

(4) The proposed single-family dwelling will be as far
landward as practicable without being located seaward
of or on the frontal dune.

The rules and procedures relating to thirty-year erosion

projections are provided in Section 16B-33.24, F.A.C. They

provide for site-specific determination as part of the overall

control line.permit review process. Thirty-year erosion

projections involve calculations based on historical erosion

data and take into consideration the effects of existing coastal

protection structures and existing or planned beach nourishment.

These erosion projections are subject to review pursuant to

Chapter 120, F.S., as are all agency final actions.

COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION ACT OF 1985:
COASTAL BUILDING ZONES AND CODES

Authority and Intent

The 1985 and 1986 sessions of the Florida Legislature

addressed the need for additional coastal management employing

stricter building standards in specified "coastal building

zones." Specifically, pursuant to Sections 161.53 - 161.56, it

is "the intent of the Legislature that the most sensitive portion

of the coastal area shall be managed through the imposition of

strict construction standards in order to minimize damage to the

natural environment, private property, and life." (s.s. 161.53

(5))

Coastal Building Zones

According to the definitions provided in Section 161.54,

F.S., three types of coastal building zones are established.

(1) For mainland beaches, barrier spits, and peninsulas, the

coastal building zone is the land area from the seasonal high-

water line landward to a line 1,500 feet landward of the coastal

construction control line, the jurisdictional line established,

pursuant to Section 161.053, for each county having sandy beaches
fronting the Atlantic ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Florida Bay, or

Straits of Florida.

COASTAL BUILDING ZONES

Mainland Sandy Beaches, Spits, Peninsulas

14@
1500 Feet:::..-.*,.'.-.-.
CC L

Ocean or Gulf

(2) For coastal barrier islands, the coastal building zone is the

land area from the seasonal high-water line to a line 5,000 feet

landward of the coastal construction control line, or the entire

island, whichever is less.

COASTAL BUILDING ZONES
Barrier Islands

-4.

Inland Waters

06 Peet'.
C L

Ocean or Guff

(3) For those coastal barrier areas fronting on the Gulf of

Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay, or Straits of Florida which

do not have established coastal construction control lines, the

coastal building zone is the land area seaward of the most

landward velocity zone (V-zone) established by FEMA and as

depicted on flood insurance rate maps.

Two exceptions to these definitional types should be noted.

(1) All land areas in the Florida Keys, located within Monroe

County, are included in the coastal building zone. (2) The other

exception applies to all coastal barrier islands between

Sebastian and Fort Pierce Inlets. The coastal building zone on

any island located between the subject inlets may be reduced in

size with the approval of the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as

the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Commission must

find that the affected local government has provided adequate

protection for the entire barrier island, and in no instance

shall the coastal building zone be reduced to an area less than a

line 2,500-1det landward of the coastal construction control

line.

Coastal Building Codes

For those land areas lying within the previously described

"coastal building zones," the Legislature has set forth

structural building requirements for enhancing the quality of

coastal construction.

There are four defined categories of structures to which

differing construction standards apply. They include major,

minor, nonhabitable major, and coastal or shore protection

structures. Generally, structures must conform to the State

minimum building code in effect in the jurisdiction, as

identified in s. 553.73, F.S. Further, structures must be

designed, constructed, and located in compliance with National

Flood Insurance Program regulations as found in 44 C.F.R., Parts

59 and 60, or-a local flood damage prevention ordinance,

whichever is more restrictive.

one specific provision of note is that major structures,

with the exception of mobile homes, must at a minimum be designed

and constructed in accordance with Section 1205 of the 1986

revisions to the 1985 Standard Building Code, using a fastest

mile-wind velocity of 110 miles per hour. The Florida Keys must

use a fastest mile-wind velocity of 115 miles per hour. Also,

foundations for major structures must be designed and constructed

to withstand'All forces associated with a 100-year storm event.
These minimum builaing standards do not preempt the '

imposition of more stringent requirements seaward of established

coastal coastal construction control lines by the Florida

Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Section 161.053, F.S.

Further, local governments may enact and enforce more restrictive

building codes.

Each local government whose jurisdiction includes a coastal

building zone must adopt these "minimum" standards as part of its

local building code. To assist such local governments, the

Department of Community Affairs will administer a biennial

coastal building zone construction training program for local

enforcement agency personnel, develop a deemed-to-comply manual,

and distribute other associated information.

The subject coastal building code must be adopted by

affected local governments not later than January 1, 1987.
Non-compliancie by local governments may result in the imposition

of sanctions by the Governor and Cabinet (Chapter 163, F.S.).

Comparative Program Impacts

These State building requirements mandate use of those

requirements for pa rticipation in the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP), assuring a certain degree of consistency in the

quality of coastal construction. However, the State's coastal

building regulations are not limited to flood-related

construction techniques as are those of the NFIP. State
requirements @lso encompass wind- and wave-force construction
techniques. Although requirements within the "coastal building
zone" are generally more restrictive than those for inland areas

subject to the Standard Building Code, they are not as

restrictive as those found within the Department of Natural

Resources purview seaward of the Coastal Construction Control

Line (CCCL).

FLORIDA'S BEACH MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM

Authority and Intent

For the past two decades, Florida has participated in beach

erosion control projects, pursuant to Chapter 161, F.S. During

this period, State funding involvement in locally-sponsored

projects has varied considerably and has largely been restricted

to beach restoration and subsequent renourishment. Additionally,

support has been provided for dune restoration, revegetation, and

dune walkovers.

The 1986 session of the Legislature made substantial changes

to Florida's beach erosion control program. Amendments to

Chapter 161 clearly acknowledge that the State's reactive

strategy to locally-initiated erosion control projects has not

adequately addressed the severity of Florida's beach erosion

problems. Specifically, s.s. 161.101 (1) was amended this past

session to read:

The Legislature recognizes that beach
erosion is a 'statewide problem that does
not confine its effects to local
governmental jurisdictions and that beach
erosion can be adequately addressed most
efficiently by a State-initiated program of
beach restoration and renourishment.

The 1986 Legislature further recognized that inlets have

altered the natural drift of Florida's sand resources and, in

turn, created specific policies and procedures for inlet'sand

transfer and placement to approximate the natural net annual

longshore sediment transport.

State Initiative: Program Im2lementation

Amendments in 1986 to Section 161.161, F.S., direct the

Department of Natural Resources to develop and maintain a

comprehensive long-term management plan for the restoration of

Florida's critically eroding beaches.

This requisite management plan must:

1) Address long-term solutions to the problem of
severely eroding beaches within the state.

2) Evaluate each improved navigational inlet to
determine to what extent it is contributing to the
erosion of adjacent beaches. The plan must present
specific recommendations to mitigate the erosive
impact of each inlet.

3) Provide design criteria for beach restoration and
renourishment projects.

4) Consider and evaluate the establishment of feeder
beaches as an alternative to direct beach
restoration.

5) Establish a State priority list of beach
restoration and renourishment projects.

This statewide beach restoration management plan will be
prepared by DNR district, based upon greatest need and the'

probability of federal funding. The district plan submission

schedule, as adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on July 29,

1986, is as follows:

FY 1986-87 - District III, Pinellas County
District IV, Manatee through Collier.Coifnties
District VI, Brevard through Dade Counties

FY 1987-88 - District I, Bay through Escambia Counties
District II, Franklin through Gulf Counties
District V, Monroe County
District VII, Nassau through Volusia Counties

Any completed district plan must be submitted to the Governor and

Cabinet, as head of the Department of Natural Resources, no later

than March 1 of each year, and shall include recommendations

regarding potential funding mechanisms. Specific project funding

requests, based upon the priority listing in the plan, will be

presented annually in September.

State funding from the Erosion Control Trust Fund may be

authorized in an amount up to 75 percent of the actual costs for

restoring and renourishing a critically eroded beach. The local

government in which the beach is located will be responsible for

the balance of costs.
Establishing_Restor*ation Project Priorities

Given the change in p rogram emphasis from local initiative

to a statewide beach management strategy, the 1986 Legislature

further provided statutory criteria for establishing project

priorities, .The Division of Beaches and Shores, Department of

Natural Resources, in developing the recommended list of

restoration and renourishment projects, must consider and balance

the following criteria:

� Estimated user-occasions that would be served by a
larger restored beach;

� The extent of existing and potential damage to property
from erosion;

o The prospect for long-term project success as measured

by the amount and frequency of future renourishment;

� Project location in relationship to the statewide
priorities for addressing severe beach erosion;

� The total estimated costs of the project, including
periodic renourishment;

� The proximity and quality of an adequate source of
beach-compatible sand;

� The degree of public access, including adequate vehicle
parking;

� The degree of public support for the project;

� The anticipated project impact on natural resources,
including reefs, vegetation, fishing resources, and
turtle nesting, and;

� The extent to which local governments have provided for
the protection*of sea turtles from the adverse effects
of beachfront lighting.

The extent to which these criteria are addressed by a

project in a net-positive manner will result in a greater

assigned priority. certain criteria are in fact requirements in

terms of eligibility for State funds. A project must provide

adequate public access and protection for historically

established habitats and endangered and/or threatened species.

Comparative Program Impacts

This State beach restoration initiative is in response to

the growing severity of Florida's beach erosion problems. It is

a proactive, statewide strategy to address the most critical

segments of the shoreline. It is not the intent of the subject

amendments to reduce or alter the existing coastal protection

requirements of the State's other regulatory, permitting, or

management programs. Further, it is not the intent of the

Legislature to influence local government decision making as it

relates to the preparation and implementation of the coastal

management elements of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to

Chapter 163, F.S.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Authority and Intent

Historically, comprehensive coastal planning has largely

been preempted by site-specific state and local regulatory

decisions. In turn, this site-by-site, piecemeal approach to

coastal preservation, when coupled with what are, in most cases,

vague and general coastal protection elements of the Local

Government Comprehensive Plan, has not provided many communities

with an essential, overall coastal management strategy.

In response to this inadequate linkage between planning and

practice, the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act substantially

expands and strengthens the criteria for the required Coastal

Management Element of each local plan. As a result, the 1985

coastal amendments to Chapter 163, F.S. offer State and local

governments an opportunity to address major coastal issues facing

Florida and to guide future coastal development in a consistent

and prudent manner based upon specific policies and priorities.

Unlike past planning efforts, the 1985 Legislature provided

clear policy direction for the preparation of coastal

management elements:

... 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. (s.s 163.3178 (1))

Coastal Management Policies

Chapter 163, F.S., and the implementing rules, Chapter 9J-5,

F.A.C, detail explicit subject areas relating to goals,

objectives, and policies which must be addressed by each affected

local government in the preparation of their coastal elements.

The required components of the coastal elements, discussed in the

subsequent section, are collectively intended to accomplish the

following objectives:

o Protect remaining natural and historic resources of the
coast;

o Direct population away from coastal high-hazard areas;

o Provide priority shoreline use for marinas, public
beach access, coastal recreation and other water-
dependent activities;

o Maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times;

o Manage development and redevelopment in coastal high-
hazard areas to min imize risks to life and property;

o Restrict public expenditures which subsidize
development in coastal high-hazard areas;

o Protect and enhance beach and dune systems, and;

o Ensure that public facilities and services are in place
to meet developmbnt and redevelopment needs.

The recent legislative emphasis on coastal issues, as

depicted in the comprehensive nature of the above policies, can

not be overstated. This concern is further reflected in the

schedule for plan adoption which requires coastal counties and

corresponding coastal municipalities to begin submitting--plans to

the Department of Community Affairs a year earlier than non-

coastal jurisdictions (beginning on July 1, 1988, and on or

before July 1, 1990). The determination of those jurisdictions

required to prepare a coastal management element may be found in

the document entitled "Local Governments Required to Include

Coastal Management Elements in Their comprehensive Plans," dated

November 25, 1985, and available from the Department of Community

Affairs upon request. The submission schedule is provided in

Chapter 9J-12, F.A.C.

Requirements-of the Coastal Management Element

Section 9J-5.012, F.A.C., specifically sets forth the

required minimum content of the coastal element which will

subsequently serve as a basis for State review and determination of

compliance.

A Coastal Management Element is to be based upon the

following minimum inventory and analysis requirements:

o An inventory of exi sting land uses in the coastal area
with an analysis of shoreline conflicts, an estimate of
need for water-dependent and water-related uses, and
an analysis of the economic base of the coastal area;
o Inventories and analyses of the effect of future
land uses on natUral resources in the coastal area,
including vegetative cover, wetlands, areas subject to
coastal flooding, wildlife habitat, living marine
resources, and other areas of special concern to the
local government;

o An inventory and analysis of the impacts of
development and redevelopment on historic resources and
sites in the coastal area;

o An inventory and analysis of estuarine pollution'-
conditions and actions needed to maintain or improve
estuarine environmental quality;

o Inventories and analyses of natural disaster
planning concerns, including:

1) A hurricane evacuation analysis which
considers appropriate measures to maintain or
reduce hurricane evacuation times;

2) A post-disaster redevelopment plan which
addresses land use in coastal high-hazard
areas; structures with a history of repeated
storm damage; coastal-protection structures
(i.e., seawalls, revetments, groins, etc.);
infrastructure in coastal high-hazard areas;
and beach dune system conditions. An analysis
of measures to reduce exposure to hazards must
be included and should consider relocation,
structural modification, and acquisition; and

3) Identification of coastal high-hazard areas
and corresponding infrastructure analysis.

o An inventory and analysis of beach and dune systems
including erosion/accretion trends, structural impacts,
and identification of areas needing enhancement or
restoration;

o Inventories and analyses of the capacity and need for
public access and recreational facilities, and;

o Inventories and analyses of demand, capacity and areas
served by existing infrastructure; and an assessment of
future need, cost and funding sources for such facilities.

Included in the element is a "miniature" coastal management

requirement for jurisdictions having deepwater ports.

Most importantly, a local government's Coastal Management

Element must provide detailed guidance for the regulatory and

management techniques that will restrict imprudent development

activities.

Policy Comments

A clear purpose, specified content, an expanded emphasis,

and required consistency distinguish the new Coastal Management

Element from its predecessor. Nevertheless, the desired outcome

remains the same: local government identification of goals,

specification of objectives, and the implementation of policies

and regulations for achieving such.

The extent to which the final product results in an

integrated coastal management framework will largely be dependent

upon a given coastal element's degree of sensitivity for the

goals and objectives of the other federal and State coastal

programs discussed herein.

COASTAL BARRIER EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO 81-105)

Background

Despite the increased risks to life, property and natural

ecosystems caused by development on coastal barriers, many State

programs and activities have subsidized further growth and post-

disaster redevelopment. Roads, bridges, and water and wastewater

facilities encourage development, while erosion control, beach

nourishment, acquisition, and disaster relief transfer the costs

of growth to the taxpayer.

In response, Executive Order 81-105 was signed September 4,

1981. The Order recognized the values of coastal barriers and

set forth three directives to State agencies concerned with

coastal issues (the Departments of Commerce, Community Affairs,

Environmental Regulation, Health and Rehabilitative Services,

Transportation, and the Of fice of Planning and Budgeting):

1) coastal barriers were to be given priority in acquisition
programs;

2) Federal and State monies were to be directed to areas
whiph'.could accommodate growth and were not to be used to
subsidize the gpowth or post-disaster redevelopment of
hazardous barriers, and;

3) Agencies were to manage growth in a manner consistent
with evacuation capabilities.

The order made no provisions with respect to land use and its

regulation.

Many issues arose during the early implementation of the

order, including lack of legislative authority, lack of defined

extent, and the need to delineate which State funding programs

were affected. The Governor requested public workshops to be

held by the Interagency Management Committee to discuss these

issues and to develop recommendations for improving the Order.

A letter to agency heads, signed by the Governor on August

8, 1986, recognizes new factors brought about by the Coastal Zone

Protection Act of 1985, the revisions to the Local Government

Comprehensive Planning Act, and the recommendations generated by

the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting and by the

agencies responsible for implementation.

Intent

The Governor's recent letter updates EO 81-105 and serves as

a transition policy for the period between October 1985 (the

effective date of the Omnibus Growth Management Act) and the

implementation of coastal regulations under the LGCPA and LDRA

(effective in 1988-90). The letter affirms actions taken

concurrent with EO 81-105. Five measures are proposed to the

relevant departments during the phase-in period of the subject

growth management measures.

Provisions

1) State funds for infrastructure and economic development
should be denied for any barrier island without a bridge
or causeway. State law prohibits building bridges and
causeways to these islands, and the State should not
encourage development on islands with severe evacuation
difficulties.
2) The State should not pay to expand infrastructur*'e'or
economic development in any designated unit of the

Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System.

3) To ensure maximum coordination with local plans,
prevent unwise expenditure of funds or poor siting of
facilities, and forestall increased building in coastal
high hazard areas, agency heads shall not permit payment
by the State for new or expanded infrastructure projects
seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, in FEMA
designated V-zones, in areas damaged or undermined by
coastal storms, or at inlets without structural controls.
After alternatives, including relocation, have been
evaluated, exceptions can be made where crucial need is
found to alleviate dangerously overcrowded roads or
replace defective wastewater facilities violating water
quality standards. Agency heads may authorize payment
for projects within the Coastal Building Zone as defined
in Sections 161.54 (1) and 161.55 (5), F.S., that are not
included in the areas described above only if the
potential danger to human life and property from natural
hazards is minimal and consideration has been given to
hazard mitigation standards, including floodproofing and
evacuation. ,

4) State monies can be made available to repair or replace
storm-damaged facilities in hazardous coastal areas if
such action is in the overall long-term public interest,
and hazard mitigation, including relocation alternatives,
is fully evaluated. If justified, the replacement must
be at the same or less capacity than the original
facility.

5) State funds may be expended in coastal areas if
consistent with approved resource planning and management
plans, pursuant to Section 380.045, FeS., and
comprehensive plans approved pursuant to Section 380.05,
F.S.

Summary Comments

The overall policy of the Order and letter is the same.

There will be reduced continued public expenditures for

infrastructure which is susceptible to repeated storm damage.

State subsidy of private investment is discouraged. Further

growth in hazardous coastal areas will be limited by restricting

the capacity of repaired and replaced infrastructure. The order

and letter support the State's infrastructure policy (Section

380.27, F.S.) and the State's emergency management regulations.

COASTAL BARRIER INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

Authority and Intent

The Florida Legislature enacted a coastal barrier

infrastructure policy as part of the 1985 Omnibus Growth

Management Act. Sections 380.27 and 163.3178(h), F.S., were

created to discourage growth and unwise development on coastal

barriers by withholding State funding for specified activities

within designated areas.

Policy Provisions

The coastal barrier infrastructure policy includes two

separate policy provisions.

(1) No State funds shall be used to build bridges or
causeways to coastal barrier islands which are not
accessible by bridges or causeways. The effective date
of this provision was October 1, 1985.

(2) No unobligated State funds shall be expended for the
purpose of planning, designing, or constructing
projects which increase the capacity of infrastructure
unless such an expenditure is consistent with an
approved coastal management element. This provision is
applicable to all local governments required to prepare
a-'coastal management element, and is effective at the
time the element is approved. This policy provision is
implemented by-cross-reference to s. 163.3178 (h)' which
requires, as part of the coastal management element,
local government designation of high hazard coastal
areas subject to destruction or severe damage by
natural disasters.

The effectiveness of this policy will be reviewed annually

and reported by the Department of Community Affairs to the

Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the

House of Representatives.

Policy Comments

Florida's coastal barrier infrastructure policy shares a

common implementation mechanism with the Federal Coastal Barrier

Resources Act, which is the withdrawing of subsidies or

withholding of funds. The distinction in federal and State

programs is in the areas of impact. The Federal Coastal Barrier

Resources Act addresses only undeveloped areas. In contrast,

Florida's infrastructure policy is applicable to coastal high-

hazard areas regardless of the degree of development. It is

important to note, however, that the only direct funding

prohibition in the State policy is for bridges or causeways to

islands not already served by such. The thrust of State policy

is, instead, consistency between effective coastal planning and

implementation, employing the newly-enacted requirements of the

coastal management elements of the comprehensive plan to
effectuate the State's c`oastal barrier infrastructure policy.

WINDSTORM INSURANCE RISK APPORTIONMENT
(Section 627.351 (2), F.S.)

Introduction

Amendments made in 1986 to Chapter 627.351, Insurance Risk

Apportionment Plans, were enacted to ensure conformity with

recent growth management initiatives. The statute permits

insurers to agree among themselves as to the modification of

rates and the apportionment thereof for windstorm insurance

policies issued to qualified applicants. The Department of

Insurance is empowered1to adopt a plan for equitable

apportionment should such agreement not be possible. The plan

may authorize the formation of a non-profit corporation,

association, or mutual company to borrow funds and accumulate

reserves to pay catastrophic losses.

Participating insurers share in the writing and in the

profits and losses of policies. Participation is apportioned

according to the percentage each insurer represents of the total

net direct premiums written by all members during each preceding

year. Limited apportionment is available to certain qualifying

institutions.

As of August 1986, parts or all of 21 coastal counties were

receiving coverage under the apportionment plan. While the

boundaries for insured areas vary significantly, widths tend to

average between 1000 and 1500 feet from the mean high wat@er line.

Legislative Intent

It was the intent of the Legislature to require all property

insurance companies operating in Florida to provide windstorm

insurance to eligible applicants who are in good faith entitled

to, but unable to obtain, such coverage through ordinary means.

Provisions of coverage are to be extended where they will further

the policies and objectives of all applicable State laws and

rules related to coastal zone protection.

Regulatory Aspects

Properties eligible for coverage include all dwellings,

buildings and other structures, including mobile homes which are

tied down in compliance with the requirements of Section

320.8325, F.S.

Eligibility is determined by areawide designation by the

Department of Insurance or where, after a public hearing

conducted by the department, the following criteria are found to

exist:

(1) Due to the lack of windstorm insurance in the area,
economic development has been stifled, mortgages may be
in'default, and institutions have been unable to make
loans;

(2) The county or area affected has adopted and enforces all
requirements of the Standard Building Code and has
included minimum first floor requirements where
appropriate, and;
(3) Providing windstorm insurance coverage is consistent with
and will implement all policies set forth in State laws,
rules, and regulations governing coastal management,
beach preservation, and comprehensive planning.'.--

Following a public hearing, the Department of Insurance may

declare an area ineligible for windstorm coverage under an

apportionment plan if it determines that any of the above

criteria no longer exist

It is the applicant's responsibility to show compliance with

the above criteria. Application is not restricted to political

subdivisions; developers and property owners may request a

hearing.

Impacts

Windstorm insurance complements the coverage provided by the

National Flood Insurance Program. The addition of the new

constraint that insurance will be extended only if it will

further coastal growth management objectives serves to minimize

coverage in environmentally-sensitive and storm-hazard areas

while providing coverage for areas which have adopted consistent

coastal plans. However, it must be recognized that extending

coverage to hazardous areas represents a subsidy from other

property owners. Coverage may result in some additional

development'on coastal barriers; however, the intent of the

statute is to provide insurance only for existing property owners

in impacted areas.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
(Ch 252, F.S.; Ch 9G-13, F.A.C.)

Background

Through Chapter 252, F.S., the Department of Community

Affairs is given the authority to set up programs and establish

requirements for hazardous areas via land use control. Section

252.35 (2)(e) authorizes the Division of Emergency Management to

make recommendations for zoning, building, and land use control

in addition to.safety measures for securing non- or semi-

permament structures, i.e., mobile homes. The Department,

pursuant to Rule 9G-13*, requires "responsible preventative

disaster preparedness measures" to qualify for federal public

disaster assistance.

Rule Purpose

The purpose of Rule 9G-13 is to facilitate the delivery of

federal disaster assistance and to institute preventative

measures which minimize the effects of emergencies which may be

aggravated by inadequate land use and facilities planning in

coastal areas. The rule promulgates criteria by which the state

exercises discreation in approving applications for federal

disaster assistance. The rule affects disaster assistance

*This overview of the Emergency Management Program reflects
a number of proposed amendments to Rule 9G-13 expected to be
adopted by December 31, 1986.

applications of political subdivisions only until their local

government comprehensive plan is determined to be in compliance

pursuant to Part II of Chapter 163, F.S. Political subdivisions

include all counties and municipalities required to develop

coastal management elements as part of their local government

comprehensive plans. Applicants other than political

subdivisions are not considered under the draft rule.

Provisions in the rule are intended to minimize the

potential for-increased public infrastructure capacity and

industrial use in coastal high hazard areas. The intent was to

reduce the need for th e restoration of public infrastructure

damaged by major storms after July 15, 1986.

Financial Impact

Only funds to provide assistance to restore damaged public

infrastructure under the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974

(Public Law 93-288) are affected by the rule. Funds for

individual assistance under the Act are unaffected.

Regulatory Aspects

Section 9G-13.004 makes eligible for public disaster

assistance only those damages included on the State's application

to FEMA. Following a disaster, DCA's Division of Emergency

Management coordinates an assessment of damages with assistance

from federal, State, and local agencies. Political subdivisions

shall be included in State applications only if they have adopted

5.5

hazard mitigation plans or contracted with DCA, pursuant to

Section 9G-13.005 which requires the following:

1) Compliance with Section 161.56 (1), F.S.;

2) Participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program in conformance with the Federal Disaster Relief
Act of 1974;

3) Maintenance of the same capacity of public infrastructure
relocated, modified or replaced as a result of damages
from a natural disaster, unless the capacity is expanded
as part of an approved post-disaster hazard mitigation
plan in accordance with Public Law 93-288;

4) Establishment of a public information system for notifying
the public about emergencies; the potential dangers of
and appropriate preparatory measures for natural
disasters; flood hazard areas; and evacuation routes;

5) Implementation of preventative planning measures to include
provisions that sites be designed to utilize and preserve
the protective capability of dunes, other natural
topographic features, and vegetation, where feasible, to
ameliorate storm damage, and;

6) Determination on a case-by-case basis whether heavy
industrial operations, with processes or products
potentially dangerous to public safety or the
environment, can be constructed in a coastal high
hazard area based on consideration of local zoning
regulations, availability of alternative sites, the
impact on public infrastructure, the costs to the
community at large, and environmental risks.

Political'subdivisions are not subject to this rule until
they have received notification of the requirements of therule

from the Division of Emergency Management. Subdivisions have six

months to comply with the rule's requirements. Should a natural

disaster occur within six months of notification, evidence of

intent to comply prior to the six-month limit will qualify a

subdivision for inclusion in the State's application.

STATE LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

Florida has experienced a surge of growth which has

continued since World War II. Current projections place Florida

as the fourth most populated state by 1990 and perhaps the third

in by 2000. Such growth has generated heavy demands on the

State's land and water resources. In response, the State has

been innovative in forging intergovernmental partnerships with

both federal and local governments to acquire property which

protects these resources. The State now has the most extensive
acquisition program in'the nation in terms of dollars spent and

acreage purchased.

Subsection 259.04 (1)(b), F.S., authorizes the Governor and

the Cabinet, as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust Fund, to develop and execute a comprehensive plan to

conserve and protect environmentally endangered lands. Betweeen

1972 and 1979, the Environmentally Endangered Lands program

acquired over 393,000 undeveloped acres using funds from a $240
million bond issue. Since 1979, several new state programs have

been initiated to acquire and manage properties for recreational

as well as for conservation and environmental protection

purposes.

It should be added that there are a number of federal agencies

and programs which provide mechanisms for the acquisition and

management of coastal property, both through direct purchase and

by financial matching.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund, a separate fund within

the U.S. Treasury, is the most significant source of federal

funds for environmental land acquisition in Florida.

Established in 1965, it has provided monies for outdoor

recreational land acquisition and facility development. Annual

apportionments to the state are administered by the Department of

Natural Resources in accordance with Chapter 16D-5, Part V,

F.A.C. Over $32.5 million has been spent to acquire over 69,600

acres for state parks, matched with State funds; over $62.2

million in program grants has been awarded to local governments,

acquiring over 74,100 acres, matched by local sources.

The National Park Service (Department of the Interior)

acquires properties.related to preservation and management of

national parks, recreation areas, seashores, monuments,

memorials, and historic sites. Funds are typically provided by

congressional appropriations to the Federal Land and Water

Conservation Fund, although Florida provided funds to the

National Park-Service to purchase the Big Cypress National

Preserve. Monies have been appropriated for the continued.

acquisition of land for the Gulf Islands National Seashore.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is permitted to acquire

property for the management of its National Wildlife Refuges

(NWR). Funds are also generally obtained from the Federal Land

and Water Conservation Fund. The remaining funds are detived

from the Migratory Birds Conservation Fund (hunting permit fees).

current acquisition projects in coastal areas include the

National Key Deer WR (Monroe County), J.N. Ding Darling NWR

(Lee County), Crocodile Lake NWR (Monroe County), and Lower

Suwanee NWR (Dixie and Levy Counties).

The National Oceanographic and Aeronautic Administration

(Department of Commerce) has been responsible for the regulation

and acquisition of lands for National Estuarine Research

Reserves. Expansion of the two National Estuarine Research

Reserves in Florida is possible using 1 to 1 matching funds from the

State.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense) has

acquired lands for both military and civil purposes. While

military acquisitions are funded through federal appropriations,

civil acquisitions may involve State and local funds. Such

purchases are typically made provided that the COE perform all

necessary engineering (i.e., bridges, dredging, revetments) to

fulfill the purposes of the acquisition. Past acquisitions

involving Corps' funds include Canaveral National Seashore and
Biscayne Nailo"nal Park.

The Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior)

may convey property to State and local governments under the

Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 43 USC 869. The Florida

Division of State Lands (Department of Natural Resources) has

applied for conveyance of federal coastal lands in Charlotte,
Lee, and Collier counties to be used for a national estuaillne

research reserve a state park, a state reserve, and four aquatic

preserves. Four hundred and fifty acres have been transferred

thus far.

Last, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Section

1362 Acquisition Program has been used to acquire flood-damaged

property to reduce future flood loss where such acquisition has

been shown to be cost-effective. The program has not been used

in Florida. Property to be purchased must meet one of the

following damage criteria:

1) Damage "substantially beyond repair" by flood while
covered under the National Flood Insurance Program;

2) Significant fl ood damage on not less than three occasions
during a five year period while covered under the NFIP,
and on each occasion the cost of repair was at least twenty-
five percent of the value of the structure' or;

3) While covered under the NFIP, sustained damage from a
single event is such that a statute, ordinance, or
regulation precludes its repair or restoration, or
permits repair or restoration only at significantly
increased cost.

FEMA has established community eligibility criteria for the

1362 program as well, but because of limited funding it is

necessary for".a state or community to rank high among these

criteria to obtain a sha-re of Section 1362 monies.

Conservation and Recreational Lands Program (CARL)

Background

The CARL program was initiated by the Florida Legislature in

1979 and replaced the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program

which had nearly exhausted its funding. CARL may be used for

either fee simple or less-than-fee interest in environmentally

endangered properties or other lands which serve the following:

1. For use and protection as natural floodplain, marsh, or
estuary, if the protection and conservation of such lands
are necessary to enhance or protect water quality or
quantity or to protect fish or wildlife habitat which can
not otherwise be accomplished through local and State
regulatory programs;

2. For use as State parks, recreation areas, public beaches,
State forests, wilderness areas, or wildlife management
areas;

3. For restoration of altered ecosystems to correct
environmental damage that has already occurred, or;

4. For preservation of significant archaeological or
historical sites.

As of July 1986, the CARL program had acquired 151,397 acres
using $140.4 miillion which includes revenue remaining from the
EEL bond issue. Of cour'se, only a portion of these land

acquisitions are coastal.

Program Overview

The program was enacted under Chapters 253 and 259, F.S.,

and is administered by the Division of State Lands, Department of
Natural Resources. The Governor and Cabinet, as the Boar@d of

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, must approve all

acquisitions using CARL funds and are given title to any lands

acquired under the program. Section 259.035, F.S., establishes

an interagency committee to prioritize and select lands for

acquisition, and Chapter 18-8, F.A.C., outlines the procedures of

evaluation and selection. Section 253.025 and Chapter 18-1,

F.A.C., describe the procedures for acquisition. There is no

general power of eminent domain; however, the legislature has

specifically authorized condemnation for certain CARL projects.

Chapter 253 also requires that. all lands managed under CARL be

open for public use and recreation subject to the compatibility

of such uses with the conservation and protection of these public

lands. The 1986 legislation enables the creation of land

authorities, in areas of critical state concern, empowered with

identifying parcels appropriate for acquisition under CARL

(ss. 380.0666 (13)).

Financial Aspects

The CARL-Trust Fund was created in 1979 (Chapter 253.023)
and receives' up to fifty-percent of all monies collected from the

excise tax on the severance of oil, gas, phosphate, and minerals.

Three million dollars were appropriated during each of the two

fiscal years after 1979. The annual cap was then raised

progressively from $20 million to $40 million during the years

1981-86. All of the 1985-86 receipts have been committed through

option contracts and all but $1.6 million of the expected-

receipts for 1986-87 have been committed. An estimated $8.8

million are available and uncommitted for 1987-88. Ten percent

of the funds available annually have been committed for management

for fiscal year 1987-88 and subsequent years. To obtain

additional funds for properties on the priority list, the 1986

Legislature has allowed $10 million in the CARL Trust Fund to be

deposited in the Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) to pay debt

service on a bond issue used exclusively to buy lands on that

list. It was intended that the State could be more competitive

using monies from bonds. Legislation restricts the use of bond

proceeds to acquisitions available at seventy percent or less of

the appraised value.

Procedural Aspects

Evaluation and selection of properties are based primarily

on each proposal's resource value and acquisition feasibility.

Assessments are prepared for all proposals obtaining at least

three votes from the Land Acquisition Selection Committee (LASC),

which is comprised of the heads of the Department of

Environmental Regulation, the Department of Natural Resources,

the Department of Community Affairs, the Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission, the Division of Forestry (Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services), and the Division of

Historical Resources (Department of State). The Division of

State Lands (DNR) coordinates the selection procedure with

contributions from agencies represented on the LASC. The LASC

establishes a preliminary priority list which is subject to

public testimony. Final project design, as developed by the

LASC, Division of State Lands, and the Florida Natural Areas

Inventory, is then presented to the Governor and Cabinet.

Acquisition procedures are the same for the Outdoor Recreation

Program and the Save Our Coast Program.

The Land Accpisition Trust Fund

The Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) is authorized under

Section 375.041, F.S., and was created to facilitate and expedite

the acquisition of land, water areas, and related resources,

primarily for public recreation. Acquisitions using fund monies

include park and recreation areas, wildlife preserves, forest

areas, wetlands, floodways and water storage areas, submerged

lands, and beaches. Two programs, the Save Our Coast Program and

the State Recreation and Parks Land Acquisition Program, are

funded through the LATF.

Save Our Coast (SOC)

Background

Save Our Coast is a result of increased awareness of the

need to preserve Florida's disappearing beachfront. In a 1980

report to the Governor, the Resource Management Task Force
recommended a ten percent increase in public coastal lands. This

resulted in the establishment of a $200 million bond issub,

financed through Land Acquisition Trust Funds, for fast-track

purchases of beaches, barrier islands, and beach access points.

Properties range from strictly local access parcels to major

tracts requiring State development and management. Through July

1986, the SOC program had added about 2,713 acres of beachfront

(20 tracts representing 13.0 miles of shore) to the public

domain. The Guana tract, being acquired with both SOC and CARL

funds, which contains 10,790 acres and about 4.6 miles of ocean

front, will bring the total to over 13,500 acres and 17.6 miles

of shoreline.-

Program Intent

The program was initiated by executive order under Section

375.051, F.S., (the Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Act of

1963). The issuance of bonds for land for outdoor recreation and

conservation is authorized under Article XII, Section 9, Florida

Constitution. Chapter 375 created the Land Acquisition Trust

Fund (LATF) in which money not appropriated for the operation and

administration of the State park system could be used for the
acquisition-.oi'.new State park land. SOC is an exclusive

application of accelerated funding to acquire seashore property,

with an emphasis on sandy beaches. The State encourages local

financial participation for locally preferred properties.

Fundin

The Save Our Coast Program represents a dramatic increase in

land acquisition funding by financing large bond issues i4ith LATF

money, rather than by financing land purchases directly with the

slower pace of LATF accrual. Projected LATF monies were

estimated to be insufficient to keep up with rapid inflation of

land prices and to secure choice remaining coastal properties. In

response, the Governor and Cabinet approved a plan to issue

$200 million in bonds in 1981. The Governor and Cabinet, and the

Legislature have approved successive issues of $25 million each,

the eighth and last approved in the 1986 legislative session.

Debt service on each bond issue is paid from the LATF.

As of July 1986, sales of SOC bonds and interest earned on

cash proceeds had raised over $164 million, with about $7.3

million still uncommitted. Contributions by local governments to

various purchases totaled about $14.3 million. An interim SOC

acquisition list recently promulgated by the LASC, and awaiting

review by the Governor and Cabinet, as the Board of Trustees

of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, contains 40 projects with

an estimated acreage of about 115,00 acres and an estimated value

of $229 million. The 1986 Legislature recognized the need to
provide contijiued funding above the original $200 million bond
issue to purchase coastal sites for future recreation needs' and

appropriated funds to pay debt service on an additional $50

million bond issue.

Procedural Aspects

The SOC program has a yearly cycle featuring a first..
screening in July to select proposals for full review, the

promulgation of an acquisition list in November, and

consideration by the Governor and Cabinet in January or February.

Criteria for selection include the need for public acquisition,

suitability of property configuration to provide resource-based

recreation, vulnerability of natural resources, and the

availability of individual parcels comprising the project. Where

the project is an addition to an existing park, additional

criteria are considered: inclusion of otherwise protected

adjacent features of recreational value, expansion of property

boundaries to-incorporate topographic delineations such as

shorelines or ridges,.inclusion of appropriate road frontage, and

the straightening of irregular boundaries.

State Recreation and Parks
Land Acquisition Program

Background

This program is administered by the Division of Recreation

and Parks, Department of Natural Resources. Over 5,500 acres, at

a cost of $35@-O million, have been acquired under this program
between 1963' and July 19-86. These acquisitions are exclusive of

Save Our Coast (SOC) and Florida Recreation Development

Assistance Program (FRDAP) projects. Of the $240 million in the

1972 bond issue, $40 million was allocated for outdoor

recreation; however, the LATF is not responsible for the

retirement of these bonds.

Statutory Authority

Authorization to acquire lands for outdoor recreation and

conservation is defined under Chapter 375, F.S. Chapter 16D-10,

F.A.C., describes evaluation procedures for the program.

Acquisition is accomplished under the same statutory and

regulatory authority as the CARL program (Section 253.035, F.S.;

Chapter 18-1, F.A.C.).

Fundin

Monies for the acquisition of recreation areas are funded from

the LATF which is derived primarily from a portion of the

documentary stamp tax. The revenue from the stamp tax is

allocated according to Chapter 201.15, F.S. Prior to 1985

legislation, 13.3 percent was budgeted for the LATF. The 1985

legislation reduced this share to 12.5 percent but credits

another 3.1 percent to the LATF, 60 percent of which are to be

used to acquire coastal properties, with the remaining 40 percent

for development and management of properties previously acquired

through LATF....

Procedural Aspects

Under Chapters 259 and 275, F.S., projects are divided into

"major" and "minor," based on whether the purchase price will

exceed $250,000. Minor projects can be negotiated by Division of

State Lands staff without overview of the Land Acquisition

Selection Committee. The evaluation and selection procegb'for

properties is identical to that used for Save Our Coasts.

Acquisition procedures are identical to those used for CARL.

Review and assessment of proposals are done annually by the

Division of Recreation and Parks and is based in part on the

Outdoor Recreation Plan, which is updated annually. This

document inventories existing resources and facilities, defines

needs, and poses recommendations to implement policy. The

program staff regularly contacts local governments to examine the

feasibility of local participation in acquisition and development

costs.

Proposals for acquisition may be submitted to the Land

Acquisition Selection Committee (LASC) by local government or the

general public. Further assessment and recommended project

design are performed by the Division of Recreation and Parks.

The LASC then recommends a priority list to the Governor and

Cabinet.

Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program (FRDAP)

Background

The Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program

(FRDAP) was@initiated in 1963 to provide financial assistance to

local governments for the primary purpose of developing outdoor

recreation facilities and for acquiring land for outdoor areas

and facilities. Through fiscal year 1984-85, $22.5 million has

been spent on 373 acquisition and development projects. For

1985-87, $3.4 million has been authorized ($0.9 million for 1985-

86 and $2.5 million for 1986-87).

Statutory Intent

Chapter 375, F.S., authorizes the Department of Natural

Resources to assist local governments in providing outdoor

recreational opportunities. Chapter 16D-5, F.A.C., outlines the

program's policies and evaluation criteria. All projects must be

approved by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of the

Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The 1986 legislation prohibits any

funding for projects under FRDAP without undergoing the

competitive selection process, guaranteeing a minimum of five

percent of Land Acquisition Trust Fund monies for the competitive

FRDAP program and eliminating the past practice of line-item

appropriations.

Funding

The Land Acquisition Trust Fund provides money for the

administration of grants to local government. Five percent of

the funds all6dated to the LATF are apportioned to FRDAP. When

expenditures are less than the annual authorized funds or if a

project is withdrawn, the unused balance reverts to FRDAP for

later use.

FRDAP specifies funding limits per project for consecutive

five-year periods and also requires that local governments match

State contributions. Where approved projects provide facilities

for resource-based activities, then the match is 2:1 (State:

local); where the project is user-oriented, the match is 1:2

(State/local).

Procedural Features

The annual review cycle begins with the application period,

usually from September through October. Applications are ranked

according to the following criteria, described further in Chapter

16D-5, F.A.C.:

(1) the extent to which the project implements the
goals of the Outdoor Recreation Plan;

(2) the extent to which the project would satisfy recreation
needs identified in the State Plan;

(3) the extent to which the project contributes to outdoor
recreation and related facilities;

(4) the extent of the population served;

(5) the accessibility of the project;

(6) whether the project is a new facility in an existing
park or provides needed access to an existing body of
water;

(7) whether the project is a priority in a local
comprehensive plan, and;

(8) th& ktent of local support.

Projects involving acquisition of environmentally

significant lands may receive bonus rank points as might those

which further State conservation and preservation programs.

Chapter 4

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS

The preceding overviews have addressed eleven separate

federal and State program areas which impact Florida's coastal

barriers. Collectively, they represent the state's coastal

management framework. The key aspects of each of these programs

are highlighted, and program relationships, consistencies and

inconsistencies are briefly discussed.

Program Highlights

The following summaries present the purpose, geographic

application, major provisions, and methods of implementation of

the selected federal and State coastal programs.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

PURPOSE: To provide flood damage insurance to
individuals in flood hazard areas and to
require appropriate construction and
land use measures which will reduce
flood risk.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: Incorporated municipalities and counties
which have special flood-prone hazard
areas.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Entire community must participate
(municipality or county) to obtain
benefits. Participation in the program
and enforcement of building regulations is
a condition for receiving other federal
aid for acquisition or construction of
projects within identified flood hazard
areas.

Program requires adoption of floodplain
management ordinances, including building
and land use codes, and compliance with
permitting, certification, and enforcement
procedures.

IMPLEMENTATION: The National Flood Insurance Program is
administered through the Federal Insurance
Administration. Policies are issued to
private property owners in participating
communities. Insurance limits are
determined by whether or not the community
has received a detailed study of its
flood-prone hazard areas.

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT

PURPOSE: To eliminate federal subsidies for coastal
development which reduce the
environmental, economic, and cultural
values of undeveloped barrier areas.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: The Act establishes, and applies to, the
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS)
which consists of 33 units in Florida.
The units include undeveloped coastal
barriers which are not part of existing
federal, state, or local areas established
for recreational or conservation purposes.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: No direct federal funds or assistance may
be used for construction, maintenance, or
repair of public infrastructure on
designated barrier islands. However,
federal funds may be used for navigation
maintenance and improvement, habitat and
resource protection, and recreation.
Public infrastructure may be repaired only
if it is considered to be an essential
link in a larger network.

Communities may request variances and
boundary adjustments during five-year
reviews.

CBRA does not alter private property
'rights.

IMPLEMENTATION: CBRA is authorized by an act of Congress,
Public Law 97-348. It is administered by
the Department of Interior.

THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PROGRAM
(SECTION 161.053, F.S.)

PURPOSE: To insure that coastal construction is
designed and sited to protect beach and
dune systems, and to enhance the
survivability of permitted structures
under severe storm conditions.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: All lands seaward of the coastal
construction control line, as established
in the 24 program counties having sandy
beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean or
Gulf of Mexico.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Program requirements include stringent
siting and design criteria. All habitable
structures must be pile-supported,
elevated based on the projected 100-year
storm surge, and designed for 140 m.p.h.
winds. Beach-dune topography must be
protected. All construction must be
designed to minimize erosive effects.

Most habitable structures proposed in a
location which, based on erosion
projections, will be seaward of the
seasonal high water line within 30 years
are prohibited.

IMPLEMENTATION: A permit from the Florida Department of
'Natural Resources, through the Division of
Beaches and Shores, is required for all
construction and excavation activities
seaward of established control lines.
Rules and procedures for obtaining such
permits are found in Chapter 16B-33, F.A.C.

THE COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION ACT OF 1985:
COASTAL BUILDING ZONES AND CODES

PURPOSE: To impose stricter building standards in
specified coastal building zones in order
to minimize damage to the environment,
property, and life.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: 1) For mainland beaches, spits, and
peninsulas, the coastal building zone is
the area from the seasonal high-water line
landward to a line 1,500 ft. landward of
the coastal construction control line
(CCCL).

2) For barrier islands, the coastal
building zone is the land area from the
seasonal high water line to a line 5,000
ft. landward of the CCCL, or the entire
island, whichever is less.

3) For Coastal barrier areas fronting the
Gulfof Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay
or Straits of Florida which do not have
CCCLs, the coastal building zone is the
land area seaward of the most landward V-
zone.

4) All of the Florida Keys.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: At a minimum, structures must be designed,
sited, and constructed in compliance with
National Flood Insurance Program
regulations.

Major structures must at a minimum be
designed and constructed in accordance
with 1986 revisions to the Standard
Building Code (1985) using a fastest mile-
wind velocity of 110 mph (115 mph in
Florida Keys).

IMPLEMENTATION: Each local government whose jurisdiction
includes a coastal building zone must
adopt the subject "minimum" coastal
building standards as part of its local
building code, not later than January 1,
1987. This is a locally-administered and
enforced coastal building code. State
involvement is limited to technical
assistance and assuring compliance by
local governments.

FLORIDA'S BEACH MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM

PURPOSE: To initiate a state program of beach
management, restoration and renourishment,
in order to address long-term solutions to
the problem of severely-eroding beaches.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: Florida's sandy beaches. A special
emphasis is placed on improved
navigational inlets and their contribution
to the erosion of adjacent beaches. The
state's beaches are divided into 7
districts for plan development and
management purposes.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: A proposed beach restoration project must
provide adequate public access and
protection for historically established
habitats and endangered threatened
species.

State funding may be authorized in an
amount up to 75% of the cost of restoring
and renourishing a critically-eroded
beach. The local government in which the
beach is located is responsible for the
balance of costs.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Department of Natural Resources,
through the Division of Beaches and
Shores, must develop and maintain a
1::omprehensive long-term management plan
for Florida's beaches and establish a
corresponding state priority list of beach
restoration and renourishment projects.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

PURPOSE: To allow state and local government to
address major coastal issues in a
consistent manner, to direct local
government to restrict development where
such activity would damage coastal
resources, and to reduce public
expenditure in areas subject to natural
disaster.

PROGRAM BOUND*ARIES: "Coastal areas" as defined by those local
governments required to prepare a coastal
management element. Minimum definitional
criteria for "coastal areas" may be found
in Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Analyses of land use, coastal resource,
and economic inventories.

Requires a disaster redevelopment plan
with an analysis of infrastructure and
eva cuation capabilities.

inventory and analyses of recreational
facilities and needs.

Requires regulatory and management
techniques to mitigate development impacts
,in coastal areas.

IMPLEMENTATION: The coastal management element is a part
of a local government's comprehensive
plan and is thus subject to the
preparation, adoption, amendment, and
monitoring requirements of the overall plan.

Beginning on July 1, 1988, and on or before
July 1, 1990, all coastal counties and
corresponding coastal municipalities must
submit plans to the Department of
Community Affairs for compliance review.
The submission schedule is provided in
Chapter 9J-12, F.A.C.

COASTAL BARRIER EXECUTIVE (EO 81-105)
(AND LETTER TO AGENCY HEADS, AUGUST 8, 1986)

PURPOSE: To reduce contiMOUS State investment in
infrastructure which is highly susceptible
to repeated damage, and to reduce the
subsidy to private and public development
of coastal barriers.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: All barrier islands without connecting
bridges or causeways and all units within
the federally-designed Coastal Barrier
Resource System (CBRS). Restrictions also
apply to areas which are seaward of the
CCCL or are within V-zones.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: No State funds for public infrastructure
will be available for barrier islands
which have no connecting causeways or
which are units of the CBRS.

Justifiable replacement of facilities must
be equal to or less than the capacity of
the original facilities.

Usage of State funds must be consistent
with comprehensive plans approved pursuant
to Sections 380.045 and 380.05, F.S.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Departments of, Commerce, community
Affairs, Environmental Regulation, Health
and Rehabilitative Services,
Transportation, amd the Office of Planning
and Budgeting are responsible for carrying
out the Government directives.

Agencies are to manage growth in a manner
consistent with evacuation capabilities.

Coastal barriers; are to be given priority
in acquisition programs.

COASTAL BARRIER INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
(SECTION 380.27, F.S.)

PURPOSE: To withold State funding for infrastruc-
@ure activities which would encourage
imprudent development on coastal barriers.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: Coastal high-hazard areas within the state
as defined by local governments required
to prepare a coastal management element of
the comprehensive plan.

Barrier islands without bridges or
causeways.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: No State funds for bridges or causeways to
barrier islands not already served by
such.

No State funds for expanded infrastructure
unless consistent with an approved coastal
management element.

IMPLEMENTATION: The State, through the budget process.
Annual policy review by the Department of
Community Affairs.

WINDSTORM INSURANCE RISK APPORTIONMENT
(Ch. 627.351, F.S.)

PURPOSE: To require all property insurers operating
in Florida to provide windstorm insurance
to eligible applicants who are unable to
obtain such coverage in the ordinary
market.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: Areas declared eligible by the Department
of Insurance.

Areas specified in the directories of the
Florida Windstorm Underwriters Association
(FWUA) [see References].

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Provides windstorm insurance to those
areas where, by designation or by hearing,
it has been determined that: 1) the area
affected has been economically impacted by
lack of insurance, 2) appropriate building
codes have been enforced, and 3)such
coverage will further all State policies
applicable to coastal management.

IMPLEMENTATION: Application to the FWUA must include proof
of compliance with the criteria listed
above.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
(CH. 252, F.S.; CH. 9G-13, F.A.C.)

PURPOSE: To facilitate the delivery of Federal
disaster assistance and to minimize the
effects of emergencies which are
aggravated by inadequate land use and
facilities planning in coastal zones.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: Those areas specified in sections 380.24
and 163.3177, F.S., for inclusion in the
coastal management elements under the
local government comprehensive planning
requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Affects only funds administered under the
Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 for
damaged public infrastructure. Funds for
individual assistance are unaffected.

Section 163.3178 (2) (h) specifies the
considerations where industrial operations
take place.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Division of Emergency Management,
Department of Community Affairs,
coordinates an assessment of damages for
the State's application to FEMA.
Eligibility is restricted to political
applicants which have adopted hazard
mitigation plans that meet the criteria
specified in section 9G-13.005, F.A.C., or
have contractually agreed with the
Department to the provisions of the rule.

STATE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

PURPOSE: To protect environmentally sensitive land
and water resources, and to acquire and
manage property for recreation and
conservation. The Florida Recreational
Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) has
the prizary purpose of developing
recreational sites and facilities.

PROGRAM BOUNDARIES: All lands within the state borders may be
considered for acquisition. The Save Our
Coast program is limited to seashores,
primarily those with sandy beaches. The
Conservation and Recreational Lands
program is oriented towards properties of
unique environmental or cultural value.

MAJOR PROVISIONS: Lands acquired under CARL must be open to
the public wherever compatible with the
resource protection characteristics of the
property.

FRDAP requires matching funds from local
government which vary according to whether
the project will be resource-based or
user-oriented.

IMPLEMENTATION: Funds for specific acquisition prograzs
are derived from various sources:
-severence taxes, documentary stamp'taxes,
and bond issues.

Most proposals for acquisition must be
submitted to the Land Acquisition
Selection Committee (LASC) by either the
general public or local government.
Assessment of proposals and establishment
of priority lists for acquisition are
performed by the LASC with the aid of the
Division of Recreation and Parks,---
Department of Natural Resources.-

DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM RELATIONSHIPS

Coastal Building Standards

The imposition of stricter coastal building standards is a

shared objective of three of the programs reviewed in this

manual--The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Coastal

Zone Protection Act of 1985 (CZPA), and the Coastal Construction

Control Line (CCCL) Program.

The State building requirements associated with the CZPA

were changed in 1986 to be made more consistent with NFIP

requirements. The re sult is a degree of uniformity in the design

standards for coastal construction. The geographic coastal areas

affected by these two programs overlaps to a large extent. In

contrast, the NFIF and CZPA building standards are generally less

stringent than those required by the Department of Natural

Resources seaward of the coastal construction control line.

Collectively, the end result is three different sets of

coastal building standards, applied to three geographically

distinct zones. While perhaps confusing, the programs are

consistent in terms of the single objective of improving the

quality of coastal construction.

With regard to the building standards aspects of the three

subject programs, they are generally unrelated to, or consistent

with, the objectives or impacts of the other coastal programs

highlighted herein. For example: 1) participation in NFIP is

requisite for inclusion in a state application for disaster

assistance (Chapter 9G-13, Emergency Management); 2) coastal

management element preparation requirements assume the

incorporation of floodplain management ordinances and coastal

building codes of the CZPA, and; 3) the Windstorm Insurance Risk

Apportionment rules stipulate the adoption and enforcement of

FEMA established minimum lowest-floor elevations as a requirement

for insurance eligibility.

The only potential point. of contention is the larger

question addressing the impact of better built structures on the

beach and dune system*. Should these enhanced structures survive

design storm conditions, they have the potential to impede

natural post-storm recovery processes. Further, over the long

term, these better -built structures may require armoring or

renourishment to realize their anticipated design life.

Land Use and Hazard Mitigation

Certain provisions of the following programs influence land

use: the National Flood Insurance Program, Coastal Management

Elements of the Local Go vernment Comprehensive Plan, Executive

Order 81-105, and the Emergency Management rules. Rather than--

or in addition to--specifying construction measures which may

limit damages, these programs impact density and type of use on

coastal barriers.

Each program, with the exception of EO 81-105, requires the
preparation or adoption of a land use or hazard mitigation plan

which restricts development in hazardous areas and encourages

growth only where the capacity of existing public infrastructure

permits. Other programs which restrict public expenditures for

infrastructure (for example, Coastal Barrier Resources Act, State

Infrastructure Policy) affect land use indirectly by limiting the

potential for future development. Pursuant to Chapter 163,

F.S., and Rule 9J-5, coastal elements must be consistent with

State and regional resource management plans and hazard

mitigation plans.

In addition to directing agencies to consider evacuation

capabilities as part bf growth management and regional planning,

Executive Order 81-105 permits State expenditures in coastal

areas with approved resource management or comprehensive plans.

Thus, there is a ce"rtain degree of consistency between programs

which regulate land use and those governing investment.

There is, however, the potential problem of inconsistency

between local government comprehensive plans. The degree of

compatibility between how individual governments' coastal
elements aadr"e'ss the management of common coastal barrier areas

is of enormous consequence.

Barrier Policy/Funding Restrictions

The Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Governor's Coastal

Barrier Executive Order (EO 81-105) and the State's CoaStal

Barrier Infrastructure Policy (Section 380.27, F.S.) share a

common concern for the protection of coastal barrier areas.

Their mutual objective is to restrict public expenditures which

may encourage imprudent coastal development. Florida's

procedures for emergency management (Chapter 252, F.S.; Chapter

9G-13, F.A.C.) have impacts on coastal barrier redevelopment as

well.

Because of differences in policy provisions, procedural

aspects, and geographic applications, the cumulative impact of

these programs is somewhat uneven. This is clearly evidenced in

the Infrastri icture Policy's focus on inaccessible barrier islands

and high-hazard coastal areas to be designated by local

government, versus CBRA's more precisely defined approach

employing designated units of the Federal Coastal Barrier

Resource System. The fragmentation is partially addressed by

Executive Order 81-105, which restricts the expenditure of state

funds by agencies under the Governor for new or expanded

infrastructure in any designated unit of the CBRS, seaward of the

coastal construction control line, in FEMA V-zones, and allows

for such expenditures only when consistent with the coastal
management element of a'local government's comprehensive plan.

Further, the letter of August 8, 1986, and the Emergency

Management Program support caps on barrier development by
restricting the redevelopment capacity of public infrastructure
to that of existing facilities. Finally, consistency in impact
should be greatly enhanced with the approval of revised local

government coastal management elements, beginning in July 1988.
From that point in time, all State expenditures for increasing

infrastructure capacity will be considered only to the extent

that they are found to be consistent with a local government's

coastal management element.

Incentives/Subsidies

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has provided

private property owners in flood-prone areas with previously

unavailable flood insurance. With its availability came much-
needed floodplain management regulations and coastal building

standards. Nevertheless, at a time when both federal (CBRA) and

State programs are removing development incentives and

encouraging public acquisition of coastal barrier properties, the

issue of providing 'Publicly-subsidized flood insurance has been

raised. Some individuals propose that its availability in

certain coastal high-hazard areas undermines other program

policies and regulatory provisions aimed at restricting

development on highly vulnerable coastal barriers. The same

argument can be made with regard to the Windstorm Insurance
Program: such coverage , whether subsidized or not, permit's

redevelopment where perhaps, without its availability, none would

occur. Under the program, windstorm insurance may be available

to property owners within CBRS units, whereas the intent of the

Coastal Barrier Resource Act is to deny governmental financial

incentives for redevelopment. Fortunately, from a State.

perspective, the 1986 amendments to Section 627.351, F.S.,

require that windstorm insurance coverage be consistent with

State coastal management, beach preservation, and comprehensive

planning laws and rules.

The intent of Florida's new beach restoration initiative is

to systematically address the problem of severely eroding

beaches. Its objectives are to restore recreational beaches and

provide protection to upland structures. In many cases, the

alternatives are few--restoration, abandonment, or armoring.

This decisioh!-making dilemma was the primary catalyst for this

year's legislative initiative to comprehensively plan for the

restoration of Florida's beaches.

Although clearly not the intent, any extensive public works

program, such as a Xassive statewide beach restoration

initiative, has the potential to enhance development

opportunities, and may undermine regulatory efforts to restrict

or relocate development or redevelopment activities, at a

significant dollar cost to the public.

Coastal Zoneg-.

Several of the programs highlighted in this manual address
specific coastal zones. These programs may be regulatory in
nature (CCCL), code-type programs (CZPA), or a combination of
both such as the NFIP, or solely policy-oriented (Coastal Barrier

Infrastructure Policy). The actual effectiveness of these
programs is largely a function of the extent to which they

contribute to an integrated management framework.

COAS TAL AREAS OF THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT

COASTAL BUILDING ZONE

(STATE COASTAL BUILDING CODE)
1500 FT. MAINLAND
5000 FT. COASTAL BARRIER COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE
(RESTRICTED, STATE PERMITTING)

30-YR. EROSION SETBACK
(PROHIBITIVE ZONE)

INTERIOR OCEAN
WATERS

COASTAL ZONES
ERIOR

While many of the subject programs share common objectives, their

impacts have been, or have the potential to be, uneven or

counterproductive. The "new" coastal management elements of the

local government comprehensive plan are intended to provide the

essential linkages between planning and practice, policy and

implementation, and State and local responses--assuring a certain

degree of consistency between program objectives and impacts.

While statutory definitions are included in most of the

rules, regulations and programs addressed, there are occasional

overlaps and gaps among the program boundaries, which reduce the

programs' effectiveness. The Coastal Barrier Executive order

addresses both barrier islands and coastal areas in general. The

National Flood Insurance Program draws distinctions by the design

features for structures, and the mechanism of flood risk,

qualified on maps. The wind insurance program is not

restricted to barriers, and the CZPA establishes three types of

building zones in coastal areas. Care must be exercised in

determining whether different programs impact areas with the same

boundaries-or,topographic characteristics.

Land Acquisition

State land acquisition programs have the most far-reaching

potential to support other coastal regulatory and management

programs. In turn, such acquisition activities, either directly

or indirectly, further the objectives and intentions of'.almost
all of the programs addressed by this manual. The simple act of

removing beachfront from the realm of developable acreage reduces

most adverse land use and infrastructure impacts along with

associated insurance needs. The NFIP has a land acquisition

aspect, Section 1362, with the specific purpose to remove

structures from the floodplain that have been damaged. While the

program has not been used extensively in Florida, the DCA has
published the document, "Selective Acquisition of Flood-Prone

Lands in a Post Disaster Situation" to encourage use of this

potent mechanism.

While CBRA does not address acquisition as a tool to.further

its objectives, the federal designation of undeveloped units of

the Coastal Barrier Resource System has facilitated State efforts

to acquire many properties within designated CBRS units. While

it is impossible to quantify what significance inclusion in a

CBRS unit has on a property owner's decision to sell designated

land to the State, the recent frequency of Save Our Coast

acquisition of CBRS properties can not be overlooked or attributed

to mere coincidence.

With respect to emergency management, public acquisition of
coastal high-hazard properties would greatly minimize risk' to

life and property and reduce both the number and dollar value of

properties in the insurance pool. However, existing acquisition

programs and procedures are not oriented towards post-disaster

acquisition or hazardous properties in general. Thus, current

public acquisition programs do not provide a viable alternative

to private redevelopment of impacted properties. This is the

most notable and significant weakness or "inconsistency" in the

relationship between Florida's extensive land acquisition program

and other State regulatory and management programs impacting

coastal barrier areas.

Acquisition of pristine, fragile coastal barrier areas has

the direct benefit of removing such properties from subsequent

regulatory decision-making. Public ownership preempts the need

to make difficult coastal construction control line permit

decisions, lessens future infrastructure demands, and reduces the

potential for future disaster assistance. Further, public

ownership of large undeveloped tracts of coastal property greatly

enhances the opportunity for effective beach and resource

management, the primary objective of several of the programs

highlighted herein. Public access is assured, furthering the

goals and objectives of Florida's beach and shore preservation

program, pursuant to Chapt er 161, F.S., the State Comprehensive

Plan, and the coastal management policies of Chapter 163, F.S.

Concluding Remarl-@

As stated at the onset, the purpose of this manual is to

provide the user with a concise reference to federal and State

programs which have the potential to affect coastal management

decisions. As intended, the majority of the text has been

devoted to providing program overviews, based on review of

statutes and rules, with welcomed assistance from agency

personnel.

Individual opinions and assessments have, no doubt, been

reflected in the preceding discussion of program

interrelationships. However, the importance of focusing on how

these eleven programs "fit" together can not be overstated. They

share a common, critically important thread--they all

significantly impact Florida's fragile coastal barrier islands and

associated landforms. The extent to which we grasp these subtle

program interactions will largely determine the degree of

success achieved in effectively managing the state's coastal

barrier areas. The next step will be the preparation of local

government coastal management elements.

I
I
I
I
I
I A P P E N D I X
I REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . .
I
I
I

LEGAL CITATIONS

Statute Program References

Chapter 161, F.S. Coastal Construction control Lines;
Coastal Zone Protection Act;
Florida's Beach Management and Erosion
Control Program
Chapter 163, F.S. Coastal Management Elements
Chapter 252, F.S. Emergency Management
Chapter 253, F.S. Land Acquisition Programs (CARL)
Chapter 258, F.S. Land Acquisition Programs
Chapter 259, F.S. Land Acquisition Programs (LATF)
Chapter 375, F.S. Land Acquisition Programs (LATF; FRDAP)
Chapter 380,.F.S. Coastal Barrier Infrastructure Policy
Chapter 627,-F.S. Windstorm Insurance Risk Apportionment

Rule 9G-13, F.A.C. Post-Disaster Redevelopment Rule
Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Government Comprehensive Plans and
Determination of Compliance
Rule 9J-12, F.A.C. Schedule of Submission of Revised
Local Government Comprehensive Plans
Rule 16B-26, F.A.C. Descriptions of Coastal Construction
Control Lines
Rule 16B-33, F.A.C. Rules and Procedures for Coastal
Construction and Excavation
Rule 16D-5, F.A.C. Criteria for Evaluating Proposals to FRDAP
Rule 16D-10, F.A.C. Rules for Evaluation of Proposed
Properties for Acquisition
Rule 18-1, F.A.C. Procedures for the Acquisition of
CARL Properties
Rule 18-8,-.F.A.C Criteria for Evaluation and Selection of
CARL Properties

Chapters 59-77, CFR National Flood Insurance Program
Public Law 90-448 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
Public Law 92-583 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
Public Law 93-288 Disaster Relief Act of 1974
Public Law 97-348 Coastal Barrier Resources Act

Title 43 CFR Subtitle A Coastal Barrier Resources Act; Advisory
Guidelines
Title 44 CFR Part 205 Disaster Assistance; Implementation of
Coastal Barriers Resources Act*

CONTACT LIST

Beach Management and Erosion Control

Department of Natural Resources
Division of Beaches and Shores
Office of Beach Erosion Control
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-3180

Coastal Barrier Infrastructure Policy

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
2751 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-9210

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

U.S. Department of the interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
18th and C St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20405
(202) 343-2618

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Resource Planning
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-9210

Coastal Construction Control Line

Department of Natural Resources
Division of Beaches and Shores
Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulations
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-3180

Coastal Management Elements

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local Resource Planning
2751 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 487-4545

Coastal Zone Protection Act

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Resource Planning
2572 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-9210

Emergency Management

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
Bureau of Planning
1720 Gadsden St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 487-4915.

Executive Order 81-105

Executive Office of the Governor
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Natural Resources Section
404 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904).488-5551

National Flood Insurance Program

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV
1375 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 788
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 347-7058

100

Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Resource Management
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-4925

State Land Acquisition Programs

Florida Department of Natural Resources
Division of State Lands
Bureau of Land Acquisition
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-2351

Windstorm Insurance

Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association
1000 Riverside Avenue Suite 408
Jacksonville, FL 32204
(904) 354-3302

Florida Department of Insurance
Division of Risk Management
Larson Building
Tallahasse, FL 32399
(904) 488-5073

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collier, Courtland, et. al. 1977. Guidelines for Beachfront
Construction with Special Reference to the Coastal
Construction Setback Line. Florida Sea Grant, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Davis, John. H., Jr. 1975. Stabilization of Beaches and Dunes by
Vegetation in Florida. Florida Sea Grant, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Ditton, Robert B., John L. Seymour, and Gerald C. Swanson. 1977.
Coastal Resource Management, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1984. Local Official's
Floodplain Management Handbook. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Department of'Community Affairs. 1986. Selective
Acquisition of Floodprone Land and Structures in a Post-
flood Situation. Tallahassee, FL.

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1986. Back to the Water:
Discovering Florida's Urban Waterfronts. Tallahassee, FL.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1986. A Proposed
Comprehensive Beach Management Program for the State of
Florida. Tallahassee, FL.

Jones, Christopher P. and Leigh Taylor Johnson. 1982. Coastal
Construction Practices. Florida Sea Grant, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL

Nelson, Waltdr G. 1985. Guidelines for Beach Restoration
Projects. Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida,.
Gainesville, FL. '

Pilkey, Orrin J., Jr., et al. 1984. Living with the East Florida
Shore. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.

Pilkey, Orrin J., Jr., et al. 1984. Living with the West Florida
Shore. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.

Questions and Answers on the National Flood Insurance Program.
1983. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

Salmon, Jack, Don Renningsen, and Thomas McAlpin. 1982. Dune

102

Restoration and Revegetation Manual. Florida Sea Grant,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Smith, Lester B., Jr. 1983. Barrier Beach Management Sourcebook.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA.

Statewide Plan for Acquisition and Conservation of Environmental
Resources. 1986. Land Acquisition Selection Committee and
the Division of State Lands, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL.

Undeveloped Coastal Barriers: Definitions and Delineation
Criteria. 1982. Coastal Barrier Task Force, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Low Cost Shore Protection: A
Guide for Local Government Officials. Ft. Belvoir, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Low Cost Shore Protection: A
Property Owner's Guide. Ft. Belvoir, VA.

Walton, Todd L., Jr. 1983. Hurricane Resistant Construction for
Homes. Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

Walton, Todd L., Jr. and Thomas C. Skinner. 1983. Beach Dune
Walkover Structures. Florida Sea Grant, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Yanggen, D.A. 1981. Regulations to Reduce Coastal Erosion Losses.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Zinn, Jeffrey. 1982. Coastal Barrier Protection, Issue Brief
Number IB80057. Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, Washington, D.C.

103

Prepared by
the Florida Atlantic University/Florida International University
Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems
@ @ @ I @ 1111 @ 111@ 11 @ I @ I @ 1@ I 1@ I I I @ I @ I 1@ @@ @@ 111 @ I
3 6668 00002 15