Estuarine and coastal area planning and management final report

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

ESTUARINE AND COASTAL AREA PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Final Report

DER Contract CM-163

prepared for

Office of Coastal Management

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
I epe 30, 1988COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
September 30, 1988 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

I .-unds for this project were provided by the Department of
X-Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management, using funds
Liz made available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
I amended.

Property of CSC Library

TABLE OF CONTENTS

H ~1. Introduction I

III1. Estuarine Planning 3

A. Northwest Florida Estuarine Efforts 4

I ~~B. Aquatic- Preserve Management 8

M~III. Coastal Construction 14

IV. Coastal Infrastructure Policy and CBRS 19

A. Coastal Infrastructure Policy 19

B. Coastal Barrier Resources System 23

C. Coastal Barrier Executive Order 26

V. Interagency Management Committee 29
and Interagency Advisory Committee

VI. Federal Consistency Review 29

I ~~Appendix 33

3 ~~List of Attachments 41

I. INTRODUCTION

Funds obtained through the Florida Coastal Management Program

were used to enhance the Department's capabilities in the areas of

estuarine management, coastal construction and building codes, and

coastal and barrier island management. The funds were also used

I ~to support the Department's participation in the functions of the

E~Interagency Advisory Committee (1AC), the Interagency Management

Committee (INC) and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Advisory

Committee.

Grant funds were used primarily to fund positions and

I ~expenses within the Coastal Programs unit, which is located in the

* ~Field Technical Assistance section of the Bureau of Local

Planning. These positions included a Planning Manager, a Planner

IV, two Planner III's and a secretary specialist. one of the

Planner III's (as a Federal Programs Administrator) was stationed

3 ~in the Division of Housing and Community Development in the Codes

and Standards section for the period between October 1, 1986 and

September 30, 1987. That position was involved exclusively in

3 ~carrying out duties under the Coastal Construction aspect of the

scope of services relating to requirements of Chapter 161.52 -

I ~161.58, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Various other staff throughout

the Division of Resource Planning and Management were involved as

necessary on issues identified in the scope of services.

* ~~The grant was originally received in the amount of $216,958

effective September 30, 1986, to be completed by September 30,

3 ~1987. The scope of services was revised in February 1987 to more

~~~~~~~~~~~I

I ~accurately reflect the work program to be undertaken under the

contract. On September 22, 1987, the contract was extended, due

to excess funds, until January 29, 1988. On January 25, 1988, the

contract was extended again, which included a revised scope of work

and an additional $65,000 compensation, until June 30, 1988.

I ~This date was chosen in anticipation of the positions funded

under this grant being transferred to general revenue state

K ~funding at the beginning of the 1988-89 fiscal year. Although

I ~State funding was approved in the 1988 legislative session,

appropriations for the coastal unit positions would not become

I ~available until October 1, 1988. On June 29, 1988, the contract

I ~was extended a third time with no additional funds until

September 30, 1988. The total amount of the grant for the two

I ~year period was $281,958.

The scope of services under the grant was modified somewhat

3 ~during the grant period, but the work program addressed five major

I ~topics: 1) Estuarine Planning, 2) Coastal Construction,

3) Coastal Infrastructure Policy and Coastal Barrier Resources

E ~System, 4) IMC/IAC and 5) Federal Consistency Review.

The following report provides a general description of the

I ~activities by coastal unit staff in addressing the tasks

identified within each topic area. Selected activities,

I ~memoranda, letters and reports are included at the end of the

I ~report as attachments. These will be identified in the text in

parentheses with the letter "All followed by a number which

corresponds with those on the list of attachments. For example,

(A13) refers to attachment 13.

II. ESTUARINE PLANNING

I ~~The primary objective of coastal staff was to provide

technical assistance to local governments surrounding certain

3 estuarine areas with the development and implementation of policy

plans and ordinances to improve estuarine management. This effort

Iwas directed statewide, primarily through written comments and

3 ~follow-up in response to draft coastal management and related

elements prepared pursuant to local government planning assistance

I ~grants, administered through DCA. in addition to this, several

target areas were identified for special emphasis. These included

Ithose local governments within Resource Planning and Management

I ~Committee (RPMC) areas, especially those in the northwest Florida

Coastal region; and local governments adjacent to aquatic

3 ~preserves with approved management plans, with emphasis on the

Indian River Lagoon and Charlotte Harbor areas.

3 ~~Much of the technical assistance provided to local

governments regarding estuarine management was in the form of day

to day contact with various local government representatives and
3 ~consultants through telephone conversations and individual

meetings. in providing technical assistance, coastal unit staff

3 has emphasized the basin-wide estuarine management approach, as

I ~identified in the DER estuarine initiative and the Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWIM) legislation. Special attention

3 has been given to the areas of stormwater management, marina

siting, shoreline modification and the maintenance of vegetative

3buffers adjacent to estuaries and tributaries.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~3

I ~A. Northwest Florida Estuarine Efforts

During the early portion of the grant period, Coastal staff

was actively involved with the Escambia/Santa Rosa Resource

I ~Planning and Management Committee, and the implementation of the

Bay Area Resource Inventory Program (BARIP). Coastal staff

provided comments an the BARIP scope of work proposal in

I ~December 1986 (Al), and attended meetings of the BARIP Technical

Advisory Committee and BARIP Oversight Committee in early 1987.

I ~Staff provided input for the preparation of a legislative budget

I ~request in 1987 that would have funded the program. The budget

request was not approved. Further attempts to secure funding for

a project manager and committee expenses were also unsuccessful.

Due to lack of funds, BARIP has not been active since early 1987.

3~For that reason, Coastal staff involvement with BARIP has been

N ~limited since that time. If future funding is obtained, DCA

staff will be available to provide technical assistance to that

I ~program.

Coastal staff has provided comments on a variety of draft

3 ~ordinances and resource protection plans for Escambia County, the

I ~City of Pensacola and the City of Gulf Breeze. For example,

staff reviewed the City of Gulf Breeze's draft Shoreline

3 ~Protection ordinance and the City of Pensacola's draft Marina

siting ordinance. Staff has also provided comments on the U.S.

I ~Navy's Gulf Coast Homeporting action which affects the City of

Pensacola. Coastal staff has provided on-site technical

I ~assistance to the City of Pensacola and its consultant regarding

the development of the deepwater port master plan for the Port of

Pensacola, which is to be incorporated into the coastal

management element of the city's local comprehensive plan.

To aid in the implementation of some recommendations of

the Escambia/Santa Rosa RPMC, DCA entered into agreements with

the Cities of Pensacola and Gulf Breeze to provide funds for the

development of stormwater management plans. In January 1987,

funding in the amount of $26,000 from the Area of Critical State

Concern Trust Fund, (Contract #87-SR-40-01-27-02-005) was provided

to the City of Pensacola for stormwater management planning. The

final report was submitted to DCA on December 21, 1987. DCA

staff reviewed the report and found it in compliance with

contract requirements. A similar contract in the amount of

$10,000 (#87-SR-40-01-27-02-006) was entered into with the City

of Gulf Breeze in April 1987. Although progress reports were

received from Gulf Breeze, a final report was never submitted

and a final payment was never made by the Department. The

interim reports, however, indicated that some progress has been

made towards implementation of a stormwater management plan in

Gulf Breeze. DCA staff is continuing to work with the City to

ensure that the issues of concern are addressed.

DCA staff has reviewed and commented on the application for

development approval for the Navarre Beach areawide Development of

Regional Impact. Coastal staff has conducted a site visit of the

area to aid in the review of the application and verify existing

infrastructure and natural features.

In order to address estuarine planning concerns in the

Okaloosa/Walton County area, DCA entered into a contract

(#87-SR-40-13-00-16-009) with the Northwest Florida Water Management

District (NWFWMD) on February 17, 1987. The agreement provided

funds in the amount of $30,000 from the Area of Critical State

Concern Trust Fund in order to facilitate mutual cooperation and

to further the implementation of the Northwest Florida Coast

Resource Management Plan.

The NWFWMD subcontracted with the Center for Aquatic

Research and Resource Management (CARRMA) of Florida State

University to continue working toward establishing a

comprehensive data base, resource inventory and management plan

for the Choctawhatchee Bay system as recommended by the Resourcd

Management Plan. The agreement's scope of work included the

completion of a CARRMA proposal entitled "Program to enhance

productivity of the Choctawhatchee Bay System." This program

continued on previous work done in the bay and included the

development of a marina siting ordinance. DCA staff

reviewed interim and final work products associated with these

agreements in order to determine contract compliance.

A final work product entitled "Choctawhatchee Bay Project"

was received on March 15, 1988, and reviewed by DCA staff. This

report includes a model marina siting ordinance, ecological

criteria for siting marinas in Choctawhatchee Bay, ecological

data on the bay, a report on seagrass productivity and

transplantation potential and a report on commercial fisheries.

A map overlay series was also included which depicts depth,

grassbeds, oyster beds, flushing characteristics and other

features of the Choctawhatchee Bay system to aid in the decision

making process regarding marina siting. DCA is presently having

the map series reproduced so that the City of Destin, Okaloosa

and Walton Counties can each have a copy of the map for use in

land use planning.

DCA staff also entered into a contract with Walton

County, which required a report analyzing drainage problems and

stormwater management concerns, specifically in the area south of

Choctawhatchee Bay. The first progress report, submitted in

August 1987, defined watershed boundaries and identified flooding

and erosion problems in the study area. The final report was

received in December 1987, which presented management

recommendations and established criteria which will be used to

prepare a request for a proposal for the development of a

stormwater management plan for the area.

Destin Harbor Management Plan - Coastal staff was involved

in providing technical assistance for the development of a

management plan for Destin Harbor through attendance at meetings

in early 1987. The Harbor Management Plan was being developed as

the result of recommendations made in the Resource Management

Plan adopted by the Northwest Florida Coast Resource Planning and

Management Committee (NFCRPMC).

Coastal funds in the amount of $500 were expended to aid in

producing the publication titled "An Environmental Bibliography

for Northwest Florida, 1900-1985" (A2). This effort was

I ~~~~~~~~~~~7

I ~coordinated by the Sierra Club, Bream Fisherman's Association

and the Environmental Protection Agency. The compilation of a

bibliography of information relevant to northwest Florida will be

beneficial in implementing recommendations of the Resource

Management Plans in this area by providing planners, regulatory

I ~officials and the public with an accurate data base. Coastal

staff was also involved in the review of drafts of this

publication and provided comments and suggestions.

* ~~Coastal staff has commented on the environmental assessment

for the proposed Choctawhatchee Bay bridge by the Mid-Bay Bridge

I ~Authority, as it relates to the Northwest Florida Coast Resource

Management Plan. A number of issues were identified which require

I ~further investigation, including consistency with the Resource

3 ~Management Plan, impacts on growth patterns in coastal high

hazard areas and the hurricane vulnerability zone, infrastructure

I ~needs associated with the new access and the applicability of the

Coastal Barrier Executive order and the Coastal Barriers

I ~Resources Act (CBRA). DCA staff will continue to work with the

I ~bridge authority to ensure that the issues raised by the NFCRPMC

are addressed, and that a comprehensive growth management

3 ~approach is taken in the area.

3 ~B. Acauatic Preserve Manaciement

Florida's aquatic preserve system, established under the

provisions of Chapter 258, F.S., includes forty areas encompassing

E ~approximately 2 million acres of submerged land. The aquatic

preserve system was established to protect the natural or existing

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~8

I ~condition of designated aquatic habitats so that their aesthetic,

biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of

future generations. To date, management plans for 20 aquatic

3 ~preserves have been adopted by Florida's Governor and Cabinet.

The cooperation of local governments bordering a preserve is

I ~essential to implementation of the aquatic preserve plan.

* ~~Local governments in Florida are authorized by the State

Constitution and law to regulate land use within their

jurisdictional boundaries. However, land use decisions must be

consistent with the locally adopted comprehensive plan. State law

* ~requires each local government in the state to adopt a

comprehensive plan in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S., the Local

Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Substantial amendments to

3 ~this law in 1985 required all local governments to revise the

content of their existing plans. The amendments placed special

I ~emphasis on coastal management. Many of the issues which must be

addressed in the coastal management element directly relate to

estuarine management in general and aquatic preserve maangement

3 ~specifically. The content of the coastal management element must

include an assessment of the impact of existing and future land

I ~use on estuaries and provisions for coordinating with other local

governments and adopted resource protection plans such as those

for aquatic preserves.
3 ~~Under Subtask A, DCA staff reviewed draft revised

comprehensive plans from the 15 counties and 25 cities that

3 ~border the twenty aquatic preserves with approved management

plans. Table I contains a list of aquatic preserves with

approved plans and bordering local governments. Written comments

* ~were provided to local governments on the content of their

proposed plan which included an assessment of the plan's

I ~compatibility with adopted aquatic preserve management plans. An

example of the type of comments given to local governments is

provided as an attachment (A3), from the review of the draft

coastal management element submitted by St. Lucie County. DCA

staff will be following up initial reviews with reviews of the

I ~adopted comprehensive plans. To date, only the local governments

3 ~in Brevard County have submitted final plans for review.

In addition to the above referenced written comments, the

Department also provided technical assistence by telephone as well

as in field meetings. Field technical assistance visits were held

I ~with all of the local governments listed in Table I except for

Duval, Nassau and Citrus counties; and the cities of Fernandina

Beach and Sanibel. Table II identifies the date and location of

field visits. The importance of consistency of Local

Comprehensive Plans with Aquatic Preserve Management Plans was also

I ~stressed at a series of workshops in the summer of 1987, sponsored

by DCA to inform local governments on requirements of the Local

Comprehensive Planning process. In addition, the model coastal

management element, prepared by the Bureau of Local Resource

Planning and published in May 1987, directs local governments to

I ~consider Aquatic Preserve Management plans in the formulation of

their coastal management elements. The model element included the

management policies of the appropriate aquatic preserve management

I ~~~~~~~~~10

plan in its analysis and presented specific policies to ensure

I coordination with other local governments and the Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) in the management of the preserve. The model

I element is intended to serve as a guide for local governments and

should provide direction in addressing aquatic preserve issues.

Another example of ongoing technical assistance to further aquatic

preserve awareness is an article published in the Department's

Technical Memo June 1988, reminding local governments to

I consider aquatic preserves in their planning process (A4).

* ~~Special emphasis was given to the implementation of

recommendations in the IMC Indian River Lagoon Field Committee

Report. In addition to the assistance referenced above, DCA

staff met with representatives of Brevard County and its

Umunicipalities on two other occasions in February and August of

I ~1988. During the February meeting, two staff members served as

moderators for the initial meeting of Indian River Lagoon

Watershed Action Committees, sponsored by the Marine Resources

Council of East Central Florida (A5). The formation of these

I ~committees was recommended by the Indian River Field Committee

Report. The August 1988 meeting was a continuation of DCA's role

in the coordination of consistent local government comprehensive

3 ~plans, with special emphasis placed on issues regarding the Port

of Canaveral deepwater port master plan.

Table I

Local Governments Bordering Aquatic Preserves-
with Approved Management Plans.

Aquatic Preserves Counties Municipalities

Alligator Harbor Franklin None

Banana River *Brevard *Cape Canaveral,
*Cocoa Beach,
*Satellite Beach,
*Indian Harbor Beach

Cape Haze Charlotte None

Cape Romano-10,000 Collier None
Islands

Cockroach Bay Hillsborough None

Estero Bay Lee Ft. Myers Beach

Fort Clinch State Park Nassau None

Gasparilla Sound Lee, Charlotte None

Indian River - Malabar *Brevard, *Palm Bay, *Malabar,
to Vero Beach Indian River *Sebastian, Vero
Beach, Orchid, Indian
River Shores

Indian River - Vero Indian River, Vero Beach, Ft.
Beach to Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Pierce, St. Lucie
Inlet

Jensen Beach to Martin, Palm Ft. Pierce, Sewall's
Jupiter Inlet Beach, St. Point, Jupiter Island,
Lucie Jupiter, Jupiter Inlet
Colony, Tequesta

Loxahatchee River - Martin, Palm Jupiter, Juno,
Lake Worth Creek Beach Tequesta

Matlacha Pass Lee Cape Coral

Nassau River - St. Duval, Nassau Fernandina Beach
Johns River Marsh

North Fork-St. Lucie Martin, Port St. Lucie
River St. Lucie

Aquatic Preserve Counties municipalities

Pine Island Sound Lee Sanibel

I ~Rookery Bay Collier None

I ~St. Joseph Bay Gulf Port St. Joe

St. Martins Marsh Citrus None

Terra Ceia Manatee None

*Identifies communities that have submitted final revised
I ~comprehensive plans for review.

* ~~~~~~~~Table II

Field Technical Assistance Visits

I ~~Date Location

November 1987
January 1988 Brevard County, Cape Canaveral,
Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach,
Indian Harbor Beach, Palm Bay,
Malabar, Sebastian

I ~March 1988 Gulf County, Pensacola

I ~April 1988 Lee County

I ~June 1988 St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce

June 1988 Martin County, Sewall's Point,
Jupiter Island

June 1988 Indian River County, Indian River
I ~~~~~~~~~Shores, Orchid, Vero Beach

I ~June 1988 Franklin County, Apalachicola

July 1988 Palm Beach County, Jupiter, Jupiter
I ~~~~~~~~~Inlet Colony, Juno, Tequesta

I ~~~~~~~~~13

Ill. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION

* ~~Coastal funds were used to support a Federal Programs

Administrator position in the Division of Housing and Community

I ~Development during the period between October 1, 1986, and

September 30, 1987. This position was involved exclusively in the

I ~implementation of the Coastal Building Zone requirements of the

I ~Coastal Zone Protection Act (CZPA) of 1985 and its 1986 revisions.

The primary responsibility of this position was to provide

technical assistance to local governments and the construction

industry relating to the adoption of a coastal building code for

I ~areas within the coastal building zone that meet the mimimum

I ~requirements of s. 161.55 of the CZPA.

Local governments which contain a coastal building zone or

* ~some portion of a coastal building zone were required to provide

evidence to DCA (the state land planning agency) that they had

adopted a coastal building code which met the minimum requirements

I ~pursuant to the Costal Zone Protection Act. Coastal unit staff

provided technical assistance to local governments to aid them in

* ~the adoption of a coastal construction ordinance by January 1,

1987, as required by the 1986 revisions to the CZPA. This

I ~technical assistance included the distribution of information,

telephone assistance, ordinance review and public workshops. The

CZPA required DCA to report to the Governor and cabinet by March,

I ~1987, indicating those local governments which had not submitted

evidence of adoption of the coastal building code.

I ~~~~~~~~~14

* ~~The following outlines the areas of activity by coastal unit

staff concerning coastal construction standards:

* ~~1. Technical Assistance

The major difficulty encountered by DCA staff in assisting

I ~local governments was the widespread misunderstanding of wind load

I ~design. When the Legislature adopted the Coastal Zone Protection

Act of 1985, the statute specified that all structures to be

I ~built in the coastal building zone were to be designed to

withstand 140 mph wind speeds. Shortly after the effective date,

H ~it became apparent that this requirement was both technically and

procedurally flawed. Since the flaw appeared as an engineering

technicality, it was exceedingly difficult to convey the
I ~distinction between 140 mph (with no specified means of measuring

wind speeds) and utilizing velocity pressures based on 110 mph

I~maximum winds, a requirement mandated by a 1986 Legislative

amendment. Many local governments felt that the state had reduced

I ~the requirements; that previously adopted ordinances based upon

1985 legislation were more restrictive; and, therefore, no action

on their part was necessary. Numerous daily phone calls and

correspondence (representative copy attached - A6) attempted to

clarify this point. As a result, many local governments attempted

I ~to enact ordinances at the last minute. Some were successful, but

H~as of the end of March 1987, 40% of local governments required to

adopt the code had not done so. Of the 40%, however, 23% were in

H ~the adoption process. Because of this high noncompliance rate,
DCA staff recommended that the Administration Commission take

H ~~~~~~~~~15

I ~no action regarding potential sanctions until after September 15,

1987.

U ~~2. Workshops, Manual & Deemed to Comply Standard

Section 161.56(4), F.S. mandates that the Department provide

an ongoing training program for building inspection personnel

responsible for enforcing the coastal construction code. To

achieve this, a contract was executed August 6, 1986 between the

I ~Southern Building Code Congress International and DCA to develop a

workshop training manual, a deemed to comply standard for coastal

construction and to conduct 10 educational workshops around the

state. These materials were developed, and on December 3 and 4,

1986, 22 selected building officials, DCA staff and industry

I ~representatives attended a pilot workshop on Longboat Key to

review and critique the presentation. Portions of the workbook,

as well as the workshop format have subsequently been streamlined

and clarified, resulting in a document which is an excellent

resource on the effects of hurricanes; construction deficiencies;

I ~inspection techniques; commentary on the law; and floodplain

3 ~management. It was used during the 10 initial workshops (March 9

- April 10, 1987). A subsequent workshop was held May 14 and 15,

U ~1987, in the Florida Keys emphasizing the stricter standards

imposed in that area; i.e., 115 mph maximum wind speeds. Courses

I ~for building inspectors have been offered free of charge, and the

* ~Department was allocated funding to distribute incentive

grants of $100 per building department employee (up to 3) for

3 ~those who participate in the program. Through September 1987,

more than 200 inspectors had attended the workshops.

The deemed to comply standard has undergone intensive review

by DCA staff, independent structural engineers and industry

3 ~representatives. When it was introduced at the pilot workshop, a

number of concerns were expressed that the document was overly

I ~restrictive and too conservative in its approach to construction

I ~methods. Legislative intent in requiring the development of the

standard was to provide a mechanism whereby a typically small,

3 ~residential structure could be built in conformance with the

U ~provisions of the law without having to be individually

engineered. Because of this, SBCCI calculations were based on

"worst case" scenarios, producing design methodologies which could

conceivably result in overbuilt structures. We anticipate that

* ~alternative methods and materials may be included as acceptable

procedures at the conclusion of the review process.

1 ~~3. Coordination with FEMA

DCA coastal construction staff initiated an intensive

dialogue with both state and regional FEMA representatives to

3 ~clarify and better understand requirements imposed by separate

regulatory agencies. A preliminary facet of this initiative

I ~involved the distribution of over 200 coastal construction

3 ~manuals developed by FEMA, to all building departments whose area

of jurisdiction contains a coastal building zone. FEMA regional

I ~staff met with the state's administrator of the coastal

construction program to achieve greater understanding of Florida

I ~law, and the implementation of Florida's coastal construction

* ~program.

I ~~~~~~~~~17

4. Conformity with the Act

Coastal construction staff prepared a report on local

government compliance with the Coastal Zone Protection Act, which

I ~was delivered to the Administration Commission on March 23, 1987,

as required by Chapter 161.56, F.S. (A7). Although a substantial

I ~number of local governments had not adopted the coastal building

zone requirements as of the date of the report, it was DCA's

recommendation that no sanctions be imposed on local governments

which adopt the Coastal Construction Code prior to September 1,

I ~1987. This was due to the finding that many local governments

* ~were acting in good faith and were in the process of adopting

appropriate local ordinances at the time of the report.

5. information Services

The Florida Hurricane Resistant Construction Manual is

I ~available from the Codes & Standards section of DCA free of charge

* ~to local building departments or other governmental entities.

Other interested parties could obtain a copy of the manual for a

3 ~$10 fee, to cover materials and reproduction costs.

* ~~~~~~~~~18

U ~~~~IV. COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY AND CBRS

The primary approach by both state and federal government in

managing growth in coastal high hazard areas is the elimination of

public expenditures which could be used for the expansion of

coastal infrastructure. This is the basis for the state's coastal

I ~infrastructure policy and Coastal Barrier Executive order, and the

3 ~federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act. Central to the

implementation of these programs at the state level is the

I ~identification of state funds as applicable to coastal

infrastructure. A list of state agency programs identified by

I ~coastal staff, which could make funds available for the purpose of

* ~infrastructure expansion in hazardous coastal areas is found as

Appendix i. Ongoing coordination with these agencies and programs

3 ~is necessary to ensure consistent implementation of the state's

coastal infrastructure policy and related programs.

A. Coastal Infrastructure Policy

U ~~Chapter 380.27(3), F.S., the coastal infrastructure policy,

I ~requires the state land planning agency (DCA) to prepare and

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

I ~of the House of Representatives a report which assesses the

* ~effectiveness of the state's coastal barrier infrastructure

policy on growth and development. There have been three coastal

infrastructure policy reports prepared by DCA since the enactment

of 380.27, F.S. The first report was prepared prior to the

I ~effective date of the present grant program. The grant period

I ~~~~~~~~~19

I ~included the preparation of the subsequent two policy reports.

The second coastal infrastructure policy report was delivered on

I ~March 1, 1987 (AS), and the third coastal infrastructure policy

I ~report was delivered on February 25, 1988 (A9). In addition to

those parties identified in the statute, copies of the report were

also sent to the chairmen of all the Senate and House committees,

all agency heads and to each of the regional planning councils.

Additional copies were provided to interested parties and are

available upon request from DCA.

K ~~The infrastructure policy reports summarized changes to

federal, state and regional policies and regulations which affect

coastal infrastructure and development in coastal barrier areas.

* ~Since much of the infrastructure policy is dependent upon the

adoption of coastal management elements of local comprehensive

I ~plans, it is still too early to evaluate the direct impact of this

I ~legislation on growth and development. The first local

comprehensive plans were not submitted until April 1, 1988. The

1987 report discussed Governor Graham's August 1986 coastal

barrier executive order update letter, and included a copy of the

U ~letter as an appendix. The report also detailed relevant portions

I ~of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., which became effective in September, 1986.

Both reports evaluated policies and directives relating to

3 ~coastal infrastructure within the comprehensive regional policy

I ~plans (CRPP), which were developed in 1986 and 1987. Local

comprehensive plans must be consistent with and further the

3 ~intent of the CRPPs as well as the State Comprehensive Plan.

I ~~~~~~~~~20

Staff within the coastal unit has also begun to address the

implementation of s. 380.27(2), F.S., after local comprehensive

plans are approved. The statute states that state expenditures

cannot be made to increase capacity of any infrastructure unless

such expenditure is consistent with the coastal management

element of the local comprehensive plan. The statute does not

explicitly state the area to which the provisions apply, but it

is assumed that it includes the area covered in the Coastal

Management Element (i.e., "coastal area" as defined in 9J-

5.003(11), F.A.C.). Chapter 163.3178(2)(h), F.S., requires the

designation of high-hazard coastal areas "which shall be subject

to the provisions of s. 380.27(2)." This could be interpreted to

limit the area affected by the infrastructure policy to only the

high-hazard area instead of the entire coastal area. However,

using guidance from the State Comprehensive Plan (s.

187.201(9)(b)3. and (20)(b)12.) and s. 163.3177(6)(g)7., F.S.,

which address the subsidization of development within high hazard

areas, it is our determination that any infrastructure

development within the coastal area which acts to subsidize

development within the high hazard area is subject to the

provisions of s. 380.27(2), F.S.

The use of the term "consistent" in s. 380.27(2), F.S., must

also be defined. Chapter 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., defines

"consistency" as meaning "compatible with" and acting to

"further" the local comprehensive plans. The term "compatible

with" is further defined to mean "not in conflict with." This

definition explicitly applies to the evaluation of local

I ~comprehensive plan consistency with comprehensive regional policy

3 ~plans and the State Comprehensive Plan. It must be evaluated in

terms of determining the consistency of infrastructure capacity

* ~improvements with local government coastal management elements.

This evaluation will be contained in the next coastal

I ~infrastructure policy report.

DCA also intends to publish in the next and succeeding

infrastructure policy reports, an evaluation of each coastal

3 ~local government which has gained approval of its local

comprehensive plan. The report will evaluate each coastal local

U ~government's approach in designating coastal high hazard areas

I ~and will identify policies associated with restrictions of public

expenditures which subsidize development in high hazard areas. A

I ~process must be established by which this information can be

utilized by all agencies involved in the provision of funds which

3 ~could be used to increase the capacity of infrastructure within

coastal areas. At a minimum, a compilation of descriptions of

I ~the coastal high hazard areas designated by local governments

3 ~will be prepared for each coastal infrastructure policy report

required by s. 380.27(3), F.S., with a final report after all

3 ~coastal management elements have been approved. Coastal local

governments will be submitting their comprehensive plans through

I ~June 1990. The future infrastructure policy reports and any

I ~interim or final reports will be supplied to each agency involved

in funding of public facilities to be used in their planning and

I ~budgeting process.

I ~~~~~~~~~22

B. Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)

On March 25, 1987, the Department of Interior (DOI) released

an executive summary and a series of maps which constituted DOI's

recommended revisions to the Coastal Barriers Resources System

(CBRS). DCA, in close association with the Governor's Office,

I ~acted as the lead agency in coordinating the State of Florida's

response to the proposed revisions. Coastal unit staff, with

assistance of three DOI staff, hosted a series of workshops around

the state in order to disseminate information and allow for

public questions and comment (A1O). The workshops were held in

Panama City, Jacksonville, Vero Beach, Ft. Myers and Plantation

I ~Key, during the period from May 11 to 15, 1987. State agency

comments were solicited and compiled, along with comments from

3 ~various public and private interests throughout the State. A

response was prepared from Secretary Pelham to Governor Martinez

with DCA's recommendations on DOI's proposals, which incorporated

some of the comments received by the department throughout the

I ~comment period. DCA's letter, along with all state agency and

3 ~other comments, was forwarded to the Governor's Office on July 6,

1987 to aid in his response to DOI (All). Coastal unit staff

I ~worked closely with staff in the Governor's office in the

preparation of the State response. The Governor sent his

I ~response to DOI Secretary Hodel on August 6, 1987 (A12).

3 ~~In January, 1988, a supplemental environmental impact

statement (EIS) was issued by DOI associated with the proposed

3 ~CBRS revisions. Coastal unit staff prepared comments on the EIS

I ~~~~~~~~~23

which were sent from Secretary Pelham to the Governor's Office,

State Planning and Development Clearinghouse, which forwarded the

State's response to DOI (A13).

A large part of the DCA's responsibilities with the Coastal

Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) and CBRS is to provide information

to local governments, interest groups and interested citizens

about the program. As the State's liaison for DOI's revision

to CBRS, DCA was provided with several copies of maps depicting

the proposed revisions in Florida and an executive summary report

which outlined other revisions and interpretations. Coastal

grant funds were expended to copy the ledger-sized maps since the

Department's copy facilities could not reproduce the oversized

originals. Every coastal local government was provided a set of

appropriate maps (east or west coast), and copies were made

available to other interested parties as requested (A14).

Department staff answered questions and provided information on

CBRA through telephone, individual meetings and through

presentations to groups.

Coastal staff places emphasis on the CBRS when reviewing

state planning and development clearinghouse projects, and has

addressed CBRS issues in several instances. The following are

examples of projects where DCA coastal staff has identified CBRA

related issues to the State Planning and Development

Clearinghouse:

- Hecksher Drive, Duval County, SAI# FL 8703101084 (A15);

- Sewer and water improvements, St. Johns County (A16)
SAI# FL 8708200251C and FL 8708200283C;

- Bridge replacement, Longboat Pass, Manatee County (A17)
SAI# 8803070994C; and

- Mid-Bay bridge, Choctawhatchee Bay, Okaloosa County (A18).

It is the State's responsibility to identify CBRS areas when

state funds are being proposed for infrastructure development or

expansion due to Governor Graham's August 1986 update letter to

Executive Order (EO)-105, which states: "The State should not

pay to expand infrastructure or ecomonic development in any

designated unit of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System."

It is not the State's responsibility to identify CBRS issues

when State funds are not involved. DCA has raised such issues,

however, for infrastructure improvements on Anastasia Island in

St. Johns County. In that project, an FMHA loan was being

requested for sewer and water improvements to an existing system.

The water project involved expansion of water lines up to the edge

of an existing CBRS unit. Since there was an existing line which

continued into the CBRS area, it is DCA's position that expansion

of the water system up to the edge of a CBRS unit would directly

impact and encourage growth within the CBRS unit (A16). DCA

recommended that FMHA carefully review the CBRS-related issues

and not make funding available unless some enforceable assurances

are made by St. Johns County to limit the availability of water

within the CBRS unit to that existing before the improvement. At

this time, that issue is still unresolved.

In Governor Martinez's letter to Secretary Hodel (DOI), he

recommended follow-up field work be carried out before the

proposed revisions are finalized on proposals within the Florida

Keys and areas affected by development approvals associated with

DRIs, which may not yet be under construction. DCA coastal staff

has been identified as being available to DOI to update

development status and make boundary revisions to CBRS units

proposed in the Florida Keys. A memo was prepared by coastal

staff which identified a number of disputed areas in the Keys and

was forwarded, through the Governor's Office to DOI (A19).

Coastal staff is available as necessary to work with DOI on such

adjustments.

C. Coastal Barrier Executive Order 81-105

Coastal unit staff has emphasized consideration of the

Coastal Barrier Executive Order (EO 81-105) when decisions are

being made concerning the use of state funding to increase the

capacity of infrastructure in coastal areas. This is accomplished

primarily through the review associated with projects that are

received through the State Planning and Development Clearinghouse.

Coastal staff has also prepared the Department's response and

provided input to the Governor's Office for his response to

requests from several local governments for the Governor to

reconsider the executive order.

Examples where EO 81-105 figured in the commments sent by

DCA in response to the clearinghouse review are as follows:

- Taylor Beaches, Inc., Taylor County, SAI# FL 8712290739C;

- SR44 bridge expansion, Volusia County,
SAI# FL 8803070997C;

- SR80 bridge expansion, Palm Beach County,
SAI# FL 8803071000C (A20); and

-Blackburn Point bridge, Casey Key, SAI# 8707290138C (A2 1).

Since the change in administration, there have been at least

I ~two attempts at the local government level to have the new

governor reconsider EQ 81-105, which was enacted by Governor Graham.

Both requests, from Brevard and St. Lucie Counties, concerned the

construction of a new bridge from the mainland to a barrier

island. In the Brevard County case, the letter to Governor

I ~Martinez was forwarded to Secretary Pelham at DCA for response.

Coastal unit staff prepared the response for Secretary Pelham's

signature which was sent on October 12, 1987 (A22). In the St.

Lucie County case, the Governor's Office prepared the response,

based primarily on a DCA staff memorandum (A23). The result of these

I ~two actions affirmatively confirmed Governor Martinez's support of

the coastal barrier executive order. The basis of this

determination was that EQ 81-105, as revised in Governor Graham's

August 1986 letter to agency heads, was designed as an interim

mechanism to protect natural and economic resources in hazardous

I ~coastal areas until the adoption and implementation of local

government comprehensive plans as required by the 1985 Growth

Management legislation. Therefore, the response letters to the

local governments emphasized the importance of comprehensive

planning in addressing infrastructure issues which may encourage

growth in high hazard coastal areas. It was found not to be

prudent to alter the executive order at this time, for Brevard

County was due to submit their comprehensive plan in April 1988,

H~and St. Lucie County is scheduled to submit their plan in August

1989.

U ~~Keeping the executive order in place is important in not

allowing certain infrastructure to begin construction before the

local government has had a chance to analyze the many issues

associated with infrastructure improvements in coastal areas.

This does, however, place much emphasis on the compliance review

of the local comprehensive plan, to ensure that infrastructure
issues are addressed adequately. It is the intent of both Brevard

and St. Lucie County to include new bridges in their comprehensive

* ~plans.

1~~~~~~~~~~2

V. INTERAGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC)
AND INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IAC)

Staff within the Coastal Programs Unit has participated in

the functions of the IAC and IMC. Coastal unit staff includes one

of DCA's IAC representatives (the other is located in the Division

of Emergency Management). Other unit staff have been designated

to participate on IAC subcommittees. Coastal unit staff is

responsible for briefing the IMC representative before IMC

meetings and following up on directives from the IMC. For

example, after the receipt of the Section 312 review of the

Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) by NOAA, coastal staff

prepared a memorandum to Secretary Pelham concerning the report

with recommendations for DCA's response. A letter was then

prepared from Secretary Pelham to Secretary Twachtmann (DER)

reaffirming DCA support of the FCMP (A24).

VI. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW

Staff within the coastal unit, utilizing CZM grant funding,

has participated in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) State

Participation Program coordinated through the Governor's Office.

Activities as part of this program have included the review of

exploration plans/environmental reports, review of environmental

impact statements for lease sales and participation on the OCS

Advisory Committee.

Coastal staff has participated in the review of OCS

exploration plans and environmental reports and have provided

comments relating to consistency of those proposals with the

I ~FCMP. It was found that oil exploratory plans did not routinely

I ~include Chapter 380, F.S., in their consistency determinations

(A2 5). This situation has been remedied through the cooperation

I ~of the Governor's Office who notified the major oil companies to

I ~include that statute in their consistency determinations in the

future.

DCA provided comments, based on staff review, on the draft

EIS for lease sale 113/115/116 in the Gulf of Mexico (A26). DCA

has also provided comments on a number of exploration plans,

environmental reports and oil spill contingency plans. As part

I ~of our participation on the OCS Advisory Committee, we have also

* ~participated in ongoing workshops concerning the use of

dispersants during oil spill events. Staff has monitored

developments concerning drilling south of 26 degrees north

I ~latitude, and the establishment of drilling moratoria within

buffer zones of resource areas of concern.

* ~~Coastal unit staff is also actively involved in the review

of other types of projects requiring a consistency determination

I ~with the Florida Coastal Management Program, as part of the state

clearinghouse review process. Within DCA, clearinghouse projects

I ~are received in the Office of the Secretary, Strategic Planning

I ~and Policy Coordination Unit. The items are then distributed to

the appropriate divisions. The Division of Resource Planning and

3 ~Management receives approximately 90% of all projects to be

reviewed. If the projects are associated with a Development of

I ~Regional Impact (DRI), they are routed to the appropriate

U ~~~~~~~~~30

regional planner within that section. Similarly, if the project

is within an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), the file is

routed to a planner within that section. Most of the rest come

to the Coastal Programs Unit. Staff within this unit reviews the

proposals, primarily for issues related to infrastructure (roads,

water and sewer systems, etc.) improvements in coastal areas.

The range of issues which can be addressed for Federal

Consistency is limited. Chapter 380, F.S., is the only statute

which is directly implemented through DCA that is included in the

approved FCMP. Consistency findings are therefore limited to

issues involving DRIs, ACSC, Resource Planning and Management

Committee areas and, as of March 1988, the Coastal Infrastructure

Policy. In addition to findings of consistency, comments are

provided on clearinghouse projects pursuant to other statutes,

rules and policies affecting coastal management, such as the

Coastal Barrier Executive Order (81-105) and the State

Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.).

Very few projects have been found by DCA to be inconsistent

with the FCMP. Examples of projects for which a Department

finding of inconsistency has been made include:

- Oil exploration within the Big Cypress ACSC;

- Beach nourishment project within the City of Key West ACSC
(A27); and

- Development of fuel storage tanks at Boca Chica Naval Air
Station within the Monroe County ACSC.

There is interest in proposing an amendment to formally adopt

Chapter 163, F.S., into the FCMP. This statute, titled the Local

Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation

Act, directs all local governments within the state to prepare and

implement a local comprehensive plan which addresses the criteria

in the statute and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

Staff within the coastal unit has prepared a draft letter to

the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) stating

the intention of Florida to pursue this amendment. Inclusion of

Growth Management legislation in the FCMP may be problematic from

OCRM's perspective, due to their concern that approval of this

statute may imply that local government comprehensive plans are

also adopted under the program. OCRM does not view favorably the

possibility of Federal Consistency Reviews, for example, being

subject to local planning directives. DCA has made it clear in

the draft letter that the local comprehensive plans themselves

will not be adopted into the program. It is unclear, if

Chapter 163, F.S., is adopted, whether the minimum criteria

outlined in the statute could be used for consistency

determinations. At a minimum, the designation of coastal high

hazard areas, as required by s. 163.3178(2)(h), F.S., should be

recognized in the FCMP in order to implement s. 380.27(2), F.S.,

which has already been adopted into the program.

DCA will request that the proposed amendment be an item on the

agenda of the IAC for discussion, and will distribute the draft to

appropriate agencies for comment before the final is sent to OCRM.

* ~~~~~~~~APPENDIX I

State agencies were contacted to determine and discuss

grant programs within their agencies which contribute state

I ~funds to public or private entities for infrastructure which could

be located in hazardous coastal areas. Below is a list of the

I ~grants programs identified by coastal unit staff within each

applicable state agency with which coordination is necessary to

ensure proper implementation of the coastal infrastructure policy.

The following information is provided for each program: grant

I ~program description, eligible infrastructure projects (including

examples), funding sources and statutory/regulatory authorities,

and interagency review mechanisms.

DeDartment of Environmental Reaulation

Bureau ~of Local Government Wastewater Financial Assistance,

Programs Management Section. Twin Towers Office Building, 2600

Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. (904)488-8163.

* ~~Funding Program -This grant assistance program provides

funds to municipalities for wastewater facilities construction.

Eligible Projects - Planning, designing and construction
of treatment facilities, sewer mains and collector sewers and

correction of combined stormwater/sanitary sewer problems.

I ~~Funding Sources and Statutory/Regulatory Authority - Federal

monies as authorized through the 1972 Clean Water Act (PL 92-500

I ~and amendment PL-117) and State grant monies as authorized under

the Florida Water Pollution Control Act and Sewage Treatment grant

Act and the Small Community Sewer Construction Assistance Act.

Interagency Review Process - Grant applications are

simultaneously reviewed by the Governor's Clearinghouse office

I ~(GCH) and the DER permitting office. Permitting office takes

consideration of GCH comments and if necessary requests revisions

or requires reassessments of issues raised by them.

U ~DeDartment of Natural Resources

office of Recreation Services, Division of Recreation and

Parks. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building, Tallahassee, Florida

I ~32308. (904) 488-7896.

This office is responsible for administering and managing

several recreationally oriented grants programs in Florida
available to local governmental agencies. They are Florida

Recreation Development Assistance Program, Land and Water

Conservation Fund Program, Boating Improvements Trust Fund.

1) Florida Recreation DeveloDment Assistance Program

I ~~Eligible Projects -Outdoor recreation facilities

3 ~including: saltwater or freshwater swimming beach areas and

access sites, picnic areas, recreational bike trails (within

* ~dedicated outdoor recreational sites and areas only), fishing

facilities (piers, catwalks, jetties, docks, shoreline access

I ~sites), boating access facilities, tennis courts, swimming pools,

shuffle board courts, golf courses, baseball and softball fields,

basketball, etc., and approved secondary or support purposes such

1 ~~~~~~~~~34

as bathhouses, restrooms, utilities, lighting, parking and access

roads. Also, funds can be utilized for resource based land

acquisition purposes.

Funding Sources and Statutory/Regulatory Authority - U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service and annual

appropriations by the Florida Legislature (370.023, F.S. and

Chapter 16D-F, F.A.C.)

Interagency Review Process - DNR Intradepartmental Review

only. Grants applications submitted to Governor and Cabinet

annually for approval.

2) Land and Water Conservation Fund Program

Eligible projects - development activities similar to those

listed in Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program

(FRDAP) and also, acquisition of properties for recreational

purposes.

Funding Sources and Statutory and Regulatory Authorities -

same as those listed within the Florida Recreation Development

Assistance Program.

Interagency Review Process - These grants applications are

reviewed by Governor's Clearinghouse office prior to submittal to

Governor and Cabinet for approval.

3) Boating Improvements Trust Fund

Eligible Projects - channel marking, public launching

facilities, waterway signage, docking facilities, dredging of

navigational channels, support facilities and utilities,

artificial fishing reefs in state waters, and land acquisition

limited to land for the purpose of access to public waters or for

development of facilities by county government.

Funding Sources and Statutory/Regulatory Authority - Portions

of state funds received from boat license fees (370.021,F.S.,

371.161, F.S. and Chapter 16D-F, Part III, F.A.C.)

Coastal Infrastructure Review - Intradepartmental - Grant

applications submitted to Governor and Cabinet annually.

Additional Grant programs within DNR:

1) Florida Inland Naviaation District (FIND)

1314 Marcinski Rd., Jupiter, FL 33477. (407) 627-3386.

Funding Program - This grant assistance program provides

funds to address impacts of waterway development projects and to

undertake programs to alleviate problems associated with

'waterways.

Eligible Projects - Fishing piers, public docking

facilities, public boat ramps and projects to limit environmental

impacts.

Funding Source and Statutory/Regulatory Authority - local Ad

Valorem Tax District as prescribed in Florida Statute 374, Canal

Authority; Navigation District; Waterway Development. These funds

available to state, local and federal governments.

Interagency Review Process - none presently. Project must

receive environmental permits prior to approval of grants.

Grants selected and approved by FIND Board.

2) Division of Beaches and Shores

Erosion Control Assistance Program

3900 Commonwealth Building, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas

Building, Tallahassee, Florida. (904) 487-1262.

Funding Program - Funds available to coastal county or

community for preserving and protecting coastal sandy beach

resources.

Eligible Projects - Beach restoration/nourishment, sand

transfers, stockpiling, jetties, groins, breakwaters, revetments,

sand trap construction and maintenance, dune construction and

revegetation, beach dune overwalks, sand fencing, biological and

hydrological monitoring studies.

Funding Sources and Statutory/Regulatory Authorities - 75%

State appropriated monies, 25% sponsor responsible (161.101, F.S.

and Chapter 16B-36, F.A.C.).

Interagency Review - no review by Governor's Clearinghouse.

Must have appropriate environmental permits in order to obtain

funds.

DeDartment of Community Affairs

1) Community DeveloDment Block Grants (CDBG)

Bureau of Housing & Community Assistance, 2740 Centerview

Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100. (904) 488-1436 & 487-3644.

Funding Program - Grants are to provide financial assistance

to local governments in the areas of housing rehabilitation

neighborhood revitalization, commercial revitalization and

economic development. Specific activities include demolition of

dilapidated housing and relocation of residents, providing the

elderly and handicapped with facilities to meet their special

needs and acquisition of real property.

Eligible Projects - Sewage lines, streets, curbing, water

lines, water tanks, street lighting.

Statutory/Regulatory Authority - Title I of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 USC Sections

5301-5320), 24 CRIE, part 570, and the State Operating

Instructions by HUD. Chapter 420, Section 420.307, F.S. Chapter

9B-46, F.A.C.

Funding Sources - Federal funds allocated by Congress to the

Department on annual basis. The DCA administers the funds. Ten

percent of the funds can be allocated by DCA to municipalities for

freestanding infrastructure.

Interagency Review Process - short list of DCA recommended

projects is sent to the Governor's Clearinghouse and distributed to

State agencies. Comments made by agencies are given to DCA to

be taken in consideration in the Environmental Assessment Report

required by the National Environmental Protection Act prior to

HUD approval of grant.

2) Farmworker Housing Assistance Trust Fund

Bureau of Housing and Community Assistance. 2740 Centerview

Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. (904) 488-1536.

Funding Program - to provide seed money for buying site or

developing low-income housing for farm workers.

Eligible projects - low income housing.

Funding Source - Florida Housing Predevelopment Trust Funds -

annual appropriations by the legislature.

Statutory/Regulatory Authority - Chapter 420, Section

420.307, F.S., Chapter 9B-46, F.A.C.

Interagency Review process - none presently.

DeDartment of TransDortation

Bureau of Work Program Development. 605 Suwannee Street,

Mail Station 21, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. (904) 488-6115.

"Five Year" Work Proaram

Funding Program and Eligible Projects - State Highway

projects throughout the the State, including Federal Bridge Program

which involves the prioritization of bridges for replacement or

new construction. The five year plan is the project workplan for

all activities occurring throughout the State. This workplan is

developed via the seven District offices which prioritize projects

and coordinate with local government and MPOs.

Funding Sources/Statutory & Regulatory Authorities - Federal

Funds via the Federal Aid Law approved on July 11, 1916. These

funds are administered by the State DOT. Matching funds by State

Revenues generated through the gas tax, license tax, etc.,

deposited in the State Transportation Trust fund (339.035, F.S.)

and/or local government investment.

Interagency Review Process - Five year workplan is reviewed

by MPO's, local government and public hearing. Each project is

submitted to the Governor's Clearinghouse for review during the

permitting phase.

DeDartment of Commerce

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 426 Fletcher building,

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000. (904) 487-2568.

Economic DeveloDment TransDortation Fund Program

Funding Program - funds to private entities and commercial

industry that provide economic development in a county or

municipality.

Eligible Projects - widening of roads, construction of access

roads to development.

Funding Source - Transportation Trust Fund - Interagency

Agreement with DOT (288.03, F.S.).

Interagency Review Process - Governor's Clearinghouse

office review.

List of Attachments

1. BARIP Scope Review

2. Environmental Bibliography of Northwest Florida (title sheet)

3. Example of Coastal Management Element comments - St. Lucie
County

4. Technical Memo, June 1987 re: Aquatic Preserves

5. Watershed Action Committee participation

6. Technical Assistance letter - Coastal Construction

7. Coastal Zone Protection Act Compliance Report

8. Coastal Infrastrucutre Policy Report #2

9. Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report #3

10. News Release - CBRS workshops

11. CBRA comments - Pelham to Martinez

12. CBRA comments - Martinez to Hodel

13. CBRA Supplemental EIS comments

14. CBRS revision maps letter of transmittal

15. Hecksher Drive comments

16. St. Johns County comments

17. Longboat Pass comments

18. Choctawhatchee bridge comments

19. CBRS - Florida Keys comments

20. SR80 bridge comments

21. Blackburn bridge comments

22. Brevard County letter

23. St. Lucie County letter

24. 312 Evaluation memo and letter

25. OCS consistency letters (2) re: Chapter 380, F.S.

26. OCS lease sale 113/115/116 comments

27. FCMP consistency comments - Key West beach nourishment

I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I m -- -
ATTACHMENTS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEP/ RTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTI !H CENTER CIRCLE, EAST 0 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301

BOB GRAHAM TOM LEWIS, JR.
Governor Secretary
December 8, 1986

I MEMORANDUM

TO: David Hawley

FROM: Jeff Reidenauer~

SUBJECT: BARIP Scope Review

I have completed my review of the BARIP scope of work
produced by UWF and have a number of criticisms, questions, and
concerns. Overall, the document appears to have involved a
substantial amount of preparation but as noted several important
details need to be resolved.

Some general comments:

-There appears to be some overlap in efforts and/or a lack
of acknowledgement of related activities in other agencies. For
example, documents will be collected for this study and placed in
a permanent special collection at the UWF library. The USEPA and
DCA have generated extensive bibliographies and the EPA has an
archive collection of its own. Could these be coordinated?

-Some overlap appears in the NWFWMD and WFRPC proposal: the
NWFWMD will compile data on polluters and the WFRPC will compile
and analyze information on pollution sources adjacent to the
system. Can these be coordinated?

-Will there be any coordination with DER and industry
compliance monitoring stations and data?

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 0 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

-A general question about the "data base": will this be a
wholesale collection of all water quality, benthic, etc. data from
the system or will it be collected, formatted, and tailored by
the agencies utilizing it in the study?

-Has the scope been peer reviewed by members of the
scientific community and if not are there plans to have this
done? Note that the July 1, 1987 starting date is closing in.

My background is in benthic marine ecology and I have a
number of specific comments on this section of the proposal:

-The benthic macroinvertebrates will be separated from the
sediment using a 0.595 mm mesh sieve. Convention in benthic research
is to use a 0.500 mm sieve. Why the discrepancy?

-The qualitative sampling and mapping section does not spell
out the exact nature of this undertaking: will there be SCUBA
surveys, phototransects, etc.?

-Different sampling devices will be used in different
habitats - ponar grabs in unvegetated areas and hand-operated box
cores in grass beds. This will add variability to the results
and muddle any comparisons or conclusions that can be drawn about'
differences in the two areas.

-I do not believe quarterly benthic samples are sufficient
in order to gain an understanding of temporal variations in the
fauna. A finer time scale should be used and this may correspond
better to the monthly hydrologic sampling.

-I have major concerns for the number of sampling stations,
replicates, and time available for sample processing. First,
it is unclear in the proposal exactly how many sampling
stations there will be. On pg. 71, in the first paragraph, there
is mention of the area being divided into "eleven large
hydrographic areas and six smaller hydrographic areas." In the
next paragraph, 71 sampling stations are mentioned. It is
unclear how the sampling stations will be divided up. Also,'the
number of stations shown on the figures do not correspond to the
number indicated in the text. I am assuming they are proposing
71 sampling stations.

A little arithmetic reveals that the number of stations,
number of replicates and projected time for processing is very
ambitious in terms of the personnel and money requested (note: I
calculate the following based on the 40 hrs required to complete 3
replicates cited in the text or 13.3 hrs to do one).

71 (stations) x 8 (reps per sta first yr)= 568 (samples per
sampling time)

568 x 4 (sampling times per yr) = 2,272 (samples per yr)

2,272 x 13.3 (hrs per sample) = 30,218 (hrs per yr)

3,777 8-hr days OR 15 full-time (260 days per yr) people
needed.

All the technicians given in the budget (14 full-time OPS, 2
research assistants, and 4 research technicians) would be
spending nearly all their time processing benthic samples. What
about time needed for the sedimentology, phytoplankton,
periphyton, zooplankton, and nekton samples? How will time for
these tasks be partitioned? As a additional comment, I think the
13.3 hrs estimated for processing a sample is conservative. Given
all the sampling stations, core size, sorting, and identi-
fication, more time may be necessary.

In addition to all the above samples, there is mention of
increased sampling sites and times after significant events. It
may be better to reduce the number of sampling stations and
replicates and to increase the number of sampling times per year..

As a final comment, in the WFRPC proposal one of the tasks (it
would seem to me the major task) is the development of a Bay Area
Management Plan. I assume this will'be developed after all the
environmental assessments and recommendations have been made from
the various agencies involved. However, the RPC budget shows the
lowest amount of dollars for the 5th year. Why?

I ~~AN ENVIRONMENTAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
FOR NORTHWEST FLORIDA

II 190-198

II~~~~~~~~~~~~~F
~~' RA ISHRA
'I~LU
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ASOIAIO
1~~~~~~~~~
II~~~A

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFF RS

2 2740 C ENT E RV I E W DR IV E T ALL A HASSE E , FLO R IDA 32399

909 MARTINEZ February 26, 1988 THOMASG.PELHAM
Govemor Seciry

Mr. J. Gary Ament
St. Lucie County Commission
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 33482

Re: Contract Number 87-LP-03-10-66-01-232

Dear Mr. Ament:

The enclosed comments regarding your Coastal Management
element were inadvertently separated from our comments regarding
your other work products, which were submitted with our letter of
February 10, 1988.

Our comments on your plan work products are of two types:
specific deficiencies relative to requirements of Chapter 9J-5,
F.A.C. and advisory comments intended to help improve your plan.
While deficiencies must be corrected to ensure your plan meets
compliance requirements, advisory comments are only suggestions
to make your plan more understandable. Please be advised,
however, that our review of your contracted work products does
not constitute a waiver of the Department's right to find any
portion of your comprehensive plan not in compliance at a later
date. Since our review is directed primarily toward determining
contract compliance, it does not consider all requirements of
Chapter 163, F.S. and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and does not include the
comments of other state agencies or regional review agencies. In
addition, it is not possible to judge the financial feasibility
or internal consistency of the plan at this time.

Review of the work products in comparison with the contract
indicates that you have met the overall intent of the contract
and, therefore, do not need to resubmit revised work products.
There are, however, specific deficiencies in your work products

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT* HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Mr. J. Gary Ament
February 26, 1988
Page Two

relative to Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., which will require ditional
work. to ensure your plan meets the requirements for c pliance
review. Because of these deficiencies, the final paent is not
being made at this time. To help expedite closeout of your
contract while continuing to focus on the goal of ensuring that
i your plan ultimately meets Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. requirements,
our final payment will be made upon our receipt of a letter from
the chief elected official which summarizes the actions that will
be taken to correct the deficiencies. The letter should describe
in general terms the strategy that will be followed to ensure
your comprehensive plan addresses these deficiencies by the time
it is due to be submitted to the Department. A sample letter is
enclosed for your guidance. Please note that these deficiencies-
must be addressed or your comprehensive plan may be found to be
not in compliance when it is submitted for compliance review.

If the necessary revisions will be made under a current
subcontract, you may wish to consult with your attorney regarding
whether to withhold a portion of your consultant's final payment
until after the corrections have been completed.

Please contact Randy Zipser at 904-487-4545 if you have
questions regarding the letter that must be submitted or require
information regarding your contract or the planning grant
program. If you have questions regarding your plan deficiencies
or require technical assistance, please contact Wendy Lovett,
who can also be reached at 904-487-4545.

Woody Price, P, Director
Division of R source Planning
and Management
WP/des

Enclosures

Department of Community Affairs
Comments on Work Products for St. Lucie County
Products Under Contract No. 87-LP-03-10-66-01-232

The following comments are based upon a review of the work
products submitted to the Department under your Local 4overnment
Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program contract. Tiese
comments relate to specific requirements of relevant p rtions of
Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. Since the Department is not familiar with
all local circumstances, it will be the responsibility of the
local government to provide an explanation regarding any
requirement that is inapplicable. The Department offers these
comments to assist you in meeting the comprehensive planning
requirements of Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. In
addition, the Department staff is available to visit with your
staff to discuss any of these comments or answer questions related
to the funding program or comprehensive planning requirements.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT

A. 9J-5 Deficiencies

1. 9,7-5.012(2)�a)

A map detailing existing water-dependent and water-
related uses was not included.

2. 9J-5.012�2)(b)

Table 1 (vegetative communities) was incomplete. There
were no maps of vegetative cover (which includes
seagrasses), wildlife habitat, areas subject to coastal
flooding or other areas of special concern (Aquatic
preserves, shellfish harvesting areas, Outstanding
Florida Waters, offshore reefs). If these maps are
located in another element, this should be specifically
cross-referenced. Analyses of the impact of development
on the various resources were very general and did not
reference specific land uses as proposed on the Future
Land Use Map.

3. 9J-5.012(21�cl

There was no map of areas designated for historic
preservation.

3 ~~4. 9J-5.O012 (21 d)
Existing point source pollution inputs were not
completely identified. "Numerous" storZwate discharge
points were mentioned but not identified. T number
and location of the upland dead-end canals I ud be
* ~~~discussed. It is stated that "almost all" t e
numerous wastewater treatment facilities d
discharge into the Indian River. This suggests that
there are some that do discharge into the lagoon. If
I ~~~soj, these should be identified. Existing marinas with a
history of pollution problems should be identified. The
extent and impact of septic tank use in the coastal, area
* ~~~should be analyzed.

There are no data presented to assess the general
estuarine conditions. Summaries of existing water
I ~~~quality information must be included to support
statements concerning estuarine quality. Refer to the
I ~ ~~"Indian River Lagoon Joint Reconnaissance Report" (St.
Johns River and South Florida Water Management Districts
'I - ~~November 1987) as source of pertinent information.
Although a possible new bridge is mentioned an page 20,
the discussion on page 25 states that no new facilities
I ~~~are proposed which will alter circulation in the lagoon.
impacts of future land uses and facilities an the
accumulation of contaminants in the sediments were not
3 ~~~addressed. This is of special concern due to periodic
maintenance dredging of the intracoastal waterway and
inlet.
'U ~~~Management recommendations set forth in the Indian River
- ~~~Lagoon Field Committee's report to the Governor (May
1986) and the Management Plan and implementation
I ~~~strategy for the Indian River Lagoon Systems (March
1987) should be discussed and incorporated as
appropriate.

Transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation
routes were not specifically analyzed. Special needs of
the elderly, handicapped and hospitalized were not
inventoried and analyzed. Measures that the local
I ~~~government could adopt to maintain or reduce evacuation
times were not considered.

6. 9J-5.012 (2) (el2.

Existing and proposed land uses and coastal or shore
protection structures in the coastal high hazard are not
inventoried or analyzed.

7. 9J-5.012(2)1(el3.

The potential for relocating threatened infr tructure
was not analyzed. The inventory of infrastrfcture in
the high hazard area did not provide adequate detail.
For example, the length of State Road AlA and the number
and location of dune crossovers in the high hazard area
should be identified.

8. 9J-5.012(2)(f)

Summaries of data on beach erosion/accretion should be
included. At a minimum, the University of West Florida
study mentioned in'the text should be specifically
referenced. The analysis of the County's beach and dune
protection measures does not include any restoration
. strategies. Although strengthening of beach and dune
protection regulations is acknowledged, no specific
recommendations are given to guide the development of
such regulations.

9. 9J-5.012(2)((ac

There are no data or analysis to support the statement
that "beach access appears to be adequate". Parking
facilities were not inventoried. The amount of publicly
owned beach should be presented and its capacity should
be analyzed using an appropriate methodology (such as
that used in the DNR publication "Outdoor Recreation in
Florida - 1987"). The demand for beach access
facilities should be analyzed in terms of both
residential and tourist populations. Access and use of
privately owned beaches by the public should be
determined.

Coastal roads and scenic overlooks, such as along the
Indian River Lagoon, were not addressed. Boat ramps,
public docks and fishing areas were not inventoried.
Only one marina is listed in the public access inventory
and the number of slips is not indicated.

10. 9J-5.012(2) (h)

The demand upon, capacity of and area served by the
existing infrastructure was not analyzed. If this
information is presented in another element, it should
be specifically cross-referenced. There wer no
analyses which addressed fiscal impacts in t rms of
estimated costs, funding sources and phasing f any
needed improvements. The future needs assessment was
lacking in quantitative analysis.

1 1. 9J-5.012(3) fb)

The following required objective issues were not
addressed:

3. Criteria for prioritizing shoreline uses.

6. Directing population concentrations away form
coastal high hazard areas.

7. Maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation times.

12. 9J-5.012(3)(b)1.

The objectives addressing this requirement were not
measurable.

13. 9J-5.012(3)(b)4.

- The objective addressing protection of beaches and dunes
is not measurable. Construction standards and
restoration of altered beaches and dunes are not
addressed.

14. 9J-5.012(30(b)5. and 6.

Objective 7.1.6. does not provide measurable criteria
for restriction of development within high hazard areas.
Public funding for facilities within high hazard areas
is addressed, but expenditures-which subsidize
development in high hazard areas are not.

15. 9J-5.012(0)(b)9.

Due to the lack of analysis concerning capacity and need
for beach access, there is no basis to determine the
adequacy of this objective. As written, objective

7.1.8. is not measurable and addresses only the
residents of the county. All user groups should be
included.

16. 9J-5.012(31fb)11.

Objective 7.1.9. is not measurable and does ~ot address
level of service standards, areas of service and phasing
of infrastructure.

17. 9J-5.012( 31 fc

The following required policy issues were not addressed:

6. Identifying areas needing redevelopment and
eliminating inappropriate uses.

11. The orderly development of deepwater ports.

13. Protecting estuaries which are within the
jurisdiction of more than one local government and
methods of coordination.

14. Demonstrating how the county will coordinate with
existing resource protection plans.

18. 9J-5.012(3Ucll.

Coastal wetlands, outside of mosquito impoundments, were
not addressed. The effectiveness of the policies
addressing wildlife habitat cannot be determined due to
the lack of appropriate data, analysis and maps
concerning wildlife use areas. Promotion of sea turtle
egg incubation may not be advisable due to research
showing that incubation affects hatchling sex ratios.
The primary threat to gopher tortoises and indigo snakes
is habitat destruction and should be addressed in
addition to rattlesnake control.

19. 9J-5.012(3H(c)2.

With the exception of policies addressing the use of
native vegetation in landscaping and management of spoil
islands, there were no policies addressing restoration
or enhancement of natural resources.

20. 9J-5.012(3f(c)3.

The following hazard mitigation issues were not
addressed: floodplains, land use to reduce exposure of

life and property to hazards, and the incorporation of
recommendations of interagency hazard mitigation

reports.
21. 9J-5.O012fc4.

Procedures for the integration of the county s hurricane
evacuation plan into the regional plan were ot
addressed. Methods to relieve deficiencies- ted in
hurricane shelter spaces were not presented. Other
deficiencies may be discovered when appropriate data and
analysis are completed.

22. 9J-5.012(c)�.

There were no policies addressing incorporation of the
recommendations of interagency hazard mitigation reports
into the comprehensive plan.

23. 9J-5.012(3)(c)7.

Coastal high hazard areas were not specifically
designated. Limitation of development was addressed
only in terms of infrastructure improvements.
Relocation of existing infrastructure was not addressed.

24. 9J-5.012(3)fcl8.

Policies addressing shoreline prioritization issues and
providing for siting water dependent and water related
uses (except for marinas) were not included.
Performance standards for shoreline development were
lacking in specificity. For example, the size of the
natural vegetated buffer referenced in policy 7.1.1.7.
should be indicated. Specific construction standards
should be established, rather than depending on criteria
which are extremely difficult to measure or define, such
as "degrades estuarine productivity" (policy 7.1.1.6.).

The following marina siting issues were not addressed:
land use compatibility, hurricane contigency planning,
environmental disruptions and mitigation actions,
availability for public use, and economic need and
feasibility.

25. 9J-5.O012(3) (cl9.

Additional policies addressing beach access may be
required when the capacity and need analysis is

completed. There were no policies addressing enforcing
public access at beaches renourished at public expense.

26. 9J-5.012(31(c)10.

Policies were not included which addressed
identification of historic sites.

27. 9J-5.01230(cu12. l

There were no policies which addressed the consistency
of infrastructure improvements with coastal resource
protection and safe evacuation.

28. 9J-5.012(4)

This item was not addressed.

St. Lucie County is required to include, as a part of
their Coastal Management Element, a deepwater port
master plan for the port of Ft. Pierce. The goals,
policies and objectives of the port master plan must be
consistent with those of the coastal element.
Advisory Comments

1. 9J-5.012(21(a.

The statement on page 17 that the commercial fishing
fleet is declining merits further discussion. If the
decline in commercial fishing is due to competition for
marina access, then this should be addressed under
shoreline conflicts. If the decline is due to a
reduction of the resource, then a discussion of water
quality impacts on fish stocks may be appropriate.

2. 9J-5.012(2)(e)

Pages 37 and 43 of the Coastal Management Element state
that county residents south of the Florida Power and
Light power plant will use Jensen Beach Bridge in Martin
County for evacuation and that-the bridge will reach
capacity with projects already approved. Additionally,
the Housing Element states that the county's population
will increase from 116,235 in 1985 to 305,000 by 2015.
Our concern is that a portion of this growth may occur
on South Hutchinson Island, thereby exacerbating the
existing traffic and evacuation problems in the area.
St. Lucie County should not depend on Martin County to
expand its bridges to accommodate South Hutchinson

Island residents. Growth in the South Hutchinson Island
area must be coordinated with safe hurricane evacuation.

3. 9J-5.012(21(e1.

The discussion of the hurricane vulnerabilit zone would
be enhanced by a map indicating the extent o the zone
under various hurricane conditions.

4. 9J-5. 012 (2) (el2.

The discussion of the coastal high hazard area would
benefit by a map showing the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) and V-zones.

T ~DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VOL. 2, NO. I JUNE 1987

Dear Local Official:
I ~~~During the next few years the adoption of high quality local comprehensive
plans will be one of the most important activities occurring in Florida. This
makes it imperative that the Department strengthen its commitment to a
3 ~~cooperative state-local partnership to ensure production of such plans. Our
current series of technical assistance workshops provides some evidence of this
commitment.

I ~~~Other evidence can be found by reviewing the credentials of some recent
appointments among our senior staff. Randall Kelley, my Assistant Secretary, has
recently come to the Department from his previous position as a division director
I ~ ~at the Department of State. Lawrence Keesey was promoted from within our
existing legal staff to the position of General Counsel. Richard Morgan, most
recently with the St. Petersburg Times, is coordinating our program of information
* ~~as the Director of Communications.

A strong background in the legal, administrative, and planning concerns of
local governments is the unifying thread of three other senior staff appointments.
I ~ ~John McKirchy, senior attorney with the local government comprehensive
planning section, has recently come from'his former position as assistant city
attorney for the City of Vero Beach. Our new Director of the Division of
Housing and Commnunity Development is Bud Parmer, Jr., who brings with him 13
years of experience as a city manager in Kissimmee and as an assistant city
manager in Clearwater.

U ~~~My most recent appointment, and the one of most interest to local planners
charged with preparing comprehensive plans, is Benjamin E. "Woody' Price, Jr.,
who will assume his new duties as Director of the Division of Resource Planning
and Management on June 30. Price, a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners, has 10 years of experience with Seminole County as a planner,
planning department director and assistant county administrator.

~~~~I lam confident that you will find this team of talented and experienced
professionals to be both approachable and helpful as you confront your own
responsibilities at the local level. As always, I welcome your suggestions and
I ~ ~advice.
Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
I~~~~~~~~~~~~ Secretary

Data Guide Updates

Local Government planners and'other users natural resources information in a mapped
of the Guide to Local Government form with accompanying narrative for
Comprehensive Planning Data Sources are Florida's Gulf coast counties. The
advised to make note of the following Southwest Florida Ecological
points which have been brought to our Characterization Atlas covers Monroe
attention since the guide was released in through Pasco Counties and the
November of 1986. Any future reprints of Northwestern Florida Ecological
the guide will reflect these changes. Characterization: An Ecological Atlas
covers Hernando through Escambia
Page 125. Endangered Species Recovery Counties. For each, a series of maps covers:
Plans: Copies of plans cost approximately biological resources; socioeconomic features;
$.10 per page. oil, gas, mineral and water resources;
hydrology and climatology. Because these
Page 129, Endangered Species Information reports are available only in very limited
System: System is still under development quantities the Department has requested
and is not yet accessible to the public. that copies be distributed to the libraries of
When available, listings will be retrievable
the appropriate regional planning councils.
only by county, ecoregion, or hydrounit, not
by section-township-range. Local governments may also be interested in
acquiring a copy of Industrial and
Pages 61 and 158, University of West
dPages 61 and 158, University of West Occupational Employment Projections to
Fl orida Beach Management Study: The 1995, which is available for each of the
updated version of this study is now state's 11 planning regions. hese
available from the Department of Natural documents make regionwide projections of
Resources' Division of Beaches and Shores. future employment by occupational
For information contact Mr. Lonnie Ryder categories. They are available for free
at 904/487-1262. from Sue Patterson of the Department of
Labor and Employment Security's Bureau of
Two recent publications of the U.S. Fish Labor Market Information at 904/488-1048.
and Wildlife Service provide ecological and

Aquatic Preserves And
Comprehensive Plans

I Local governments located adjacent to any local government has adopted marina siting
of the state's 40 aquatic preserves policies as part of its comprehensive plan.
(submerged lands protected by special state Such policies are also required by DCA
regulations) should be aware that their Rule 9J-5, FAC, to be included in Coastal
special situations must be recognized in the Management Elements. The rule also
planning process. For those aquatic requires the Coastal Element to be
preserves which are coastal (the majority) consistent with aquatic preserve
and for which management plans have been management plans and other coastal
adopted (14 of them), the local resource plans.
comprehensive plan must be consistent with
the aquatic preserve management plan.

Commercial dock and marina facilities For more information on aquatic preserves
within aquatic preserves will not be contact Charles Knight of DNR's Bureau of
approved under the Department of Natural Land and Aquatic Resources at 904/488-
Resources' Rule 16Q-20, FAC unless the 6242.

June 1987 7

Marine Resources Council
4th Annual Meeting

STORMWATER
& WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Friday February 5, 1988
Hilton at Rialto Place
Melbourne, Florida
AS

WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE AGENDA

8:45 AM Plenary Session
Welcome to the SWIM Team
Ted Moorhead, Chairman Marine
Resources Council
Introduction to SWIM - MRC Staff
"Come on in the Water's Fine"

9:15 - 12:00 Watershed Action Committee Meetings

Mosquito Lagoon - Torcello Room
Moderator: Keith McCarron

Gateway - Gondolier Room
Moderator: George Schmahl
/
Banana River - Banquet Room C-I
Moderator: Jim Modica

Harbor Cities - Banquet Room C-I1
Moderator: Jim Murley

Sebastian - Canaletto Room
Moderator: Michael Gilbrook

Narrows - Lido Room
- Moderator: Peter Merritt

Ft. Pierce - Murano Room
Moderator: Christopher Bove

St. Lucie - Mestre Room
Moderator: Paul Miller

STATE O F F LO0 , 0A
I ~DEPARTM-ENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 KXECUI IV E CENTER CI RC LE$ [AST -T ALLA IiASS Ef, FLO RI DA :12310 1

Bob Martinez February 9, 1987 Toa .Pclhiiv
GCrvenur St ( ttrda

Mr. William Robert Alcott, Director
Commmiinit~y Developme-nt Decpartment
50 Kindred Street.
I ~Stuart, Florida 33497

Dear Mr. Alcott:

This is in response to Vour request for an explanajtion of
I ~wind l6ads required in the Coastal Building Code.

The Legislature's intent in pas-sing the Coastal Zone
Protection Act of 1985 was to establish specific requirements
for coastal construction to decrease damage resulting from severe
storm conditions.. One provision of the 1985 legislation mnandatcd
that buildings be designed to resist 140 mph winds in accordance
with velocity pressure tables in building codes in erfect at
that time. The statute did not specify whether the 140 mph pd
should he calculated as fastest mile wind or peak gust.

The fastest mile wind speed is defined as the highest speed
at which a mile of wind passes a measuring point 33 feet (10
meters) above the ground. Th is speed d i ffe rs f rom t h at. recpor td
by the National fHurricano Center and the news media. Trh e w in (
spee'ds reported by the Center and the media are peak gju!;stsas
I ~ciated with, a ohe or two second averaging time. 'rhis means t:,hat
a peak gust of 100 mtph would pass a g iveni point. in ntie (r
seconds, while a faste-st mile wind of 100 mph weould] tide, 36
seconds to0 pass thel saim-, point. Obviously, cons idcr,-hly mr
force must be resisted( by the building impLacted by 100 mobl
fa-stest mile wind than a building impacted 1-y 100 mph pe-ak 'C I, ;t.
T'his results in reported wind velocities! being conrfiderab].Y
I ~higher than (equiva] cot dresign wind velo,:i ties. An exaiinple (it
this occurred at Dauphin island B~ridge during IHurri~cae 1Prcde i e.
The reportod me-asured peak gust. was 145 mph, rwhite, thu ci-c 1,CuA t -C'
deindt e t 1 ats p in alihv uces ifsetmilo wind ws106 mph. it is apparent that a builIdinq
res isted Frederic's 145 mph peak gust. UnVderstand ino ot1 the. citr-
ferences inr measuring wind speeds led to the legislature awlen(1 1 h
I ~the statute in 1936 to require buildings to resist torceso! ()III
fastest mph vinds.

tM[RGENCY MANACFMFNI - HlOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEV[IOPA[NT -RESOURCE PLANNING AND) MANACINAINT

I~~~~~~~~A(

Mr. William Robert Alcott
February 9, 1987
Page l'wo

Onc (T this occurred, it became necessary to evaluate loads and
pressures which would be imposed on structures required to resist
110 fastest mph winds. Section 1205 of the Standard Luildino.
Code relates to wrind loads. Between the time the 1985
TLegislature adjourned and the 1986 Session convened, Section 1205
was amended to reflect a more advanced methodology for wind loai
design. The 1985 Section 1205 provides for higher load resistance
for the building envelope; however, when the standards of the
1986 revision are applied to the envelope, components and
cladding, the revised 1205 is at least, if not more, restrictive
than the 1985 version.

IBy taking the methodology into account and using the
designated faste.;lt mile wind speed, it is shown that no reduction
in required building resistance has occurred. The required
desig.n loads remain essentially the same, only the method of per-
forming calculations has changed.

I hope this will answer your concerns about the apparent
reductions in building requirements in the coastal building zone.
Should you have further questions or if we may assist you in any
way to implement the coastal code, please feel free to contact us
at any tilne.

Sincerely,

Mary Kathryn Smith
Coastal Code Consultant

I~;h

REPORT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE

withthe

COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION ACT

Submitted To: The Administration Commission

The Honorable Bob Martinez, Governor

The Honorable George Firestone, Secretary of State

The Honorable Bob Butterworth, Attorney General
U~~~~~~~
The Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture

The Honorable Bill Gunter, Insurance Commisdioner and

Treasurer

The Honorable Betty Castor, Commissioner of Education

The Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller

Prepared- By: Florida Department of Community Affairs
Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

March 23, 1987

HISTORY

* ~In an attempt to deal with burgeoning growth, the 1985
*Florida Legislature enacted the Growth Management Omnibus Act.
' The law mandated that local governments develop comprehensive
plans and implemented the provisions of the Coastal Zone
Protection Act. Legislative intent was clearly stated,

'it is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature
3 ~~~that the most sensitive portion of the coastal
area shall be managed through the imposition
of strict construction standards in order to
I ~~minimize damage to the natural environment,
private property, and life.'

Basic construction standards within the zone included:
* Many restrictions already required by the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), such as elevating or floodproofing
I structures.
*Adoption of more stringent construction standards.
*Structural design to resist wave, hydrostatic and
Ihydrodynamic loads associated with a 100 year storm event.
*140 mph wind design requirements.
*Foundation design to resist scour and erosion associated
with a 100 year storm event.
* * ~Preservation of public access.
These requirements were essentially the same as those
Iadministered by the Florida Department of Natural Resources for
construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line
UCoastal Construction Control Lines are established for high
energy sandy beaches and represent periodic engineering analyses
of the rates of erosion as well as the impact structures
I have on beach ecology.

All affected local governments were also required to adopt and
enforce a building code containing these construction standards I
by no later than March 1, 1986. To assist local gov'ernments in
implementing the law, a Coastal Building Code Working Group
comprised of representatives of engineering, architectural, I
building and other professional construction-related groups was
established. The resulting Model Coastal Construction Code was
subsequently distributed to affected local governments, regional
planning councils and other interested parties.
In January, 1986, after the Model Code was distributed, DCA
staff held a series of twenty-four workshops to inform local
governments of the provisions of the law and to solicit input for
corrective measures to certain problems which had been
identified.
Subsequently, a compliance report was prepared, but never
submitted to the Administration Commission. This was due to the I
Legislature amending the law, and extending the deadline for
local government compliance to January 1, 1987. In addition to
the time extension, other major changes were:
*For those areas without Coastal Construction Control
Lines, .the coastal building zone was defined as the land area
seaward of the most landward velocity zone as shown on Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
� A provision for substantial improvement was added, as well
as an exemption for historic 'structures.I
* Major structures were -required to be designed, constructed
and located in accordance with the National Flood Insurance
Program requirements, removing inconsistencies between the Act
and local flood-damage prevention ordinances.
* The windspeed requirement was changed from 140 mph to 110
fastest mph wind in all areas except the Florida Keys, where a
115 fastest mph wind was designated. Accompanying this change-
was a change in methodology; specifically, a requirement to

Muse Sect~ion 1.205 of the 1986 revisions to the 1985 edition ofW
the Standard Building Code, or its equivalent. This methodology
I uses coastal zone exposure coefficients which increase the wind
pressure requirements for those portions of a structure that are
I subjected to the greatest potential wind damage.
* The Legislature established a coastal construction
training program for local building enforcement agencies. This
I was due to a realization that no matter how stringent construction
standards may be, they are useless it improperly enforced. An
I allocation of $125,000 was provided to fund development of a
coastal construction training manual, ten seminars for inspection
I personnel and development of a "deemed to comply'-manual to
assist building inspectors with interpretation of the requirements.
DCA staff then revised the Model Code to reflect the changes,
I submitted the revised Code to all applicable local governments and
held an additional series of ten workshops to inform the public
I of the effects of the revised law.
There has been and continues to be considerable mnisunderstanding
Hand confusion among local governments concerning the statutory
changes. This is primarily as a result of language in Section
I161.55(l)(d), F.S., which states, OThis does not preclude use of
a locally adopted building code which is more restrictive.'
This reference has caused many local governments to assume
U that no action needed to be taken. it was incorrectly believed
that the state had reduced the minimum standards, and that the
I original 1985 wind speed requirements were more stringent. The
1985 Section 1205 provided for higher wind load resistance for
I the building envelope; however, when the standards of the 1986
revision are applied to the envelope, components and cladding,
Ithe revised 1205 is at least equal to, if not more restrictive
than the 1985 version.

DCA has taken the following formnal steps to inform local
governments of the changes to the law and the need to comply: I

*June 20, 1986 letter from Secretary Tom Lewis outlining
the 1986 amendments.
* July 29, 1986 announcement of technical workshops to

inform affected parties of the changes in the law. '
* Ten workshops held August 11 through August 25, 19.86
throughout the state.I
* September 29, 1986 transmittal of the Model Coastal
Construction Code to all applicable jurisdictions.
*December 1, 1986 notice to all local governments not in
compliance.
*January 26, 1987 letter to all local governments which
had not complied advising of the possibility of sanctions.

DCA has also responded to numerous verbal and written
inquiries seeking interpretation of the law and site specificI
questions.
As of March 23, 1987, there are thirty-eight municipalities and
counties which have not complied with the statutory mandate. A
complete status report follows this narrative.

RECOMMENDATION

Because of the widespread confusion as to the technical
methodology which should be applied, it is recommended that no
sanctions be imposed on local governments which adopt the
~~~~~~~~~~~Ia
Coastal Construction Code prior to September 1, 1987.

Many local governments that were contacted by DCA staff
indicated they were in the process of adopting appropriate local
ordinances. A delay in imposing sanctions would provide local
governments with additional time necessary to comply with the
law.

I~~~~~~~
DCA staff will continue to work with these local governments
to assist them them during the interim, and will submit a final
report to, the Administration Commission on September 15, 1987.

CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS

DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION

BAY COUNTY * X 1-20-87

Mexico Beach X

Panama City Beach * X 1-22-87

BREVARD COUNTY ** X

Cape Canaveral X 12-16-86

Cocoa Beach X 11-20-86

Satellite Beach X 11-5-86

Indian Harbour Beach * X 1-27-87

Indialantic ** X

Melbourne 'Beach X 3-10-87

Melbourne X 12-19-86

BROWARD COUNTY ** X
Building code enforcement for
municipalities through Broward
County Board of Rules and Appeals.
DCA has been advised that changes
will appear in next edition of the
South Florida Building Code, Broward
Edition.

Lauderdale-by-the-Sea * X 2-10-87

CHARLOTTE COUNTY X 12-16-86

CITRUS COUNTY X 7-22-86

COLLIER COUNTY ** X

Naples X 9-17-86

* Indicates adoption after January 1, 1987

** Correspondence to the Department of Community Affairs indicates that
adoption is pending.

I CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS

DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION

DADE COUNTY X
Building code enforcement for
municipalities through Dade County
Board of Rules and Appeals.

| Golden Beach * X 2-10-87

DIXIE COUNTY * X 1-15-87

I Horseshoe Beach X

DUVAL COUNTY (Jacksonville) X

Atlantic Beach ** X

i Jacksonville ** X

Jacksonville Beach * X 1-30-87

Neptune Beach ** X

ESCAMBIA COUNTY X 5-1-86

Santa Rosa Island Authority X 10-15-86

FLAGLER COUNTY X 12-18-86

Beverly Beach ** X

Flagler Beach X 9-25-86

Marineland (part) ** X

FRANKLIN COUNTY ** X

GULF COUNTY ** X

HERNANDO COUNTY ** X

I NDIAN RIVER COUNTY X 11-21-86

Indian River Shores ** X

Orchid X

* Indicates adoption after January 1, 1987.

** Correspondence to the Department of Community Affairs indicates
that adoption is pending.

CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS

DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION

Vero Beach * X 1-30-87 |

JEFFERSON COUNTY N/A
All coastal area under
Federal jurisdiction.

LEE COUNTY * X 2-25-87

Sanibel X 8-20-86

LEVY COUNTY X

Cedar Key * X 2-24-87

Yankeetown X 12-1-86

MANATEE COUNTY N/A
Coastal area all municipalities.

Anna Maria X 8-19-86

Bradenton Beach ** X

Longboat Key (part) X 9-22-86

Holmes Beach * X 3-17-87

MARTIN COUNTY ** X

Jupiter Island X

MONROE COUNTY ** X ;

Key Colony Beach ** X

Key West ** X

Layton ** X

NASSAU COUNTY X 11-25-86

Fernandina Beach * X 2-10-87 1

* Indicates adoption after January 1, 1987.

** Correspondence to the Department of Community Affairs indicates that
adoption is pending.

I CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS

DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION

OKALOOSA COUNTY X 12-30-86

I Destin X

PALM BEACH COUNTY ** X

Boca Raton * X 1-3-87

Briny Breezes X 12-18-86

Delray Beach * X 2-16-87

I Gulf Stream X

Highland Beach ** X

Juno Beach
Intergovernmental agreement with
Palm Beach. County; will be in
compliance when County complies.

Jupiter * X 1-6-87

Jupiter Inlet Colony X 12-1-86

I Riviera Beach X

Lake Worth * X 1-8-87

Lantana * X 1-12-87

Manalapan X 9-29-86

North Palm Beach X 12-11-86

Ocean Ridge X 12-1-86

Palm Beach X 12-9-86

Palm Beach Shores * X 1-12-87

South Palm Beach * X 1-6-87

Tequesta X

* Indicates adoption after January 1, 1987.

** Correspondence to the Department of Community Affairs indicates
adoption is pending.

CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS

DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION

PASCO COUNTY X 12-23-86

New Port Richey ** X

PINELLAS COUNTY X 9-16-86
Building code enforcement for
municipalities in Pinellas
County through Pinellas County
Construction Licensing Board.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY X

St. Augustine * X 2-10-87

St. Augustine Beach * X 1-30-87

Marineland (part) ** X

ST. LUCIE.COUNTY X 12-23-86

Fort Pierce X 12-22-86

SANTA ROSA COUNTY X

SARASOTA COUNTY X

Longboat Key (part) X 9-22-86

Sarasota X 12-15-86

Venice * X 1-13-87

TAYLOR COUNTY X

VOLUSIA COUNTY X 12-18-86

Daytona Beach X 12-17-86

Daytona Beach Shores X

New Smyrna Beach X 8-26-86

Oak Hill * X 3-16-87

* Indicates adoption after January 1, 1987.

** Correspondence to the Department of Community Affairs indicates
adoption is pending.

i -

|I CITY/COUNTY COMPLIANCE STATUS
DATE OF
YES NO ADOPTION
Ormond Beach * X 1-30-87
I Ponce Inlet X
WAKULLA COUNTY X 9-3-86
WALTON COUNTY * X 1-27-87

1NFIASTRUCTHR[ PO~iCY
Report Number Two
M,
I

~~~~~~~FOIDDEARMNOFCMITAFIS
I~~~~~~~TOA -PLAERTR
I~~~~~~~'

U~~~~~~~~~ STA TE O F F LOR I DA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

1 ~2571 EXEC UT IVE CENT ER C IRC LE, EAST * TAL LAHASSE E, FLO RID[A 323 99

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
U ~~Governor Secretary
March 7, 1987

TO: All Interested Parties

3 ~FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary V"

SUBJECT: Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report Number Two

3 ~~You will find attached the second report on coastal infra-
structure policy. As provided in s.380.27, Florida Statutes, the
purpose of this report is to assess the effectiveness of the
coastal infrastructure policy on growth and development in the
various coastal areas of the state.
Given the recent nature of coastal management legislation
enacted in the 1985 and 1986 sessions, it is still premature to
base this report solely on an assessment of effectiveness. The
coastal high hazard areas, a major component of the policy, will
not be established until after coastal management elements are
submitted. These submittals are scheduled at various times
between 1988 and 1990.

I ~~~With this in mind, a more appropriate use for this second
report would be to chart the revisions and additions to the
coastal infrastructure policy as it is articulated in other plans
and programs. All the major state entities which address coastal
infrastructure policy are considered in the report.
Therefore, I transmit to you Coastal Infrastructure Policy
I ~Report Number Two. I look forward to working with you on this
vitally important issue.

TGP/ csw
Enclosure

I ~~EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

In 1985 the Florida Legislature adopted the Coastal

Infrastructure Policy under Section 380.27, Florida Statutes.

U ~This law was one of several ways in which the state has

5 ~articulated that as development pressure increases, public

investment in coastal high hazard areas is unwise. The Coastal

I ~Zone Protection Act of 1985 recognized that,

there is a tremendous cost to the state for post-disaster
redevelopment in the coastal areas and that preventative
I ~~measures should be taken on a continuing basis in order to
reduce the harmful consequences of natural and manmade
* ~~disasters or emergencies.

This report carries forward with the progress made since

1 ~Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report Number One was submitted on

March 1, 1986. As was the case in the previous Coastal Infra-

I ~structure Policy report, any meaningful assessment of the coastal

infrastructure policy's impact on growth and development would be

premature. A major portion of the law cannot be implemented
3 ~until coastal local governments have adopted and approved their

coastal management elements in their comprehensive plans.

* ~~In view of that fact this report shall address the coastal

infrastructure policy's effectiveness on growth and development

U ~in terms of how it is expressed in other plans and programs. it

I ~shall also address implementation to the extent that the policy

can be and is being carried out by state and local governments as

they revise their comprehensive plans.

SUMMARY OF THE REVISIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

Since the first Coastal Infrastructure Policy report was

submitted in March 1986, several related programs have changed or

have become more clearly defined. in order to develop aI
meaningful understanding of the planning system each program's

policies dealing with coastal infrastructure are discussed and
comparable factors are considered (areas affected, level of
funding, and degree of restrictiveness). Each of these programs

is discussed in the following section.3

Coastal Barrier Resources System3

At this writing, the U. S. Department of the Interior's (DOI)

recommended revisions to the Coastal Barrier Resource System

(CBRS) and accompanying maps are being printed. These documents

will be submitted by late March 1987 to all coastal states

affected by the program. Submittal of these materials will3

initiate a 90 day public comment period. Once the public has

reviewed the proposed revisions the DOI will send its final

report to Congress for approval.

� Areas affected: Federal coastal barrier units, designated andI
contemplated, (includes coastal barrier islands, spits, and
peninsulas)
* Level of funding: federalI
� Degree of restrictiveness: prohibits funding
* Date revisions take effect: The time at which Congress
authorizes revisions, sometime after June 1987.I

Coastal Barrier Executive Order Si-lOS

The Coastal Barrier Executive Order 81-105 remains in effect

and has been further explained in part by a letter that Governor3

Graham sent to all Governor's agencies, including: the

I ~Departments of Environmental Regulation, Community Affairs,

3 ~Transportation, Commerce, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and

the Office of Planning and Budgeting.

I *a Areas affected: coastal barriers, including barrier islands,
beaches and related lands.
* Level of funding: Those state funds and federal grants
I ~appropriated to the Governor's agencies mentioned above.
* Degree of restrictiveness: shall not be used to subsidize
growth or post-disaster redevelopment in hazardous coastal

barrier areas.

I ~Executive Order Update

This extension of Executive Order 81-105 directs the same

I ~Governor's agencies to implement the spirit of the growth manage-

I ~ment legislation of 1985 and 1986 while local governments prepare

revisions to their comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163,

3 ~Florida Statutes. The Governor's letter accompanies this report

under Attachment "All.

* s~Areas affected: barrier islands without a bridge or causeway,
designated units of Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System,
areas seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, V
zones, areas damaged or undermined by coastal storms, and
inlets without structural controls.
� Level of funding: state funds and federal grants
� Degree of restrictiveness: variable prohibitions and denials
* Date became effective: August 8, 1986

* ~State Comprehensive Plan

The State Comprehensive Plan, enacted under Chapter 187,

I ~Florida Statutes, has been serving as a guide for state, regional,

and local planning goals, policies, and objectives. its far-

I ~~~~~~~~~~~3

ranging agenda for the next decade is the basis for the regional

planning councils' preparation of comprehensive regional policy

plans and local government's revisions of their comprehensive

plans. The Coastal and Marine Resources Policy Section

187.201(9)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, states that Florida shall,

"Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize

development in high hazard coastal areas." The Plan Implemen-

tation policy, Section 187.201(25)(b)(7), Florida Statutes, seeks

to,

Ensure the development of comprehensive plans and local
plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and
policies and that address problems, issues, and conditions
that are of particular concern in a region.

a Areas affected: High-hazard coastal areas.
* Level of funding: state
�Degree of restrictiveness: avoid subsidies

State Land Development Plan

The Department of Community Affairs prepared the State Land

Development Plan (SLDP), an executive formulation of state land

development policies. It is an integrated element of the state-

wide planning process defined in Section 186.021(3), Florida

Statutes. In an advisory capacity it sets strategic goals and

policies which serve as the basis for additional statutory and

budget requests.

Under the SLDP's Coastal and Marine Resources goal, the

Public Safety and Access in Coastal Areas Cluster addresses

coastal infrastructure in the following operating policy,

Define and identify high hazard coastal areas where the
expenditure of state funds to subsidize increased development
I ~~shall be restricted. Subsequently ensure that local govern-
ments properly designate coastal high hazard areas in their
local comprehensive plans consistent with Chapter 163.3178(2) (h),
Florida Statutes.

� Areas affected: high hazard coastal areas
Is~ Level of funding: state
* Degree of restrictiveness: restrict subsidy
* Date submitted: March 7, 1986

I ~The State Water Use Plan

3 ~~The Department of Environmental Regulation prepared the State

Water Use Plan, pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes. Al-

I ~though the background statement in the Public Safety and Access in

Coastal Areas Cluster echoes the necessity of avoiding expenditure

of state funds that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal

areas, the operating policy addresses only undeveloped barrier

islands,

...the use of state funds to support development or
replacement of public works facilities (i.e. treatment plants,
sewers, etc.) and other infrastructure will be prohibited on
3 ~~undeveloped barrier islands.

* Areas affected: undeveloped barrier islands
a Level of funding: state
* Degree of restriction: funds prohibited
I .* Date submitted: March 14, 1986

Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans

I~~~Pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, all Florida

3 ~Regional Planning Councils submitted their Comprehensive Regional

Policy Plans for review in December 1986. Once reviewed by the

3 ~Executive Office of the Governor the rules adopting each plan

* ~~~~~~~~~~5

become effective on July 1, 1987 (Section 186.508, Florida

Statutes).3

At this writing, only three of the eleven councils

articulated a coastal infrastructure policy. Each of these plansI

would measure implementation either in terms of consistency and

coordination (Southwest Florida), or in terms of any public funds

used for infrastructure improvements which result in increased

capacity of infrastructure located in or servicing designated

coastal high-hazard areas (Treasure Coast and East Central).I

The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council states that

Public funds shall not be used for infrastructure expansion
or improvements in high hazard coastal areas unless it is
necessary to: 1) provide services to existing development
*(structures approved for development prior to the implemen-
*tation of this policy), 2) provide adequate evacuation in the
event of emergency; or 3) provide for recreational needs.

* Areas affected: high hazard coastal areas
� Level of funding: public
� Degree of restrictiveness: shall not be used, unless funds
deal with existing units, adequate evacuation, or recreational
needs.

The Southwest Regional Planning Council's approach towardI

coastal infrastructure is,

The expenditure of local, state, and regional funds that
subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas should be
eliminated.3

� Areas affected: high-hazard coastal areas
� Level of funding: local, state, and regional
� Degree of restrictiveness: subsidy should be eliminated
And finally, the East Central Regional Planning Council

spells out its approach in the following:I

Public expenditures for infrastructure improvements which
subsidize development in designated coastal high-hazardI

areas shall be avoided. Infrastructure improvements are
defined as those activities (construction of bridges, roads,
I ~~sewers, and water plants) which lead to an increase in the
existing capacity of a facility and allow for an additional
number of facility users. Improvements to a facility which
I ~~address an existing deficiency are not governed by this
policy.

� Areas affected: designated coastal high-hazard areas
* Level of funding: public
* Degree of restrictiveness: improvements for subsidized
* ~development shall be avoided

The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulations Act

Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted on

I ~~.ruary 14, 1986 and amended on September 30, 1986, pursuant to

tire Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulations Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It is to this
I ~statute which the Coastal Infrastructure Policy (Section 380.27 (2),

Florida Statutes) refers.

Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, rule spells out

the minimum criteria for preparation and review of local govern-

I ~ment comprehensive plans and determination of compliance. This

I ~Chapter establishes criteria implementing the legislative mandate

that local comprehensive plans be consistent with their compre-

3 ~hensive regional policy plans and the State Comprehensive Plan.

The rule also recognizes the local government's major role in

I ~accomplishing the goals and policies of it comprehensive regional

* ~policy plan and the State Comprehensive Plan.

The basic format of the criteria for the coastal management

element (Section 95-5.012, Florida Administrative Code), requires

* ~~~~~~~~~~~7

V ~~~~~~~~~~~~I
the identification of available data, analyses of such data and

preparation of goals and policies to accomplish the desired ends.3

Of the coastal management data and analysis requirements

(Chapter 93-5.012(2), Florida Administrative Code) the followingI

are those most germane to coastal infrastructure policy:

(d) an assessment of the impact of the development and
redevelopment proposed in the future land use element and the
impacts of facilities proposed in the traffic circulation and
general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage elements upon water
quality, circulation patterns, and accumulation of contaminates in
sediments;

(e) . . . an inventory and analysis of:
2. Post disaster redevelopment including: existing and
proposed land use in coastal high-hazard areas; structures with a
history of repeated damage in coastal storms; coastal or shore
protection structures; infrastructure in coastal high-hazard
areas; and beach and dune conditions. Measures which could be
used to reduce exposure to hazards shall be analyzed, includingI
relocation, structural modification, and public acquisition.
3. Coastal high-hazard areas shall be identified and the
infrastructure within the coastal high-hazard areas shall beI
inventoried. The potential for relocating threatened infra-
structure shall be analyzed.

(h) existing infrastructure in the coastal area shall beI
inventoried including: roadways bridges or causeways, sanitary
sewer facilities, potable water facilities, man-made drainage
facilities, public coastal or shore protection structures, andI
beach renourishment projects. The demand upon, capacity of, and
area served by the existing infrastructure shall be analyzed.
Analyses shall be prepared which estimate future needs for those
facilities listed above, and which shall address the fiscal
impact in terms of estimated costs, funding sources and phasing
of any needed improvements.3

Included in the requirements for coastal management goals,

objectives, and policies Section 9J-5.012(3), Florida Adminis-3

trative Code, are the following:

a. The coastal management element shall contain one or moreI
statements which establish the long term end toward which
regulatory and management efforts are directed. These shall
reflect the stated intent of the Legislature in enacting Section

I ~163.3178, Florida Statutes, which is that local governments in
their comprehensive plans restrict development activities that
would damage or destroy coastal resources, and protect human life
and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by
natural disasters.

b. The element shall contain one or more specific objectives f 9r
each goal statement which address the requirements of Paragrapi
163.3177(6) (g) and Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and which:
5. Limit public expenditures that subsidize development
permitted in coastal high-hazard areas subsequent to the element's
adoption except for restoration or enhancement of natural
resources;
I 8~~. Prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which will reduce
or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private
property to natural hazards;
I 11~I. Establish level of service standards, areas of service and
phasing of infrastructure in the coastal area.
c. The element shall contain one or more policies for each
objective and shall identify regulatory or management techniques
for:
7. Designating coastal high-hazard areas, limiting development
I ~in these areas, and relocating or replacing infrastructure away
from these areas;
12. Ensuring that required infrastructure is available to serve
the development of redevelopment in the coastal area at the
densities proposed by the future land use plan, consistent with
coastal resource protection and safe evacuation, by assuring that
funding for infrastructure will be phased to coincide with the
demands generated by development or redevelopment;
� Areas affected: designated coastal high hazard areas
I *e Level of funding: public
� Degree of restrictiveness: limit expenditures
� Date takes effect: after the plans are submitted, which is
between 1988 and 1990, depending on the jurisdiction

Emergency Management
The Post Disaster Redevelopment Rule, Chapter 9G-13, Florida
Administrative Code, was adopted under the authority of Section
252.35, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to minimize losses from
I ~natural disasters due to inadequate planning or regulation of
* ~public facilities, and to expedite federal public disaster

I ~~~~~~~~~~~9

assistance. This rule establishes criteria for federal post-U

disaster assistance to political subdivisions in coastal areas of

the state damaged by natural disasters in a manner designed to

preserve life and property through preparation for, response to,

recovery from, and prevention or minimization of the effects of

natural disasters.

This rule defines public infrastructure as, "those manmade

structures which serve the common needs of a population for which

damage thereto may qualify for public disaster assistance." The

rule requires that political subdivisions either adopt a hazard
mitigation plan or implement several preventative measures. OneI

of those measures deals with how political subdivisions are to3

address public infrastructure under Section 9G-13.005(3), Florida

Administrative Code:

Public Infrastructure - To determine the feasibility of
eliminating, relocating, or structurally modifying public
infrastructure which has suffered natural disaster damage; toI
implement such determinations as deemed cost effective or
otherwise appropriate by the political subdivision; and, in
public infrastructure relocated, modified, or replaced, toI
maintain no more than the same capacity, unless the capacity
is expanded as part of an approved post disaster hazard
mitigation plan in accordance with Public Law 93-288
(Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974).
* Areas affected: areas where applications for federal post
disaster assistance is sought.I
� Level of funding: federal
* Degree of restrictiveness: no expansion of infrastructure unless
same expansion is part of an approved post disaster hazard
mitigation plan.
� Date became effective: January 6, 1987.

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

After having discussed the planning framework of the coastal

infrastructure policy, it is useful to examine how Sections

I ~380.27 (1) and (2), Florida Statutes, are being implemented to

3 ~date. The first subsection has been in effect since October 1,

1985, while the second subsection takes affect at an undetermined

time following the submittal of each local government's comprehen-

sive plan's coastal management element.

Section 380.27 fil. Florida Statutes
No state shall funds be used for the purpose of constructing
bridges or causeways to coastal barrier islands as defined in s.
161.54(2) which are not accessible by bridges or causeways on the
effective date of this act.

I ~~The agency most responsible for implementing this provision

is the Department of Transportation (DOT). A Memorandumi of Agree-

ment (MOA) between DER, DOT, and the Executive Office of Governor,

I ~Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) and the Florida Transportation

Plan (FTP) are the channels through which compliance can be deter-

I ~mined.

The MOA establishes a review process for transportation

projects. It requires DOT to circulate to OPB and other state
* ~agencies descriptions of any road project which has a reasonable

potential to encounter policy objections from any state agency.

* ~This review allows other agencies to raise concerns based upon

the rules, regulations, and policies which they implement. This

I ~review takes place prior to the inclusion of the project in the

I ~DOT's Five Year Transportation Plan. This procedure was initiated

* ~~~~~~~~~11

on April 10, 1985.

The FTP was prepared by the DOT in September 1986. In this

document DOT has organized its program planning and budgeting

activities into eleven major program areas designed to reflect/

comprehensively the types of transportation programs, capital

projects, and services in which the DOT is in involved. During

each budget cycle, interdisciplinary program planning teams develop

operating policies and performance measures in support of program

and funding level requests for their respective program areas.I

Program requests are judged and approved by the management of the

DOT an the basis of their consistency with the policies and I

strategic direction documented in the FTP and their relative3

effectiveness in achieving FTP goals and objectives.

The FTP indirectly addresses Section 380.27(1), Florida

Statutes, in the Expressway Program, the Right-of-way Program, and

the Bridge Program. The Expressway Program includes thoseI

construction activities associated with adding or improving through

lanes, interchanges, feeder roads, toll collection structures and

service facilities. The Right of Way Program activities include

right-of-way acquisition for highways and corridors, motorist

information systems, property management, and survey and monumen-I

tation of property. The Bridge Program associated activities

include preventative maintenance and support of local government

in the replacement of off-system bridges using a portion of the

state's Federal-aid Bridge Replacement fund.

The Policy Matrices in the FTP document five different policy

I ~levels under which the DOT is directed to function. Level I and

I ~Level 2 policies direct program planning and budgeting. Level I

policy statements are provided by the Legislature and the I

3 ~Governor, and Level 2 statements are the Agency Functional Plan

objectives and major program policies. Levels 3 and 4 will be

I ~developed by the DOT's program planning teams and Level 5 will be

I ~developed through the 5-Year Transportation (Project) Plan. The

Expressway Program matrix is the only one which directly refers to

I ~the provision in Section 380.27(1), Florida Statutes.

Section 380.27(2). Florida Statutes
After a local government has an approved coastal management
element pursuant to s. 163.3178, no state funds which are
unobligated at the time the element is approved shall be expended
for the purpose of planning, designing, excavating for, preparing
I ~foundations for, or constructing projects which increase the
capacity of infrastructure unless such expenditure is consistent
with the approved coastal management element.

The Florida Transportation Plan, in the Expressway, Right-

3 ~of-Way, and Bridge Program Matrices directly addresses this

provision of the Coastal Infrastructure Policy. Under the

* ~Resource Allocation section of the matrix for each program is the

I ~following treatment:

Avoid expenditures of state transportation funds to increase
the capacity of state highways in coastal high hazard areas
unless such expenditures are consistent with an approved
I ~~coastal management element of a Local Government Compre-
hens ive Plan or a resource management plan of an Area of
Critical State Concern and when such plans have been
I ~~coordinated with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's
adopted transportation plan, where appropriate.

Section 380.27 (2), Florida Statues, must also be implemented

on the local government level. Although coastal high hazard areas

have not been officially designated, they are mentioned in

portions of Levy and Santa Rosa Countys' comprehensive plans

prepared under the local government funding program in accordance

with Chapter 9J-16, Florida Administrative Code. Levy CountyI

intends to designate and adopt as a high hazard areas the 'IV-Zone"

as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

maps and within the County's Flood Plain Ordinance. Santa Rosa

County proposes to identify coastal high hazard areas by using,

the Department of Natural Resource's CoastalI
Construction Control Line Maps, the FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Maps and the Sea, Lake overland Surge from Hurricane
(SLOSH) model utilized in the West Florida Region HurricaneU
'Loss and Contingency Planning Study. Lands seaward of the
CCCL are incorporated by reference. Areas identified as
velocity (V) zones on the FEMA FLood Insurance Rate Maps;
loss zones identified by the SLOSH model as receiving an
average of 25%+ structural damage to single family, multi-
family and commercial structures and utility facilities
during a Level 3 hurricane; and areas experiencing damageU
during Hurricane Frederick in 1979 are depicted as the
Coastal High Hazard Area on Map 28. The inundated area map
from the regional hurricane evacuation studies shall be
included for planning purposes.
The remaining coastal local governments eventually must

inventory in their coastal management element those areas within

their jurisdiction which they have identified as coastal high

hazard areas in accordance with the State Land Development Plan,

some Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans, and Chapter 9J-5,I

Florida Administrative Code.

I ~ACTUAL EFFECT ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

It is difficult to assess meaningfully the effectiveness of

the state's coastal barrier area infrastructure policy on growth

3 ~and development. When considered in the context of the entire

planning system the Coastal infrastructure Policy could have some

impact. However, since most of the programs are still quite new,
it is too early to observe any discernible trends.

In both the public and private sector, people are still

becoming aware of the existence of this particular law. It has

not commanded attention in terms of what is written about the

I ~regulation of coastal development.

3 ~~Next year, the Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report could

re-examine some of the programs discussed in this report. The

I ~DER's State Water Use Plan may explain more precisely its notion

of undeveloped barrier islands; in terms of what density

I ~constitutes undeveloped and in terms of using a federal or state

statute or rule to define a coastal barrier, coastal barrier

island, or a coastal high hazard area. DOT may revise its FTP to

incorporate Section 380.27 (1), Florida Statutes, into the Right-

of-Way and Bridge Programs' Policy Matrices.

I ~~on the regional level, the final Comprehensive Regional

I ~Policy Plans submitted to the Legislature for approval may

reflect greater attention toward the coastal infrastructure

policy. Those coastal regional planning councils which did not

address this policy in their preliminary plans should be examined

* ~for any revisions.

3 ~~~~~~~~~15

More local governments will be addressing the basis for

designating coastal high hazard areas as they prepare revisionsI

to their comprehensive plans. The range of approaches should be

explored.

As each of these levels of government implement these3

related programs and plans a more meaningful assessment can be

made of the state's coastal infrastructure policy's effective-I

ness. The Coastal Infrastructure Policy under Chapter 380.27,

Florida Statutes, implicitly deals with both fiscal austerity as

well as resource protection. Its role, however, is only a part of3

a larger planning system. The policy's effectiveness depends an

the implementation of all the programs and plans which have been3

discussed in this report. For now, it is still too early to

determine whether the policy has had any significant impacts onU

growth and development.3

16~~~~~~~~

"ATTACHMENT A"

STATE OF FLORIDA

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR BOB GRAHAM
August 8, 1986

Mr. Tom Lewis, Jr.k).,t
Secretary
Department of Community Affairs
Howard Building
2571 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Tom:

On September 4, 1981, I issued Executive Order 81-105 to
protect our fragile coastal resources and discourage
inappropriate development in hazardous coastal areas. You were
requested to withhold state funds for projects in coastal areas
if such expenditures would encourage or subsidize growth that
might endanger human life and expose public and private
property to damage. Since 1981, you and the agency heads of
the Departments of Commerce, Environmental Regulation, Health
and Rehabilitative Services, Transportation and Office of
Planning and Budgeting have diligently implemented the policies
of the Executive Order.

I n 1985 the Legislature with great foresight enacted the
Coastal Zone Protection Act and revised the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.
This legislation strengthens the state's growth management
programs. In 1986 the Legislature amended the growth
management legislation to require that local governments begin
submitting their comprehensive plans for review on July 1,
1988. During the phase-in period of new growth management
measures the following actions are necessary:

(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 infrastructure or
economic development in any designated unit of the Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources System.

Page TwoI

(3) To ensure the maximum coordination with local plans,
.prevent unwise expenditure of funds or poor siting of
facilities, and forestall increased building in coastal highI
hazard areas, agency heads shall not permit payment by the
state for new or expanded infrastructure project's seaward of
Coastal Construction Control Lines, in Federal Emergency
Management Agency 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 a crucial need is found
to alleviate dangerously overcrowded roads or replace defective
waste water facilities violating water quality standards.
Agency heads may authorize payment for projects within theI
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 beenI
given to hazard mitigation standards, including flood-proofing
-and evacuation.
(4) State funds 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, F.S. and comprehensive plansI
approved pursuant to Section 380.05, F.S.
These policies are intended to update the implementation of
Executive Order 81-105 and shall remain in effect until localI
governments implement plans, programs and regulations that
conform with or exceed the measures outlined above. Any
actions which were taken that conformed with Executive OrderI
81-105 are not to be deemed repealed by this policy update.

Your continuing cooperation will be most appreciated in
carrying out sound coastal management policies. i
Sincerely,

Governor
BG/mkc

Report Number Three

MARCH 1. 1988

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
THOMAS G. PELHAM, SECRETARY

I ~~~~~COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
REPORT NUMBER THREE

Presented to:
The Honorable Bob Martinez, Governor of Florida
The Honorable John W. Vogt, President of the Senate of Florida
The Honorable Jon Mills, Speaker of the House of
* ~~Representatives

~~~~~~~~SbittdB

I~~~~~~~Toa .Pla
~~~~~~Dprmn fCmuitAfar

I~~~~~~~~ac ,18

I ~380.27 Coastal Infrastructure Policy.--

(1) No state funds shall be used for the purpose of
I ~constructing bridges or causeways to coastal barrier islands as
defined in's. 161.54(2) which are not accessible by bridges or
causeways on the effective date of this act.

I ~~(2) After a local government has an approved coastal
management element pursuant to s. 163.3178, no state funds which
are unobligated at the time the element is approved shall be
I ~expended for the purpose of planning, designing, excavating for,
preparing foundations for, or constructing projects which
increase the capacity of infrastructure unless such expenditure
is consistent with the approved Coastal Management Element.
(3) The state land planning agency shall, by March 1 of
each year, prepare and transmit to the Governor, the President
I ~of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a
report on the state's coastal barrier areas. The report shall
assess the effectiveness of the state's coastal barrier area
* ~infrastructure policy an growth and development.
I ~History - s.38 ch. 85-55

INTRODUCTION

I ~~In 1985, the Flor ida Legislature adopted the Coastal

I Infrastructure Policy under Section 380.27, Florida Statutes.

This law is one of several means by which the state seeks to deal

I with the increased development pressure in coastal areas which

are prone to hazards. It is now widely recognized that public

I investment in coastal high hazard areas is unwise.

The purpose of this report, therefore, is to detail how

specific federal, state, regional, and local plans and programs

E continue to implement the coastal infrastructure policy. This

report relays the progress that has been made since Coastal

I Infrastructure Policy Report Number Two was submitted on March 1,

I 1987. A major portion of the policy, however, can be implemented

only after revised local government comprehensive plans have been

I approved by the state.

SUMMARY OF THE REVISIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

Since Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report Number Two was

I submitted in March 1987, progress has been made in formulating

and implementing a coastal infrastructure policy. Many of the

I refinements in the programs and plans mentioned below, are a

reflection of much interaction with the public in workshops,

I hearings, and technical assistance meetings and memoranda. This

section examines this last year's changes on the federal, state,

I regional, and local levels.

I Coastal Barrier Resources System

In March of 1987, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)

submitted to all coastal states a draft executive summary and
I maps. The executive summary outlines the DOI's proposed general

recommendations for changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

I (CBRA) as well as proposed conservation alternatives. Volumes 14

I and 15 of the map series contain background information about

Florida's coastal barriers, maps of those barriers, and proposed

I recommendations for specific additions and deletions from the

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Written comments upon

I these proposals and recommendations were solicited in a three

month public comment period which ended on June 24, 1987. During

I that period a series of public workshops were conducted in Florida

I by the DOI and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

Along with letters from citizens and state, regional, and local

I public officials a letter from Governor Martinez was sent to DOI

I ~~~~~~~~~~~2

Secretary Donald Hodel.

The DOI recently submitted a draft environmental impact

statement (EIS) on the proposed changes to the CBRS. This draft

supplements the final EIS on Undeveloped Coastal Barriers

published by the DOI in 1983 to satisfy the requirements of the

National Environmental Protection Act. This assessment of the

environmental implications of the Draft Report and Proposed

Recommendations to Congress on the CBRS will assist Secretary

Hodel in preparing final recommendations to Congress pursuant to

Section 10 of CBRA.

With the submittal of this EIS, the DOI has initiated an

additional 45 day public comment period on the proposed changes

to CBRA. After this period closes on March 17, 1988 the DOI

staff will compile all comments on the proposed expansion and

amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. The staff will

submit recommendations to Secretary Hodel for his consideration.

At some undetermined time thereafter, he will present a formal

recommendation to Congress. Although CBRA specifically requires

the DOI to review the program, there is no provision which

compels Congress to amend the Act.

Coastal Barrier Executive Order

Under Governor Martinez, no new directives have been issued

pertaining to a coastal infrastructure policy. Therefore, the

Coastal Barrier Executive Order 81-105, as it was reformulated in

Governor Graham's September 1986 letter, remains in effect. The

I role of the Coastal Barrier Executive order, however, will begin

Ito diminish with the eventual adoption of the revised local

government comprehensive plans. As the letter states, the

I Executive Order's policies will "remain in effect until local

I governments implement plans, programs, and regulations that

conform with or exceed the measures outlined..."1 A copy of this

Idirective, which was included in the previous report is also shown

in this report's Appendix "A."

I State Comprehensive Plan

During the 1987 Session, the Florida Legislature amended the

State Comprehensive Plan (SCP), Chapter 187, Florida Statutes.

I The changes, however, did not involve any of the elements which

I pertain to the coastal infrastructure policy. The Final Report of

the SCP Committee was submitted in June of 1987. Primarily a

I forecasting document, the report assesses the ability of current

sources of state and local government revenues to implement the

I provisions of the SCP. The analysis focuses an the gross level of

Elocal government demand. The report does not discuss the

specifics of public funding within coastal areas.

I State Land Development Plan

The State Land Development Plan (SLDP), Section 186.021,

F.S., is an executive formulation of state land development

Ipolicies which was described in the previous coastal

infrastructure policy report. The SLDP is currently being

I ~~~~~~~~~~4

revised by DCA. The revised document should be completed in the

Spring of 1988.

State Water Use Plan

Also mentioned in the previous report is the State Water Use

Plan. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) is now

revising the plan pursuant to Section 186.021, F.S. The target

for completion is in the Spring of 1988.

State Transportation Plan

As is the case with both the SLDP and the SWUP, the Florida

Transportation Plan (FTP), Section 339.155, F.S., is also being

amended. The previous coastal infrastructure policy report

examined the existing FTP, detailing the Department of

Transportation's (DOT) programming planning and budgeting

activities. The revised FTP will not be completed until the Fall

of 1988.

Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans

Pursuant to Chapter 186, F.S., all regional planning

councils were required to submit final comprehensive regional

policy plans (CRPP's) by July 1, 1987. Each CRPP must contain

regional goals and policies which are consistent with the State

Comprehensive Plan. Eight of the ten councils with coastal areas

address coastal infrastructure policy in the Public Safety and

Access in Coastal Areas cluster of the Coastal and Marine

Resources Element. A few of the councils also address the

Hcoastal infrastructure policy in the Planning for Public

I Facilities cluster under the Public Faciliities Element.

The following policies arnd implementation measures or

Istrategies are those which each council has adopted in its CRPP.

Region I West Florida

I Regional Policy - Restrict development in coastal high hazard
areas to that which will support only the population which can be
I safely evacuated in times of emergency.
Strategy: Local Government expenditures shall not subsidize future
Idevelopment or redevelopment in coastal high hazard areas.

Region 2 Apalachee

I Regional Policy - All governments should reduce the amount of
public expenditures for new subsidization of private development
on barrier islands, beach and dune systems, or in surge or flood
I prone coastal areas.

Measure for implementation: The number of local ordinances
Iadopted and implemented by local governments that extricate
government subsidy of private coastal development.

Region 3 North Central Florida

I Policy - The state should avoid expenditures that subsidize
development in coastal high-hazard areas.
I Measure: The amount of state funds spent on capital facilities
within high hazard coastal areas through the year 2010.

Region 5 Withlacoochee

Regional Policy - Infrastructure should not be provided, improved,
Ior rebuilt on offshore islands or in other coastal high-hazard
areas.

IPerformance Standard: Percent decrease in the number of new
developments and redevelopments permitted in coastal high-hazard
areas.

* ~~~~~Region 6 East Central Florida

Policy - Public expenditures for infrastructure improvements in
Icoastal high-hazard areas, as defined in the local governments
comprehensive plan, should be avoided. Infrastructure

* ~~~~~~~~~~6

improvements which address existing deficiencies, as defined by
I local governments, are excluded from this policy.

Measure: Amount of public funds used for infrastructure
improvements which result in increased capacity of infrastructure
I located or servicing designated coastal high-hazard areas.

Policy - Public facilities and services intended to serve future
I development needs that are inconsistent with a local government
comprehensive plan shall not be permitted or provided, unless the
comprehensive plan is modified by the local government. (Minimal
I criteria are provided in plan.)
Measure: Number of existing public facilities with ongoing or
current capacity analyses.

I ~~~~~~Region B Tampa Bay

I Policy - The use of government funds to subsidize
development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas.

I Standard/Measure: Amount of public funds expended in high-hazard
areas.

Region 9 Southwest Florida

I Policy - The expenditure of local, state and regional funds that
subsidize development in undeveloped coastal areas should be
I eliminated.

Standard/Measure: The number of stabilization structures and pass
maintenance programs.

I ~~~~~Region 10 Treasure Coast

I Policy - Public funds shall not be used for infrastructure
expansion or improvements in high-hazard areas unless such funds
are necessary to: 1) provide services to existing development
I (structures approved for development prior to the implementation
of this policy);- 2) provide for adequate evacuation in the event of
emergency; or 3) provide for recreational needs and other
appropriate water dependent uses.

I Measure: Percentage of new development paying the full cost of
service support.
* ~~~~~~Region 11 South Florida

Policy - Prevent the development of public facilities in the most
hurricane-vulnerable areas except when necessary for the public
Ihealth, safety and welfare and to provide services for existing
residents.

I ~~~~~~~~~~7

Measures: 1. Loss of life and property damage. 2. Average
Ievacuation time for the Region. 3. Availability of shelters for
the Region.

I Policy - Give priority to public acquisition of property in areas
that have been destroyed as the result of a hurricane.

Measure: Increase of lands in public ownership in high hazard
I areas.

Policy - Public and private land trust funds will be allocated for
I the purpose of coastal lands for public benefit.

Measure: The number of building permits issued for new
I construction and improvement in coastal or high hazard areas.

At this writing, both the Withlcoochee and Apalachee

I Regional Planning Councils are amending their CRPP's. Other

councils may consider changing portions of their plans as well.

I Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
I Regulations Act - Chapter 163, F.S.

Still most central to the coastal infrastructure policy is

I the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulations Act, Chapter 163, F.S. Neither Chapter 163, Part II,

IF. S., nor its minimum criteria rule, Chapter 9J-5, Florida

Admninstrative Code, has been amended over this last year.

I Instead, the administering agency, DCA, has been involved in

I interpreting the statute and rule which was discussed in detail in

the previous coastal infrastructure policy report. The

I interpretations have been relayed to state and local public

officials and interested citizens through public workshops,

I technical assistance meetings, and technical memoranda.

I Emergency Management

The Post Disaster Redevelopment Rule, Chapter 9G-13, Florida

Administrative Code, which was also discussed in the previous

I coastal infrastructure policy report, was repealed on October 19,

I 1987. The purpose of the rule was to minimize losses from

natural disasters due to inadequate planning or regulation of

I public facilities, and to expedite federal public disaster

assistance. The Administration Commission, however, voted to

I repeal the rule based on the fact that under Chapter 252, F.S.,

DCA's Division of Emergency Management was not explicitly

I authorized to promulgate a rule that regulates land use.

I POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

I Section 380.27(1), F.S.
No state funds shall be used for the purpose of constructing
bridges or causeways to coastal barrier islands as defined in s.
161.54(2) which are not accessible by bridges or causeways an the
Ieffectiv e date of this act.

This subsection contains an absolute prohibition which

Ileaves little room for interpretation. Implementation of this

I provision which has been in effect for two and a half years is

straight-forward.

* ~~As mentioned in the previous coastal infrastructure policy

report, the DOT is most responsible for implementing this

I provision of Section 380.27, F. S. DOT's planning staff

determines whether a proposed project is in accordance with this

I provision by consulting the agency's Project Development

I Guidelines.

I ~~~~~~~~~~9

Section 380.27(2), F.S.

I After a local government has an approved coastal management
element pursuant to s. 163.3178, no state funds which are
I unobligated at the time the element is approved shall be expended
for the purpose of planning, designing, excavating for, preparing
foundations for, or constructing projects which increase the
Icapacity of infrastructure unless such expenditure is consistent
with the approved coastal management element.

Unlike Section 380.27(1), F.S., Section 380.27(2), F.S. is

I more open to interpretation. Moreover, implementation of their

I provision will be deferred until local government comprehensive

plans are adopted in compliance with the requirements of Chapter

I 9J-5 F.A.C. Thereafter, the coastal infrastructure policy will be

further addressed through land development regulations which each

I local government must prepare within one year after its revised

I comprehensive plan's submittal date.

Once the comprehensive plans are approved and adopted,

I several means have been established by which Section 380.27(2),

F.S., can be implemented. Many of these are procedures designed

Ito coordinate interagency functions related to coastal issues. In

recent months these procedures have been changed. A discussion of

I these procedures explains the means available to state, regional,

Hand local agencies for implementing Section 380.27(2), F.S.

One means of implementation is handled by the Governor's

IExecutive Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPB) which

coordinates reviews of federal and state funded projects in

I Florida through the planning and environmental clearinghouse.

I The clearinghouse is a means for state, regional, and local

* ~~~~~~~~10

agencies to review whether proposals for new or expanded

infrastructure are in accordance with state laws and policies.

Examples of the type of projects include sewage treatment and

collections systems, roads, bridges, and reverse osmosis plants.

Many of the proposals reviewed in the clearinghouse have involved

capital improvements which would service coastal barriers or

coastal high-hazard areas.

One measure used by the clearinghouse, which was described in

the previous coastal infrastructure policy report, was a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the DER, DOT, and OPB. This

MOA provided a channel through which compliance with Section

380.27, F.S. could be determined. On October 28, 1987, however,

the MOA was terminated. DOT Secretary Henderson and DER Secretary

Twatchman then jointly issued a new directive under a memorandum

dated October 28, 1987. This memorandum calls for both agencies

to foster a spirit of cooperation and coordination in view of" .

� . a large increase in the number of roadway projects that must

be planned." A copy of this memorandum is shown in Appendix "B."

Another level of implementation of the coastal infrastructure

policy has occurred between state and local government. On

several occasions, local government officials have asked Governor

Martinez to reconsider the coastal infrastructure policy. The

basis of the requests has been to determine whether the state has

a financial responsibility toward providing new infrastructure.

For example, several counties have proposed building additional

bridges to coastal barriers. Both Governor Martinez and DCA

I secretary Pelham have cited the Coastal Barrier Executive order,

I Chapter 163, F.S., and Chapter 380, F.S., as the bases for their

responses to the local government inquiries.

IACTUAL EFFECT ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

It remains difficult to assess meaningfully the

I effectiveness of the state's coastal infrastructure policy on

I growth and development. Compliance with the requirements in the

minimum criteria rule, 9J-5, F.A.C. is a critical part of

I implementing the coastal infrastructure policy. This April,

the first revised local government comprehensive plans will be

I submitted to DCA for compliance review. It will be the first

I opportunity to examine how several local governments address the

requirements within the Coastal Management and Capital

I Improvements Element. Each month thereafter, additional local

governments must submit their revised comprehensive plans. The

I submittal schedule for all local governments is available in

I Appendix "C."

Next year the Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report could

U analyze the contents of the first revised comprehensive plans.

An analysis of the Coastal Management and Capital Improvement

I Plan elements submitted will provide the most meaningful

I nformation upon which an assessment of the coastal

infrastructure policy could be based. This then would be one the

U of the earliest opportunities to determine whether Chapter 163,

F.S., in concert with other laws and policies, has any effect on

I growth and development in the State of Florida.

U ~~~~~~~~~12

APPENDIX "A"t

I ~~~~~~STATE OF FLORIDA

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR BOB GRAHAM
1 ~~~~~~~~August 8, 1986

Mr. Tom Lewis,
I Secretary
Department of community Affairs
Howard Building
2571 Executive Center Circle, East
ITallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Tom:

IOn September 4, 1981, I issued Executive order 81-105 to
protect our fragile coastal resources and discourage
inappropriate development in hazardous coastal areas. You were
Irequested to withhold state funds for projects in coastal areas
if such expenditures would encourage or subsidize growth that
might endanger human life and expose public and private
Iproperty to damage. Since 1981, you and the agency heads of
the Departments of Commerce, Environmental Regulation, Health
and Rehabilitative Services, Transportation and office of
I Planning and Budgeting have diligently implemented the policies
of the Executive Order.

In 1985 the Legislature with great foresight enacted the
ICoastal Zone Protection Act and revised the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.
This legislation strengthens the state's growth management
I programs. In 1986 the Legislature amended the growth
management legislation to require that local governments begin
submitting their comprehensive plans for review on July 1,
I1988. During the phase-in period of new growth management
measures the following actions are necessary:

(1) State funds for infrastructure and economic
Idevelopment 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
Edevelopment on islands with severe evacuation difficulties.

(2) The State should not pay to expand infrastructure or
Ieconomic development in any designated unit of the Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources System.

I Page Two

(3) To ensure the maximum coordination with local plans,
I 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 ihe
state for new or expanded infrastructure projects seaward of
I Coastal Construction Control Lines, in Federal Emergency
Management Agency designated V zones, in areas damaged or
undermined by coastal storms, or at inlets without structural
I controls. After alternatives including relocation have been
evaluated, exceptions can be made where a crucial need is found
to alleviate dangerously overcrowded roads or replace defective
Ewaste water 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
Iabove 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 flood-proofing
I and evacuation.

(4) State funds can be made available to repair or replace
I 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
I or less capacity than the original facility.

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

I These policies are intended to update the implementation of
Executive Order 81-105 and shall remain in effect until local
governments implement plans, programs and regulations that
I conform with or exceed the measures outlined above. Any
actions which were taken that conformed with Executive Order
81-105 are not to be deemed repealed by this policy update.

I Your continuing cooperation will be most appreciated in
carrying out sound coastal management policies.

3 ~~~~~~~~~Sincerely,

I ~~~~~~~~~Governor

I BG/mkc

APPENDIX "B"
U----. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P. D. & E.

* ~~~~~~~~~DEC419?c~
* - ~~~~~~~~~~State of Florida
Department of Trans LRAI,
Department of Environmental Regulation ~
Kaye Henderson Dale TwaChimanfl
Secretary Secretary

TO: All Employees of the Departments of Transportation
I ~~~~and Environmental Regulation
FROM: Kaye N. He-nderson, Secretary, Department of Transportation
Dale Twachtmann. Secretary. Department of Environmental

I ~DATE, October 28. 1987
SUBJECT: DOT - DER Coordination

The Department of Transportation anticipates a large increase in the
number of roadway improvements that must be planned and constructed
over the next five years if Florida's critical transportation needs
I ~are to be met. This, together with efforts by the DOT to reduce by
half the time it takes to plan. design. and construct these
improvements will require a strong partnership between the
Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of
Transportation. The goal of this partnership, of course, is to
ensure that in meeting these transportation needs. Florida's
environmental goals are not abandoned.
E ~To facilitate the development of this partnership. key members of
our staffs will be designated to insure that all necessary
directions are provided to the appropriate employees of both
I ~agencies, and 'that information" is properly coordinated between
agencies--including such information as organization charts, office
locations, key contact persons, DOT project schedules. and a
3 ~complete file of joint policy letters such as this one.
We intend for this to be a successful partnership. Employees of
both Departments are expected to work closely together to solve,
rather than create. problems.' The keys to success will be,.
*Communication. Issues will not become problems as
readily if there is a strong. established. and well
used path of communication between agencies.

*Coordination and cooperation. Employees of both
I ~~~agencies must work together to 'ensure that Florida's
environmental goals and its transportation needs will
* ~~~be met.
Please work with us to make this partnership real.

APPENDIX "C"

RULES

OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

DIVISION OF RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 9J-12

SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF REVISED LOCAL

GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND

PROCEDURES FOR EARLY SUBMISSIONS

9J-12.001 Purpose and Effect.

(1) The purpose of this chapter is to establish the

schedule for submission of local government comprehensive plans

pursuant to Subsection 163.3167(2), Florida Statutes, and to

establish procedures to request earlier submission dates than

those provided in Sections 9J-12.006 or 9J-12.007. The major

divisions of the schedule in this chapter are based on the

statute, which divides local governments into two groups for plan

submission: Coastal counties and noncoastal counties. Some or

all of the municipalities within a county are scheduled to submit

their plans in the same month as the county, and any remaining

municipalities in that county are scheduled to submit their plans

in the immediately following month or months. When the

municipalities of a county are scheduled to submit their plans

over a series of months the order for municipal submissions shall

be smallest to largest. This allows the Department to review the

plans of the county and several of the smallest municipalities in

the first month and the largest municipalities in the subsequent

month or months. The schedule is arranged so that the workload

for the Department builds up gradually to its maximum level and

then declines slightly toward the end of the schedule. Most of

the major metropolitan counties are scheduled in the first year

when the workload will be about one half its maximum. The

schedule is also arranged so that an individual regional planning
council will receive no more than ten plans to review in one

month.

(2) For the purposes of this rule Fanning Springs is in

Gilchrist County, Longboat Key is in Sarasota County, Marineland

is in Flagler County and the Reedy Creek Improvement District is

in Orange County.

Specific Authority 163.3167(2), F.S. Law Implemented

163.3167(2), FS. History-New 10-20-86.

9J-12.002 Definitions. As used in this Chapter:

(1) "Coastal County" means those counties listed in the

document entitled "Local Governments Required to Include Coastal

Management Elements in their Comprehensive Plans," dated July 1,

1986, and available from the Department upon request.

(2) "Department" means the Florida Department of Community

Affairs.

(3) "Local government" means any county or municipality,

and for the purpose of this chapter the Reedy Creek Improvement

District shall be considered a municipality.

(4) "Plan" means a local government comprehensive plan

prepared pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and

Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

Specific Authority 163.3167(2), FS. Law Implemented 163.3167(2),

FS. History-New 10-20-86.

9J-12.004 Early Submission.

(1) A county and all of the municipalities within that

county may submit their plans to the Department for a compliance

review earlier than July 1, 1988 or for a compliance review

earlier than their scheduled submission date in Section 9J-12.006

or Section 9J-12.007, if they comply with the following

requirements:

(a) A local government may not submit its revised

comprehensive plan to the Department for a compliance review

until the regional planning council, in whose area the local

government falls, has adopted a comprehensive regional policy

plan, which shall be no sooner than July 1, 1987.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

(b) The request for early submission must be made in

writing. This request shall include a resolution or individual

identical resolutions from each local government as required in

paragraph (c) below. The request must be sent to the Chief,

Bureau of Local Resource Planning, 2571 Executive Center Circle,

East, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, before January 1, 1987 if they

wish to submit their plans prior to January 1, 1988. The request

must be sent prior to October 15, 1987 if they wish to submit

their plans on or after January 1, 1988 but prior to July 1,

1988. The request must be sent prior to June 1, 1988 if they

wish to submit their plan after July 1, 1988 but prior to their

scheduled submission date in Section 9J-12.006 or Section

9J-12.007; however this request will only be approved if the

Department is able to maintain an evenly spread workload in the

submission schedule.

(o) A county must submit to the Department a resolution or

several identical resolutions adopted by the governing boards of

all the local governments in the county. The resolution or

resolutions must clearly state that each local government in the

county agrees to submit its plan early.

(d) The resolution as required by paragraph (c) above shall

also contain a priority rank list of three alternative early

submission dates. For counties whose local governments are

scheduled in Section 95-12.006 or Section 9J-12.007 to submit

their plans in a single month these dates shall be the first day

of three different months. For counties whose local governments

are scheduled in Section 9J-12.006 or Section 9J-12.007 to submit

their plans over two or more months, the request shall contain a

priority ranked list of three groups of consecutive months equal

in length to the number of months over which the local

governments of the county are scheduled in Section 9J-12.006 or

Section 9J-12.007. For example, the local governments in Dade

County are scheduled in Section 9J-12.006 to submit their plans

over three months, July, August and September, 1988; therefore,

if the local governments in Dade County request an early

submission, the request must include a priority rank list of

three groups of three consecutive months each.

(2) The Department shall try to allow early submission on

one of the priority dates requested by the local governments.

However, no more than 14 plans will be scheduled in a single

month. Requests will be handled on a first come first served

basis. The Department shall respond in writing to requests for

early submissions within 15 working days of receipt of the

request by the Chief, Bureau of Local Resource Planning. This

written response shall approve the early submission date or

propose alternate dates in the event the originally requested

dates are unavailable. Upon the issuance of written notification
of approval of an early submission date by the Department, the

early submission date shall replace the scheduled date of

submission listed in Section 9J-12.006 or Section 9J-12.007.
Local government comprehensive plans submitted under this section

shall be transmitted, reviewed, and adopted in accordance with

Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.

(3) A local government which wishes to revert to its

originally scheduled submission date must rescind the resolution

specified in Paragraphs (1)(c) and (d) above. In order to revert
to its original submission date the local government must rescind

the resolution at least three months prior to its approved early

submission date or the approved early submission date of the

county in which it is located, whichever is earliest. The local

government must notify the Department and all other local

governments in the county of its action to rescind the

resolution. Upon notice to the Department, the submission date
of all local governments in the county shall revert to the dates

listed in Section 9J-12.006 or Section 93-12.007.
Specific Authority 163.3167(2), FS. Law Implemented

163.3167(2), FS. History-New 10-20-86.

9J-12.006 Submission Schedule for Coastal Counties and the

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Municipalities within Coastal Counties. Unless modified by early

submissions approved under Section 9J-12.004, coastal counties

and the municipalities within coastal counties shall submit their

proposed comprehensive plans to the Department for their initial

compliance review based on the schedule below:

(1) July 1, 1988: Dade County, Islandia, Indian Creek

Village, Medley, Golden Beach, E1 Portal, Virginia Gardens, Bal

Harbour Village, Biscayne Park, Surfside, Charlotte County, and

Punta Gorda;

(2) August 1, 1988: North Bay, Bay Harbor Islands, Hialeah

Gardens, West Miami, Florida City, Miami Shores, Sweetwater,

South Miami, Miami Springs, Collier County, Everglades City, and

Naples;

(3) September 1, 1988: Opa-Locka, Homestead, North Miami

Beach, Coral Gables, North Miami, Miami Beach, Hialeah, Miami,

Lee County, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, and Sanibel;

(4) October 1, 1988: Broward County, Lazy Lake, Sea Ranch

Lakes, Parkland, Hillsboro Beach, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Pembroke

Park, Lighthouse Point, Sarasota County, Longboat Key, North Port,

Charlotte, Sarasota, and Venice;

(5) November 1, 1988: Wilton Manors, Dania, Cooper City,

coconut Creek, North Lauderdale, Oakland Park, Lauderdale Lakes,

Citrus County, Crystal River, Inverness, Hernando County,

Brooksville, and Weeki Wachee;

(6) December 1, 1988: Tamarac, Davie, Miramar, Hallandale,

Margate, Lauderhill, Deerfield Beach, Manatee County, Anna Maria,

Bradenton, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach, and Palmetto;

(7) January 1, 1989: Pembroke Pines, Sunrise, Plantation,

Coral Springs, Pompano Beach, Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale, Pasco

County, Dade City, New Port Richey, Port Richey, Saint Leo, San

Antonio, and Zephyrhills;

(8) February 1, 1989: Palm Beach County, Golf Village,

Cloud Lake, Golfview, Glen Ridge, Briny Breezes, Manalapan,

Jupiter Inlet Colony, Gulf Stream, Hypoluxo, Hillsborough County,

Plant City, Tampa, and Temple Terrace;

(9) March 1, 1989: Palm Beach Shores, Haverhill, Mangonia

Park, South Palm Beach, Ocean Ridge, Atlantis, Juno Beach,

Pinellas County, Belleair Shore, North Redington Beach, Indian

Shores, Redington Beach, Belleair Beach, and Belleair Bluffs:

(10) April 1, 1989: Highland Beach, Lake Clarkes Shores,

South Bay, Tequesta, Royal Palm Beach, Pahokee, Lake Park,

Redington Shores, Belleair, Kenneth City, Indian Rocks Beach,

South Pasadena, Madeira Beach, and Oldsmar;

(11) May 1, 1989: Lantana, Palm Springs, Palm Beach, North

Palm Beach, Belle Glade, Jupiter, Palm Beach Gardens, Seminole,

Treasure Island, St. Petersburg Beach, Gulfport, Safety Harbor,

Tarpon Springs, and Dunedin;

(12) June 1, 1989: Greenacres City, Lake Worth, Riviera

Beach, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach,

Pinellas Park, Largo, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Levy County,

Otter Creek, and Yankeetown;

(13) July 1, 1989: Cedar Key, Bronson, Inglis, Chiefland,

Williston, Martin County, Jupiter Island, Ocean Breeze Park,

Sewalls Point, and Stuart;

(14) August 1, 1989: St. Lucie County, Fort Pierce, Port

St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village, Brevard County, Palm Shores,

Melbourne Village, Malabar, Melbourne Beach, Indialantic, Indian

Harbour Beach, Cape Canaveral, West Melbourne, and Satellite

Beach;

(15) September 1, 1989: Cocoa Beach, Rockledge, Cocoa, Palm

Bay, Titusville, Melbourne, Indian River County, Fellsmere,

Indian River Shores, Orchid, Sebastian, and Vero Beach;

(16) October 1, 1989: Volusia County, Oak Hill, Pierson,

Ponce Inlet, Daytona Beach Shores, Dixie County, Cross City,

Horseshoe Beach, Taylor County, Perry, Jefferson County, and

Monticello:

(17) November 1, 1989: Lake Helen, Orange City, Edgewater,

Holly Hill, South Daytona, New Smyrna Beach, DeLand, Ormond

Beach, Port Orange, Daytona Beach, Wakulla County, St. Marks, and

Sopchoppy;

(18) December 1, 1989: Bay County, Callaway, Cedar Grove,

Lynn Haven, Mexico Beach, Panama City, Panama City Beach, Parker,

Springfield, Franklin County, Apalachicola, and Carrabelle;

(19) January 1, 1990: Gulf County, Port St. Joe, Ward

Ridge, Wewahitchka, Flagler County, Beverly Beach, Bunnell,

Flagler Beach, and Marineland;

(20) February 1, 1990: Okaloosa County, Cinco Bayou,

Crestivew, Destin, Fort Walton Beach, Laurel Hill, Mary Esther,

Niceville, Shalimar, and Valparaiso;

(21) March 1, 1990: Walton County, DeFuniak Springs,

Freeport, Paxton, St. Johns County, Hastings, St. Augustine, and

St. Augustine Beach;

(22) April 1, 1990: Duval County (Jacksonville), Atlantic

Beach, Baldwin, Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach, Santa Rosa

County, Gulf Breeze, Jay, and Milton;

(23) May 1, 1990: Escambia County, Century, Pensacola,

Nassau County, Callahan, Fernandina Beach, and Hilliard; and

(24) June 1, 1990: Monroe County, Key Colony Beach, Key

West, and Layton.

Specific Authority 163.3167(2) FS. Law

Implemented 163.3167(2) FS. History-New 10-20-86.

9J-12.007 Submission Schedule for Non-Coastal Counties and

the Municipalities within Non-Coastal Counties. Unless modified

by early submissions approved under Rule 9J-12.004, of this

chapter noncoastal counties and the municipalities within

noncoastal counties shall submit their proposed comprehensive

plans to the Department for their initial compliance review based

on the schedule below:

(1) July 1, 1990: Glades County, Moore Haven,

Osceola County, Kissimmee, St. Cloud, Highlands County, Avon

Park, Lake Placid, and Sebring;

(2) August 1, 1990: Holmes County, Bonifay, Esto,

Noma, Ponce de Leon, Westville, DeSoto County, and Arcadia;

(3) September 1, 1990: Okeechobee County, Okeechobee,

Hardee County, Bowling Green, Wauchula, Zolfo Springs, Hendry

County, Clewiston, LaBelle, Polk County, Eagle Lake, and

Hillcrest Heights

(4) October 1, 1990: Lake Alfred, Lake Hamilton, Lake

Wales Auburndale, Davenport, Dundee, Fort Meade, Washington

County, Caryville, Chipley, Ebro, Vernon and Wausau;

(5) November 1, 1990: Frostproof, Haines City, Highland

Park, Mulberry, Polk City, Bartow, Lakeland, Winter Haven,

Jackson County, Bascom, Jacob City, Alford, and Malone;

(6) December 1, 1990: Campbellton, Cottondale,

Graceville, Grand Ridge, Greenwood, Marianna, Sneads, Orange

County, Bay Lake, Lake Buena Vista, Oakland, Edgewood,

Windermere, and Eatonville;

(7) January 1, 1991: Apopka, Belle Isle, Maitland,

Ocoee, Orlando, Reedy Creek Improvement District, Winter Garden,

Winter Park, Hamilton County, Jasper, Jennings, White Springs,

Liberty County, Bristol, Columbia County, Fort White, and Lake

City;

(8) February 1, 1991: Gadsden County, Chattahoochee,

Greensboro, Gretna, Havana, Midway, Quincy, Lake County,

Montverde, Howey-in-the-Hills, Astatula, Minneola, Mascotte, Lady

Lake, Leon County, and Tallahassee;

(9) March 1, 1991: Clermont, Eustis, Fruitland Park,

Groveland, Leesburg, Mount Dora, Tavares, Umatilla, Calhoun

County, Altha, Blountstown, Lafayette County, Mayo, Sumter

County, Bushnell, Center Hill, Coleman, Webster and Wildwood;

(10) April 1, 1991: Seminole County, Altamonte Springs,

Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood, Oviedo, Sanford, Winter

Springs, Madison County, Greenville, Lee, Madison, Suwannee

County, Branford, and Live Oak;

(11) May 1, 1991: Alachua County, LaCrosse, Micanopy,

Waldo, Archer, Union County, Lake Butler, Raiford, Worthington

Springs, Marion County, Belleview, Dunnellon, McIntosh, Ocala,

and Reddick;

(12) June 1, 1991: Alachua, Gainesville, Hawthorne,

High Springs, Newberry, Gilchrist County, Bell, Fanning Springs,

Trenton, Putnam County, Crescent City, Interlachen, Palatka,

Pomona Park, and Welaka; and

(13) July 1, 1991: Clay County, Green Cove Springs,

Keystone Heights, Orange Park, Penney Farms, Bradford County,

Brooker, Hampton, Lawtey, Starke, Baker County, Glen Saint Mary,

and Macclenny.

Specific Authority 163.3167(2) FS. Law Implemented 163.3167(2)

FS. as amended by Chapter 87-338, Laws of Florida.

History-New 10-20-86; Amended

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Richard Morgan, Director
April 27, 1987 of Communications
904/488-8466
TALLAHASSEE -- Proposed changes to the coastal barrier
resources system in Florida will be explained at five public

workshops to be conducted in May by the Florida Department of

Community Affairs.
The changes, being considered by the U. S. Department of the

Interior, would expand the Florida system from a current 118.8

miles of Gulf and Atlantic shoreline to a proposed 208.11 miles.

Total acreage involved in the expansion would increase from the

present 61,575 to 237,697.
Shoreline under the coastal barrier resources system is

ineligible for federal subsidies for facilities such as bridges,

roads, utilities and erosion control devices.
Such areas also are ineligible for federal flood insurance.

The coastal barriers resource system was established by

Congress in 1982. The program is designed to minimize the loss

of human life, reduce wasteful expenditures of federal revenues

and reduce damage to fish and wildlife habitat and other natural

resources.

The schedule of workshops is:
May 11, 7.p.m. (central time), Lecture Hall, first floor,

(MORE)

Department of Communy Affairs
2*7 Exeuuve Centr Circle, Est � Tallahass , Iofdt ?01 (90) 4a8-46

A10

ADD ONE

George G. Tapper Health Science Building, Gulf Coast

Community College, Panama City.

May 12, 7.p.m., sixth floor conference room, City Hall

220 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville.

May 13, 7 p.m., County Commission chambers, County

Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.

May 14, 7 p.m., County Commission chambers, County Court

House, 2115 Second Street, Fort Myers.

May 15, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Court Room, Plantation Key

Government Center, 88820 Overseas Highway (Mile Marker

88.5), Tavernier.

Purpose of the workshops is to solicit comment from the

public. In addition, written comments can be sent to:

Coastal Barriers Study Group
National Park Service
U. S. Department of the Interior
P. O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 200013-7127

Additional information is available by calling Frank B.

McGilvrey, coastal barriers coordinator, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 202/343-2618, or Jack Brown, National Park Service,

202/343-8116.

Questions relating directly to the comment period in Florida

can be directed to Claudia Shambaugh, federal programs

administrator, Department of Community Affairs, 2571 Executive

Center Circle East, Tallahassee, FL 32399, or by calling her at

904/488-9210.

I STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

I 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

I 0O MARTINEZ THOMAS C. PELHAM
cowerfw July 6, 1987 Secrey

The Honorable Bob Martinez
Governor of Florida
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Governor Martinez:

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) supports the
Congresdional policies embodied in the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act of 1982, (CBRA). I have reviewed the United States Depart-
ment of Interior's (DOI) March 4, 1985 revised guidelines,
the March 1987 draft report to Congress and its accompanying
maps.

I have evaluated the draft report and Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS) maps in light of Chapters 163, 187, and
380, Florida Statutes; Executive Order 81-105 as updated in 1986,
and the State Land Development Plan. Like CBRA, the State seeks
to guide barrier island development to protect citizens, natural
resources and public infrastructure and to minimize wasteful
expenditures of public funds.

While I agree with the intent of the original act, I am
concerned by the continued revisiting of CBRA. After the
original CBRA was approved by Congress in 1982, the DOI proposed
numerous amendments to CBRA in 1985. After an extensive review
and comment process, amendments were again proposed in 1987. I
can find no explanation for the need to continually revisit CBRA
or for this two year hiatus in the DOI material. I believe that
DOI should explain this hiatus and that the implementation of
CBRA must quickly and finally be completed in order that individ-
uals and local governments can prepare and implement plans based
upon some degree of certainty. The public and private sector
cannot prepare plans if the Federal government continues to
adjust the availability of federal funds to parcels of land

I EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

All

Governor Bob Martinez
I July 6, 1987
Page Two

I within the state. In addition to this general concern the DCA
has prepared specific comments on the proposed CBRS maps as well
Has general comments on policy issues.

DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT

I~~The Development of Regional impact (DRI) process is a
comprehensive state and regional review of developments which,
due to character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial
I effect on the citizens of more than one county. The State of
Florida strongly encourages developers to utilize the DRI process
since the process is designed to both ensure that adequate public
facilities are available at the time development occurs and to
provide protection of sensitive environmental resources. The DRI
process is very expensive and time-consuming. It is not unusual
for the process, from initial planning to issuance of a
developmhent order, to require two years or more.
'DCA requests that areas subject to an approved DRI
I development order be excluded from CBRA. The DOI should
favorably consider recommendations for exclusion of areas which,
although presently undeveloped, are as of January 1, 1987 part of
a phased, comprehensive master DRI order, are included in a pre-
I development agreement as a condition precedent to DRI review, or
are included in a pending Application for Development Approval
J ~for a DRI. DCA would be glad to assist in the documentation of
such projects. In preparing master plans for these areas
developers have relied upon the availability of federal flood
insurance. This insurance and the availability of infrastructure
financed by federal funds should not be withdrawn from these
projects. This request for exclusion of these areas has been a
consistent policy of the State as expressed in previous responses
3 ~to proposed CBRA revisions.

DCA does recommend for inclusion in the CBRS those long
term, phased developments that have been deemed "vested" and
I ~therefore not subject to DRI review but which are still un-
developed.

* ~~~~~~SPECIFIC MAP REVISIONS

The DOI should continue to refine the proposed CBRS maps to
reflect new and updated information. For instance, the DOI

should correct maps to reflect areas as developed where land-

Governor Bob Martinez
July 6, 1987
Page Three

owners have demonstrated that infrastructure has been installed
and structures have been built. The DOI also should include in
the CBRS maps those areas which local and regional officials and
constituents have demonstrated as appropriate for inclusion in
the CBRS.

The Florida Keys

The purpose of CBRA complements the Area of Critical State
Concern Program, in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. DCA supports
the inclusion of portions of the Florida Keys in the CBRS. We
support the inclusion of all non-bridged Keys and associated
aquatic habitat into the CBRS. While we support the inclusion of
the non-bridged Keys in the CBRS, we suggest that the bridged
Keys be treated as follows:

North Key Largo

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has supported the
development of a Congressionally funded Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for North Key Largo. DCA administered the federal funding
for the HCP, which was furthered to support the purposes of the
Endangered Species Act, through cooperation of developers,
government officials and conservationists. I suggest close
coordination between DOI, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and DCA relative to the HCP and proposed CBRS Unit FL-35.

The HCP's first recommendation is for public acquisition of
the area. This recommendation is complemented by the State in
that North Key Largo is number one on the State's Conservation
and Recreational Land's acquisition list. If acquisition does
not occur, the HCP suggests that development be confined to
several nodes. The DCA is assisting Monroe County in the prep-
paration of an application for an Areawide DRI, which would be
consistent with the HCP. Although an application was not
submitted prior to January 1, 1987, DCA supports exclusion of the
proposed development nodes from the CBRS but only if the County
continues to pursue the goals of the HCP. The remaining areas
should be included in the CBRS. DOI should ascertain the status
of the HCP prior to submitting a final report to Congress.

Other Bridged Keys

The Florida Keys, due to their unique geography and low
elevation, are extremely vulnerable to hurricane and other storm

Governor Bob Martine7.
I July 6, 1987
Page Four

Idamage. in addition, the Keys support a variety of unique and
important natural resources which would benefit from additional
protection and management. However, the remaining proposed
Iadditions for the Florida Keys must be carefully re-evaluated
prior to their submittal to Congress to insure that those areas
are consistent with DOI guidelines. It has been determined that
Ia number of significant errors exist on the proposed CBRS maps.
These errors have caused concern and confusion among reviewing
agencies and other interested parties. Current aerial photo-
* graphs should be utilized to determine those areas which contain
* existing development and infrastructure. Our staff will be
available for consultation in this regard, if needed.

DCA and Monroe County have been involved in a protracted
I comprehensive planning process in the Florida Keys during the
past three years. During this period, the issue of accurate land
Iuse maps was a cause of continuing controversy. Therefore, I
cannot support inclusion of the other bridged Keys until the
maps are corrected.

I Ft. Georae Island

DCA will not address the appropriateness of including
* portions of Ft. George Island in the CBRS. The Office of the
* Governor should prepare the official state position on Ft. George
island.

JSanta Rosa Island Authority

Both DCA and DOI have received specific information related
to the oriole Beach quadrangle map segment of the proposed CBRS
Unit FL-98. Given this information, I recognize that the Santa
Rosa Island Authority has sufficiently demonstrated that the
I proposed boundary was incorrectly drawn. I believe that the
specific area shown with existing water and sewer lines and
residences does not meet the DOI's criteria for inclusion in the
ECBRS and therefore it should be excluded from the CBRS.

North Hutchinson island (P1O)

The proposed expansion of the CBRS Unit PlO is not warranted.
PlO was excluded when Congress approved CRBS in 1982. It has not
become undeveloped in the ensuing years. Consequently, I see no
I reason or justification for including PlO now.

Governor Bob Martinez
I July 6, 1987
Page Five

I ~~County Road 510 approximately bisects the proposed expansion
of PlO. Based upon existing infrastructure and development
Idensity, the proposed PlO areas south of County Road 510 do not
merit inclusion into the CBRS.

The area north of County Road 510 is extensively developed
Ifor agricultural purposes and contains significant agricultural-
related improvements. Therefore, the Department supports
continued federal assistance for this tract.

ICity of Cedar Key

Unit P25 is the only unit in Florida whose proposed
expansions include some incorporated areas currently in
residential, commercial, office, or institutional land uses and
contain a full complement of public infrastructure. Many of
Ithese improvements have been in existence many years before CBRA
was enacted. I propose that these developed areas both within
and outside the municipal boundary of Cedar Key should be removed
Ifrom the proposed CBRA expansion.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FINAL REPORT

U DCA staff has many times had to contend with the ambiguity
ofthe availability of federal funds for projects that are
not located within but would serve a CBRS unit. DCA
I ~~recommends that guidelines be developed clarifying the
position that federal funds shall be restricted for
facilities located outside a CBRS unit whose direct purpose
is to service a CBRS unit. At a minimum these guidelines
should note that infrastructure intended to solve existing
problems, consistent with the purpose of CBRA, should
* ~~continue to receive federal financial assistance.

o DCA recommends that Section 6(a)(3) of CBRA be retained.
This provision assures that existing essential links to a
larger system or network be eligible for federal funds for
their repair, replacement, or maintenance. Section
6(a)(6)(F) which allows for continued funding of the above
requires that the work be consistent with the purposes of
I ~~CBRA. This language would have the potential of denying
federal funds for the maintenance, repair, or reconstruction
of some existing roads. It is important that the state be

allowed to maintain the necessary links to existing barrier

Governor Bob Martinez
July 6, 1987
Page Six

island developments without the condition contained within
Section 6(a)(6)(F) of CBRA.

o DOI's March 1987 Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier
Resources System Executive Summary concludes with a
recommendation that the federal government study
"alternative guidelines on which to base decisions
concerning redevelopment of coastal barriers following major
storms or hurricanes." DCA endorses this proposal because
such areas involve special circumstances which warrant
careful consideration.

The Department of Community Affairs appreciates the
opportunity to comment on these proposals and recommends your
support of the U.S. Department of Interior's efforts to expand
the Coastal Barrier Resources System subject to the comments,
conditions, and exceptions noted in this letter. This program is
a strong affirmation of sound fiscal and resource management.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/jcp

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOM
3BoB MARTINEZ

August 6, 1987

The Honorable Donald Hodel
Secretary of the Interior
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Mr. Hodel: ,um

I am happy to respond to your request for a review of the U.S.
Department of the Interior's (DOI) proposed recommendations to
Congress on revisions to the coastal barrier resource system (CBRS)
established by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). The CBRS
inventory and executive summary have been reviewed by local,
regional, and state officials and by many of Florida's citizens. To
facilitate our review I requested the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), in cooperation with your department, to hold five public
workshops throughout Florida. We appreciate Ms. Barbara Wyman, Mr.
Frank McGilvrey, and Dr. Juergen Rheinhardt of DOI attending our
workshops.

The State of Florida supports the concept of CBRA. We have reviewed
the DOI recommended revisions to the CBRS and, with some exceptions,.
find them to be consistent with the intent of CBRA and Florida laws
and policies which we must implement. Florida's State Comprehensive
Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes) contains policies that seek to
minimize the loss of human life, protect natural resources, and
reduce wasteful public expenditures. The State has also adopted a
policy of avoiding the expenditure-of state funds in high hazard
coastal areas, including CBRS areas, and the building of bridges to
currently unbridged islands (Section 380.27, Florida Statutes, and
Executive Order 81-105). My comments on the proposed additions to
the CBRS are based upon information obtained during the review period
and a review of state agency comments, which are being sent to you
under separate cover.

DOI proposes to include in the CBRS aquatic habitat associated with
currently designated CBRS areas. Generally I support this
recommendation since Florida has traditionally recognized the value
of these natural resources and has established by statute a number of
programs designed to protect them, including the aquatic preserve
program, administered by the Department of Natural Resources. The
DOI proposal also includes aquatic habitats near or in developed
areas. I recommend that existing roads, bridges, and causeways

AIr2

' Mr. Donald Hodel
I Page Two

I through CBRS units and connecting developed areas that are currently
not in the CBRS be excluded from the system so that we do not
Iinadvertently limit our ability to provide transportation services
to people living in non-CBRS areas now or in the future. Florida
made a similar recommendation to your department in its 1985
I comments on your proposal.

The development of regional impact (DRI) process involves
I omprehensive planning and thorough state and regional review of
developments which, due to their character? magnitude,, or location,,
would have a substantial effect on the citizens of more than one
I county. The State encourages developers of large projects to
utilize the DRI process since it is designed to ensure both that
adequate public facilities are available at the time development
occurs and that protection of sensitive environmental resources is
I provided. Projects which go through the DRI process typically
result in developments which exhibit superior planning and
accommodation of environmental values. In preparing master plans
I for these areas, developers are required to consider as part of
their design the impact of coastal storms and floods and to mitigate
their effects. I recommend that areas subject to an approved DRI
development order be excluded from CBRA. DOI should exclude areas
I which, although presently undeveloped, are as of January 1, 1987
part of a phased, comprehensive master DRI order, are included in'a
pre-development agreement as a condition precedent to DRI review, or
I are included in a pending Application for Development Approval for a
DRI. DCA would be glad to assist in the documentation of such
projects. This recommendation is consistent with the State's intent
Uas expressed to DOI by letter in 1985.

The western boundary of the proposed CBRS Unit FL-98 in Santa Rosa
Island includes a developed area and a 60 acre parcel in the Range
Point area that, according to the Santa 'Rosa Island Authority, has
* sewer and water infrastructure available as a result of the recent
sale of revenue bonds. The authority asserts that a portion of the
Edebt was to be paid from fees charged to developers of a planned
destination resort in the area. I recommend that this area, not
including approximately 4,000 feet of beach frontage, be excluded
from the proposed CBRS unit.

IDOI's proposed additions to CBRS Unit PlO, North Hutchinson island,
were excluded by Congress in 1982 and remain developed areas. The
I only area in the proposed additions that should be added to CBRS
Unit PlO includes the wetlands south of County Road 51 0. All other
areas in the proposed additions meet DOI criteria for exclusion,,
I incudingthe availability of infrastructure, urban development
densities, agricultural improvements, or the existence of other
development such as roads, stormwater systems, and water supply.

Mr. Donald Hodel
Page Three

The Florida Keys have been designated by the state legislature an
area of critical state concern (ACSC) since 1979. A principal
objective of the designation is to protect the Keys' unique andy
fragile natural resources. Current land use maps have recently been
prepared and adopted in connection with Monroe County's
comprehensive plan. I recommend that before CBRS designations are
made on the bridged keys, DOI work with DCA and the Florida DOT and
examine these current land use mapsin order to determine which
areas may be proposed for inclusion. U.S. Highway 1 in the Keys is
an important transportation corridor to both national and state
interests, it should be excluded from the proposed additions to the
system. I concur with the DOI proposal to designate unbridged keys
and associated aquatic habitats as part of the CBRS.

DOI's proposed additions to CBRS Unit P25, Cedar Key, include areas
currently in residential, commercial, or institutional land uses
which contain a full complement of public infrastructure. I suggest
that these developed areas, both within and outside of the municipal
boundary of the City of Cedar Key, be excluded from the proposed
addition~ to the existing CBRS unit.

DOI's proposed addition to the CBRS, FL-63, Big Marco Pass, includes
areas containing substantial development. The area includes four
high rise structures, numerous residential and commercial buildings,
and a full complement of public infrastructure. It appears from
recent aerial photographs that these areas were mistakenly included
in the proposed CBRS unit. I recommend that the developed areas be
excluded from the proposed FL-63.

The DOI draft report to Congress recommends the repeal of Section
6(a)(3) of CBRA. This section addresses the use of federal funds
for the repair, reconstruction, replacement, or maintenance of
essential links in the highway network inside CBRS units. I
recommend that this section of the Act not be repealed. Your
recommendation that the above type of projects be subject to Section
6(a)(6)(F) would require additional project review and
consultation. The language of this proposed change could
potentially eliminate federal funding of routine maintenance,
repair, or reconstruction of some existing roads. This would create
problems for residents in existing developments.

The draft report also recommends that Section 6(a)(2) of CBRA be
amended by adding the following language: "Maintenance of existing
channel improvements and related structures, such as jetties, and
including the disposal of dredged material related to such
improvements, will be performed in a manner consistent with the
purposes of CBRA." This proposed new language needs to be clarified
to allow for the deposition of sand dredged from inlets and channels
on state beaches when agreed to by the State and the Corps of
Engineers. The amended section should not preclude nonstructural
beach nourishment projects.

Mr. Donald F al
Page Four

DOI proposes o eliminate the requirement in CBRA that federal
agencies cer .fy to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that
they have col )lied with CBRA in their funding decisions. We believe
that some meaas of oversight of federal agency actions relative to
the program is necessary to insure compliance. OMB seems to be an
appropriate oversight agency if the reduction of governmental costs
and waste is an objective.

I stress that the State of Florida is committed to the preservation
of coastal barriers, estuaries, and wetlands. We have demonstrated
this commitment through extensive programs for land acquisition and
regulation of development in these areas and by aggressive land
acquisitions in the coastal zone. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act
provides us with another opportunity to work with federal agencies
to minimize the loss of human life, protect vital natural resources,
and reduce the wasteful expenditures for public infrastructure
development. I encourage you to strengthen and expand the coastal
barrier resources system consistent with these comments so that
these resources are not lost.

I sincerely hope that the revisions to the CBRS, which began in
1985, can be quickly and finally resolved so that the citizens of
Florida can prepare and implement plans based upon some degree of
certainty.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft executive summary
and coastal barrier resources system inventory. My staff will be
happy to work with you in clarifying my comments on DOI's proposed
CBRA revisions.

I Governor

BM/wkm
Enclosures

cc: Florida Congressional Delegation
Florida Cabinet Members
Tom Pelham
Tom Gardner
Dale Twachtmann
Colonel Robert Brantly
Kaye Henderson
Jeb Bush
Gregory Coler
George Percy

I~~~~ ST A TE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

I 2571 EX EC UTIV E CE NTE R CI RC LE, EAST 9 TALLA HASS EE, FLOR IDA 3 2 399

8OB MARTINEZ March 2,1988 THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor -Secretary
IMEMORAN DUM

TO: Walt Kalb
* ~~~Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham
* ~~~Secretary

SUBJECT: Supplemental Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
on proposed changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the
I supplemental legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS)
concerning the proposed changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources
System (CBRS). In response to the draft Report to Congress
I executive summary (March 1987) and maps delineating the proposed
additions and deletions to CBRS, DCA has previously provided
comments on the proposal in a letter to Governor Martinez on July
6, 1987. Those comments are still applicable. We will therefore
K not address specific changes to the CBRS maps or readdress those
issues which were covered in the previous letter, but will limit
our comments to those issues raised in the LEIS.

II. Definitions of Undeveloved Coastal Barriers

DCA is in agreement that the coastal barrier definition
should be expanded as outlined in the LEIS to include those
features which otherwise meet the criteria as functional barrier
islands. This includes consolidated depositional features
I(cemented carbonate islands), deposits of silt and clay stabilized
by mangrove vegetation, and shorelines typified by fringing
mangroves and offshore coral reefs. It is evident that such
geological features conform with the findings and purpose of
Section 2 of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA). Inclusion
of these areas will act to minimize damage to fish, wildlife and
other natural resources , the loss of human life and wasteful
I expenditure of public funds.

DCA also agrees that associated aquatic habitat and secondary
I barriers should be included within the CBRS definition. We feel
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT o HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

I ~~~~~AI3

IMemorandum
March 22, 1988
Page Two

that coastal barriers should be addressed as an interrelated
I system, which includes secondary barriers and the wetlands and
estuarine areas landward of the primary barrier.

II. Impacts to the Natural and Socioeconomic Environment

I ~~A more thorough evaluation of the impacts of the removal of
the availability of federal flood insurance is warranted. The
Iresponse of the insurance industry should be investigated.
Alternative private insurance programs mentioned in the text
should be evaluated.

Additional guidance to the states is needed on how the
I federal government interprets funding prohibitions for improve-
ments outside of a CBRS unit but which will impact a CBRS unit.
I Cooperation and coordination of state and local governments would
be furthered by a clearer understanding of how various public
infrastructure projects will be affected by the CBRS designation.

The report did not adequately cover management actions of
state and local governments and how CBRA is coordinated within the
Coastal Management Programs of the affected states. In addition,
Ithe ability and willingness of state and local governments to
control development on barrier islands should be analyzed further.

A minor technical error was noted in the document. The
I report referred to reef limestone found in the Upper Florida Keys
as consisting of both Key Largo limestone and Miami oolitic
limestone. Actually, Key Largo limestone (reef limestone) is
Ifound in the upper Keys, while Miami oolite (cemented granular
limestone) is the surficial geological formation in the lower
Keys.

I ~~References should be provided which support statements
concerning development impacts on the integrity of limestone
Iformations in the Florida Keys. While such impacts may occur on
a limited basis, it does not appear that development has directly
contributed to the undermining of this geological feature. The
situation referenced in Central Florida may not be analogous to
Ithat in the Florida Keys.

The Department of Community Affairs appreciates the oppor-
Itunity to comment on the LEIS and recommends support of the U.S.
Department of Interior's efforts to expand the Coastal Barrier
Resources System subject to the comments noted in this and our
previous correspondence. This program is a strong affirmation of
sound fiscal and resource management.

TGP/gsp

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 57 1 EXEC UT IVE C ENT ER C I RCL E, EAST 0 TA L LA HASSE EE, FLO RI DA 3 239 9

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
IGovernor Secretary

Dear Local Planning Official:

I I~~n 1982 Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. This act precludes certain
federal subsides to coastal development, including flood
I insurance, in areas designated by Congress as undeveloped. The
act also requires the U.S. Department of the Interior to study
possible additions to or deletions from the list of designated
1 undeveloped areas and reports their findings to Congress.
in 1985 the Department of the Interior released draft maps
Iof the additions the Department of the Interior would propose to
Congress. This proposal has been refined as a result of the
Department of Interior's review of the public comments in 1985.

I I~~ am sending you a copy of the most recent maps and
executive summary that the Department of the Interior has
distributed to the Governor's Office, the Department of Community
Affairs, and to each coastal county commission. The release of
these documents on March 25, 1987 initiated the latest 90 day
I public comment period. This period will close on June 24, 1987.

During the week of May 11 to May 15, the Department of
Community Affairs will be hosting a series of public workshops
around the state. One under secretary and two staff members of
I ~the Department of the Interior will be assisting the Department
of Community Affairs in these workshops to give the public an
opportunity to address its concerns about the Coastal Barrier
Resources System revisions. The workshops will be held in
Panama City, Jacksonville, Vero, Beach, Fort Myers, and Plantation
Key. The date, time, and location of each workshop are listed on
* ~a separate sheet enclosed with this letter.

I ~~EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT s RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

I ~~~~~AI'

I Local Planning official

Page Two

The Department of Community Affairs is also interested in
soliciting comments to assist in formulating the Governor's
response to these proposals. If you have any comments, send them
to the Department of the Interior and send a copy to the
Department of Community Affairs.

I ~~~~~~~~~~Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/csw

I Attachffient

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
I Governor Seretary

IMEMORANDUM

TO: George Meier, Office of Planning and Budgeting

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Intergovernment Project Review:
Heckscher Drive (S.R. 105)
Work Program Item Number: 2114802, 2114803, & 2118092
State Project Number: 72250-1542, 72260-1534 & 74130-1518
Federal-Aid Project Number: F-488-1 (6) Duval & Nassau
County, Florida

The staff of the Department of Community Affairs has re-
viewed the Advance Notification on the Heckscher Drive project,
and finds the proposed project to be inconsistent with existing
federal regulations. In addition, we believe that the project is
inconsistent with Executive Order 81-105 on coastal barriers.
Also, in the future, it will have to be consistent with the City
of Jacksonville and Nassau County Comprehensive Plans. The
Heckscher Drive project, an expansion of an existing roadway, is
inconsistent with federal regulations because its violates the
Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA). This law prohibits federal
financial assistance in areas designated as units within the
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). The attached map
identified as Appendix "A" outlines the portion of the project
that lies within CBRS unit P02 (identified as Appendix "B").

The restrictions on federal expenditures within CBRS units
are imposed by Section 5 of CBRS. Section 5 prohibits new expendi-
tures for highway projects within the boundary of a designated
unit or for bridges and causeways leading directly to and extend-
ing into such units. A new federal expenditure is one which has
no legally binding commitment for payment before October 18,
1982.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

AIS

George Meier

I Page Two

U ~~Section 6 of CBRA allows exceptions for certain actions but
I not for expansion of existing publicly owned roads. Since the
Heckscher Drive project, is an expansion it does not comply with
CBRA's exception procedures.

The Heckscher Drive Project, moreover, is inconsistent with
both the Coastal Barrier Executive Order 81-105 and its August
1986 update. The Executive order first states that,

* ~~State funds and federal grants for coastal
barrier projects shall not be used to subsidize
growth in hazardous coastal barrier areas.

I ~~In 1986 the update established the following, among several
other measures:

The state should not pay to expand infras-
-tructure.... in any designated unit of the
Federal Coastal Barrier System.

1 ... ~agency heads shall not permit payment by
the state for new or expanded infrastructure
projects ... in Federal Emergency Management
agency designated V Zones, in areas damaged by
coastal storms, or at inlets without struc-
tural controls .... exceptions can be made
I ~~where a crucial need is found to alleviate
dangerously overcrowded roads.

I Heckscher Drive extends through each of these types of areas.
The Executive Order policies remain in effect until local govern-
mnents implement plans, programs, and regulations that conform to
Nor exceed the above stated measures.

one such plan is the local government comprehensive plan.
IThe City of Jacksonville and Nassau County will be required to
submit by April 1, 1990 and May 1, 1990, respectively, a
comprehensive plan to include a coastal management element. The
I coastal management elements shall designate coastal high hazard
areas. These areas, once designated will not be eligible for
state funds to expand infrastructure unless the expansion is
consistent with the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Section
I 380.27(2), Florida Statutes. The proposed coastal high hazard
areas for the City of Jacksonville are outlined in blue on the

George Meier

Page Three

draft map identified as Appendix "C". The Heckscher Drive
Project extends throughout the coastal high hazard area. Once
the designation is adopted under the revised comprehensive plan,
it is conceivable that the Heckscher Drive Project would be in
violation of section 380.27 (2), Florida Statutes.

This agency therefore finds that the proposed Heckscher
Drive expansion is inconsistent with federal laws and state
policy. Please advise my staff if any assistance or clarifi-
cation is needed.

TGP/csw

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST � TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ November 8, 1987 THOMAS G. PELHAM
I GCoror Secretary

MEMORANDUM

TO: George Meier, Director of Intergovernmental Coordination
Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Process
and the Coastal Zone Management Process
FL 8708200251C, FL 8708200283C,
FL 8708200284C, and FL 8708200285C
Federally funded capital improvement proposals
in St. Johns County

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the
four federally-funded, capital improvement proposals to serve
Anastasia Island and vicinity. We are consolidating our review of
the proposals since all of the projects are located in the same
general area. Although the proposals show the location of each of
the facilities, the service area boundary for each was not explic-
itly delineated. Because the service areas were not defined, it
is not possible to determine whether the proposals are in accor-
dance with the p'rograms and polices which the DCA must implement.
Further information should therefore be required before the Inter-
governmental Coordination process is completed.

In the review of the information that was provided, we have
identified the following concerns which must be addressed during
the review of these proposals.

The St. Johns County public facilities officials have
indicated that the service area for at least two of the projects
would include Anastasia Island and the area south to the Flagler
County line. That boundary contains coastal high hazard areas and

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A1t

Memorandum
November 8, 1987
Page Two

Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) Unit, P05A, south of the
Matanzas Inlet. The inclusion of a CBRS unit in the proposed
service area would be a violation of the intent of CBRA. At a
minimum, Federal funds would not be available for water or sewage
line extensions through or hookups within a CBRS unit. In addi-
tion, if improvements proposed for the plant itself are expressly
designed to service a CBRS unit, funding may be restricted for that
as well. Therefore, information on the capacity and service area
is extremely important when considering these proposals. A map of
the nearby and overlapping CBRS units accompanies this memorandum.

In regard to the water transmission main improvement (SAI
#FL8708200283C), additional concerns have been raised. First,
more information is needed concerning the subaqueaous crossing of
Matanzas River. Such a project could have serious environmental
consequences. More detailed plans and an environmental assessment
are needed before this part of the proposal is conceptually
approved. Also, the location and depth of the three new water
wells as well as information concerning impacts of the proposed
withdrawal on the existing water supply need to be provided before
an adequate review can be completed.

It is noted that no State funds have been identified in the
application under proposed funding. Under Executive Order 81-105,
state funds cannot, except for certain circumstances, be expended
for the purpose of increasing the capacity of infrastructure in
coastal high hazard areas. This policy is in effect until local
governments adopt and implement a Comprehensive Plan which meets
the requirements of Chapter 163 Florida Statutes (F.S.), and
Chapter 9J-5 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). According to
163.3178(1) F.S.: "it is the intent of the Legislature that local
government comprehensive plans ... limit public expenditures in
areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster."
Pursuant to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the compre-
hensive plans must be revised according to special criteria for
each constituent element. In several elements is an explicit
requirement to address how a local government will limit public
expenditures that subsidize development in coastal high hazard
areas, including 9J-5.012(3)(b)5, 9J-5.012(3)(b)6, and 9J-
5.016(3) (b)2, F.A.C. The Federal government should be aware that
they are being asked to fund a project which may clearly in the
future conflict with existing state policies.

I recommend that all the reviewing agencies be provided with
a service area map of all four proposals which clearly indicates

I Memorandum
November 8, 1987
Page Three

coastal high hazard areas before the Intergovernmental Coordina-
I tion Unit compiles the intergovernmental review. This way we will
be able to determine definitively whether the proposals are in
accordance with existing policies and consistent with the Florida
I Coastal Management Program. My staff is available, meanwhile, for
any other clarification.

I TGP/gs s

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ March 11, 1988 THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor Secretary
MEMORANDUM

TO: Rick Smith
Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Anastasia Island Water and Sewer Improvements
(SAI#'s FL8708200251C and FL8708200283C)

The Department has further reviewed the water and sewer
system improvements proposed for Anastasia Island (SAI#'s
FL87O8200251C and FL8708200283C) in St. Johns- County. After the
meeting of December 22, 1987, DCA had two remaining concerns. The
first is the relation of the service area boundaries for the
proposed facilities to the existing Coastal Barriers Resources
System (CBRS) unit PO5A. The other is the coordination of the
facilities improvements with the development of a local compre-
hensive plan for the county, as required by Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes (F.S.).

Specific service area boundary maps were provided by
representatives of St. Johns County for both projects. It is
apparent that the service area for the sewage treatment system
does not include CBRS unit PO5A. The service area for the potable
water system, however, does include a portion of this CBRS unit,
south of the Summer Haven area. The increase in the capacity of
the water system may encourage development in the CBRS unit by
making potable water readily available. The Coastal Barriers
Resources Act (CBRA) prohibits federal financial assistance for
expansion of infrastructure within the CBRS.

We are therefore concerned that the proposed water system
improvements may be in conflict with CBRA. We suggest that a
finding by the Department of the Interior be requested as to the
applicability of the CBRA funding prohibitions to this project.
The proposal could possibly be made consistent with the provisions
of CBRA through a stipulation that no additional water capacity be
supplied to the CBRS unit. A prohibition of new water hookups in
CBRS unit PO5A is one method which would accomplish this.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Memorandum
March 11, 1988
Page Two

In regard to our second concern, we have reviewed the draft
Coastal Management Element for St. Johns County submitted on
November 20, 1987 in fulfillment of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act Program contract #87-LP-03-04-65-01-
172. The element contains data and analysis and goals, objectives
and policies which, if adopted, will guide growth and development
in the unincorporated portions of Anastasia Island and the coastal
area of St. Johns County. There are -statements within the text of
the element and in the objectives and policies that appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 163, F.S. and its
implementing Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).

According to Chapter 163.3177(6)(g), and 163.3178(1) and
(2)(h)., F.S., the Coastal Management Element must set forth
policies which designate high hazard coastal areas and which limit
public expenditures that subsidize development in those areas. In
addition, specific policies in Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., require the
local government to address limitations of public expenditures
within and direct population concentration away from coastal high
hazard areas, including 9J-5.012(3)(b)5. and 6., 9J-5.012(3)(c)7.,
and 9J-5.016(3)(b)2., F.A.C.

Statements within the draft Conservation/Coastal Management
Element indicate that increased densities are anticipated in high
hazard areas, and will be serviced by expanded water and sewer
systems. For example, in the discussion of environmental
suitability and constraints on development, it is stated that
"areas with municipal wastewater utility systems can support much
higher densities of development than areas without such systems"
(p. 120). In addition, for the coastal barrier island along
Vilano, St. Augustine and Crescent Beach, it is stated that
primary land uses will be "medium to high density residential"
(page 152). Sewage system improvements will be required to
facilitate this new development (page 224).

The policies proposed support high density development
through infrastructure improvements:

"13.07.01 Sewer and water system extensions shall be used to
guide and control the location and density of development
through provision of these services."

"13.02.03 All future high-density developments in FEMA
identified 100-year flood hazard areas should be serviced by
a sewer system and treatment plants designed to resist
inundation by a 100-year storm."

There are no policies which direct population concentrations
away from high hazard areas or limit public expenditures which
subsidize development in high hazard areas. Without such
policies, the proposed facility improvements will encourage and

I Memorandum
March 11, 1988
Page Three

I subsidize growth in sensitive coastal environments subject to
natural disaster.

We recommend the county's facilities planners workc closely
I with those involved in the preparation of the comprehensive plan.
As written, the draft Coastal Management Element has not addressed
I some important issues concerning infrastructure and development in
coastal high hazard areas as required in Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. The
proposed facilities improvements will render the resolution of
E those issues much more difficult in the future. Although the
comprehensive plan is not due to be submitted until March 1990,
it is important that close coordination be maintained among all
levels of the planning process to avoid future conflicts.

in summary, we have found that the proposed water system
improvements will impact an existing CBRS unit, and therefore may
I not be eligible for federal financial assistance. Any questions
regardi~ng the applicability of the CBRA prohibitions should be
resolved through the Office of the Solicitor General of the United
I States, Department of the Interior. The proposal should not be
submitted to the Farmers Rome Administration until this issue is
resolved. We also conclude that there are potential conflicts
between the proposed improvements and issues regarding development
I within high hazard areas outlined in Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule
93-5, F.A.C. Although these provisions cannot be implemented
until the adoption of a comprehensive plan by the county, we are
I taking this opportunity to point out potential problems which must
be addressed while a comprehensive plan is being formulated. As
always, we encourage communication between the county and DCA on
this and any other issue involved with comprehensive planning.

I TGP/gsp

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVEo TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ April 4, 1988 THOMAS C. PELHAM
Gower Secetary

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mary Tanner
State Planning & Development Clearing House
Executive Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Advance Notification: Replacement and Expansion of
SR 789 Bridge Over Longboat Pass; State Project Number
13080-3516, Work Program Number 1115354, Federal Aid
Project Number BRM-0951-(7), Manatee County, Florida,
SAI # FL8803070994C

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the
proposed replacement and expansion of State Road 789/Longboat Pass
Bridge, Manatee County, FL. We find the project not in accordance
with the State's Coastal Infrastructure Policy pursuant to the
Coastal Barrier Executive Order 81-105 as updated by the August 8,
1986 directive. This directive states that the State of Florida
should not pay to expand infrastructure or economic development in
any designated unit of the Federal Coastal Barriers Resource
System. The proposed bridge replacement is located entirely
within Coastal Barriers Resource System unit P23 (map attached).
Improvement of this bridge facility would clearly be contradictory
with the Coastal Barrier Executive Order.

Proposed Federal funding for this project also appears to be
subject to the prohibitions of Section 5 of the Coastal Barriers
Resource Act. The Florida Department of Transportation should
immediately consult with the U.S. Department of Transportation and
the U.S. Department of Interior to determine the eligibility of
this project for federal funding.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
My staff is available for further clarification.

TGP/gkp

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

......A ..tELw r e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I -~ ..L, ,/

It ana ~~~ P A LE LOLA Fcj L RAD 1
*~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
k PAET
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A.

. ........

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O.

Repowrt to Congress, on the, Coastal Bonier Resourcess Systemn
OWUIU orY3 "M mm QUADRANGOLE 1 bs leuosge (.0.4FLS 344)
BRADENTON BEACH J-- un n i
L~~~~~~~~~~~10 USMD sopd. swmVa ubwgvk
31~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e" 0v *W us go" Sw* O rWIrp.D M40
a I au3 AM hU.S. D Um uof US Wftdw

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE� TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
I~ July 27, 1988 Secretary

MEMORAN DUM

TO: Paul Johnson, Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment: octawhatchee Bay
Bridge

Staff within the Department has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed Choctawhatchee Bay
Bridge, and offer the following comments for your consideration.

The area which will be impacted by the construction of the
bridge is within the study area of the Northwest Florida Coast
Resource Planning and Management Committee (NFCRPMC), which was
created pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes (F.S.). A
resource management plan (RMP) was prepared for this area and
approved by the Governor and Cabinet on May 21, 1985. A new
bridge across Choctawhatchee Bay was considered by the NFCRPMC and
is addressed in the RMP. The DEA appears to indicate that the
proposed bridge is consistent with the RMP (p. 4-8, 5-4). It must
be noted, however, that the RMP only called for a transportation
study to determine the potential need for such a bridge. The plan
also lists some possible benefits of a new bridge. The bridge can
not be considered consistent with the RMP, at this time, for the
plan did not specifically include the bridge in its recommen-
dations. Therefore, the implication on p. 4-8 that the bridge is
exempt from the provisions of the Coastal Barrier Executive Order
and subsequent directives is incorrect.

It is important to note that the Resource Plan was designed
to implement a comprehensive planning approach for the area.
While the potential alternative of a new bridge has been actively
pursued, other important issues identified in the RMP have not yet
been addressed. The first step in formulating a comprehensive
strategy for the area is for Okaloosa and Walton Counties to
establish future land use densities for the area by amending their

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

* ~~AMB

IMemorandum
July 27, 1988
Page Two

I local comprehensive plans. in doing this, requirements of Chapter
163, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
U(F.A.C.) must be considered, for the comprehensive plans which are
required to be submitted by February and March of 1990 must meet
the minimum requirements contained therein.

in this regard, it is noted that there is a large part of
the study area south of Choctawhatchee Bay which is within the
coastal high hazard area and the hurricane vulnerability zone.
I Specific requirements in Chapter 163, P.S., and 9J-5, F.A.C., call
for the direction of population concentrations away from high
hazard areas and the limitation of public expenditures which
I subsidize growth in high hazard areas. There is no doubt that a
new bridge will encourage growth in the area, some of which will
occur in the high hazard zone. It appears that the "increased
E high density development" (p.2-1), which is given as the primary
justification for a new bridge, is inappropriate for much of this
area. Without land use controls to direct growth, the new bridge
may exacerbate problems that the Growth Management legislation was
E designed to address. The DEA is deficient in that it bases its
population projections only on past trends, and does not take into
consideration the possible restrictions on growth in this area
I mandated by the minimum criteria for local comprehensive planning
in Chapter 163, P.S., and 9J-5, F.A.C. We therefore question some
of the "rapid growth" projections which appear to have accounted
for the elevation of the White Pt. Bridge alternative from not
I being recommended in the original Fort Walton Beach Urban Area
Transportation Study (FWBUATS) to the preferred alternative of the
present study. Additional analysis of the impacts on future land
uses in the Moreno Point area due to the construction of a new
transportation corridor is necessary. The statement "additional
growth generated by the preferred alternative remains an enigma"
(p. 5-4) ignores one of the most critical questions concerning
this project. -

Further information is also requested as to the reasons why
I the Mary Esther and Hollywood bridge alternatives were rejected in
favor of the White Pt. bridge alternative. In addition, no
detailed hurricane evacuation data was presented to justify the
need for a new evacuation corridor. Although existing bridges are
identified as critical links in the evacuation network, it may be
that improvements to those existing bridges could alleviate the
problem without the need for a new bridge.

* ~~it must also be noted that much of the area south of
Choctawhatchee Bay is within the Federally designated Coastal
IBarriers Resources System (CBRS) unit P32. Federal funding is
prohibited within this area. This places the burden of providing
funding for the bridge on the State, local government and private

I Memorandum
July 27, 1988
Page Three

I developers. The CBRS designation also raises serious questions
Econcerning future funding of other infrastructure needs such as
.potable water and sewer systems improvements. The use of the
bridge as a corridor for water and sewer lines is listed as a
major justification for the project. obviously, federal funding
I would not be available to support infrastructure improvements
within the CBRS unit. There is a larger question, however, of
whether sewer and water lines, paid for at local expense, would be
Ieligible to tie into an existing system which had been previously
funded by federal subsidies. Further expansion of such utilities,
using federal funds, would also be called into question. Such
issues need to be investigated before this project goes forward.

I ~~The purpose of the Coastal Barrier Executive Order (81-105)
and the subsequent August 1986 directive was to protect life and
Eproperty by not encouraging development in high hazard barrier
island areas. In addition, it seeks to protect the investment of
public funds in infrastructure subject to destruction from coastal
storms. The proposed project appears to require a large public
I commitment of funds which could encourage development within a
high hazard area and where there presently is no comprehensive
plan in place to manage the new growth. The bridge should be
considered only as a part of a comprehensive planning strategy and
should not be used to guide growth into a sensitive coastal area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
if you have further questions, please contact my office or George
Schmahl in the Bureau of Local Planning at 488-9210.
E GS/Ms

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST � TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
ICowor Secretary

I MEMORANDUM

T O: Walt Kolb, Office of the Governor

FROM: George Schmahl

RE: Coastal Barrier Resources System in the Florida Keys

DATE: August 7, 1987

The following is a list of site specific comments regarding
the proposed revisions to the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) in the Florida Keys (Volume 14, maps 34-42). The purpose
is to provide information about the level of development within
and adjacent to proposed CBRS units so that the maps may be
corrected to accurately reflect existing conditions. This
information was compiled through analysis of recent (1985) aerial
photographs and ground truthing by our Keys Field Office staff.
These comments are based solely on the presence or absence of
existing development as per our interpretation of DOI criteria
(Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 42, 3/4/85, p. 8700).

Attached tb this memorandum are copies of the applicable
CBRS maps. Areas which have been addressed in the comments have
been identified by cross-hatching on the attached maps for
reference.

Map # Unit # Comments

34 FL-35 The exclusion of the two small islands
in the Northern section of the unit
(Lindeman Key and island north of Middle
Creek) does not appear justified unless
they are State or Federally owned. These
are undeveloped, mangrove islands which
serve as valuable bird and marine
habitat.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

AI'3

35 FL-35 The excluded area oceanside of SR 905 at
Point Elizabeth is undeveloped. The
areas bay-side of SR905 near Point Mary
(Sections 29 and 30) are also
undeveloped. There is a limestome
mining operation in this vicinity, but
no buildings or infrastructure.

36 FL-35 The area oceanside of USi in section 11
and 12 (R39E), north of "Anglers Park"
(area beneath the "EY" of "KEY LARGO" on
map) is an undeveloped, privately owned
tropical hardwood hammock.

37 FL-35 The small triangular area oceanside of
US 1 and South of "Newport" (section 28) is
a developed region comprised of several
subdivisions (Holiday Homesites, Silver
Lake, Ocean Acres) and does not meet the
DOI criteria for inclusion.

37 FL-37 The area bayside of US 1 (section 7,
R39E) on which the Sheraton Resort is
located does not meet the DOI criteria
for inclusion. Other undeveloped areas
in this vicinity are appropriately in-
cluded.

38 FL-38 The Hammer Point area is well developed
and does not meet the DOI criteria for
inclusion.

38 FL-39 The area bayside of U.S. 1, North of
"San Pedro Ch." on Plantation Key is a
developed area (school) which does not
meet the DOI criteria for inclusion.

38 FL-40- There is a moderate amount of
development in the Plantation Point area
(oceanside of U.S. 1). This line should
be redrawn to include only the
undeveloped areas.

38 FL-40 Windley Key Quarries (bayside of U.S. 1,
west of Coast Guard Station) is a
disturbed area which is being purchased
by the State of Florida for a park site.

If state ownership is verified, this
area should not be included in CBRS to
allow development of park facilities.
39 FL-45 FL-45 should be considerably expanded
I ~~~~~~~to the Southwest to include the undeve-
loped area of Long Point Key and Fat
Deer Key. There are significiant undi-
sturbed palm hammocks located there.
The nothern portion of Long Point Key
(Burnt Point) is previously disturbed
but not highly developed and could be
excluded from FL-45.

I 40 FL-50 No Name Key - Although not shown to be
within the boundaries of the Key Deer NWPR
on the CBRS map, this area is significant
habitat for Key Deer and a high priority
acquisition by the USFWS. The entire
island, except for two subdivisions in the
north-central portion (Bahia Shores and
I ~~~~~~~Dolphin Harbor) meets the DOI criteria
for inclusion. The areas designated as
"excluded" within FL-50 are undeveloped,
although a limestone mining operation is
located within a portion of this area.

I 40,41 Fl-50,FL-51 Big Pine Key - The Newfound Harbor Keys
(with the exception Little Munson
island), the excluded part of the Long
Beach area (oceanside) and the area
I ~~~~~~~South of North Pine Channel (section 34-
Piney Pt. subdivision - Coupon Bight
Side) are all undeveloped areas which
meet the DOI criteria for inclusion.
The USFWS owns land between Coupon Bight
and Spanish Harbor Channel (cactus
hammock).

40,41 FL-51 There are a number of predominately
undeveloped, privately owned areas within
the Key Deer NWR on Big Pine Fey which
'meet DOI criteria for inclusion. Major
areas of this type include the following
subdivisions-.
I ~~~~~~~Seaview, Pine Heights, Pine
Ridge, Pine Grove, Pine Key Acres,
Koehn, Audubon Acres, Kyle-Dyer.

subdivisions within the NWR which have

already been significantly developed
include: Doctors Arm, Tropical Bay,
Port Pine Heights (Partial) and Eden
Pines Colony.

41 FL-52 Undeveloped Subdivisions under private
ownership within the Key Deer NWR include:
Middle Torch Key- Middle Torch Key Estates
and Buccaneer Beach Estates.
Big Torch Key- Rainbow Beach Estates,
Torchwood West, Dorns.
Summerland Key - Niles Channel
Cudjoe-Cudjoe Acres, Cudjoe Ocean Shores.
In addition, there is significant
undeveloped acreage under private
ownership on Big Torch, Middle Torch and
Little Knockemdown Keys.

41 FL-52,FL-53 The area North of U.S. 1 and South of the
Key Deer NWR boundary, between the included
areas of FL-52 and FL-53 on Cudjoe Key is
predominantly undeveloped (Cutthroat Harbor
Estates) and meets the criteria for inclusion.
A small area directly east of the above
referenced area and included within FL-52
(portion of Cudjoe Ocean Shores) is well
developed and does not meet the criteria for
inclusion.

42 FL-54 The excluded area on Sugarloaf Beach is
considerably larger than needed to allow
for the existing developed properties.
At least the northeastern half of the
excluded area is totally undeveloped.
This area is a beach berm/dune hammock
of the highest quality, an extremely rare
feature in the Florida Keys. Although
underlain by Coral rock, this is a sand
landform subject to erosion and blow outs
by storms. Development of structures on
the dune contributes to the destabiliza-
tion of the dune through elimination of
vegetation and trampling. The area
landward of the dune is a tidally in-
fluenced mangrove wetland which pro-
vides significant habitat for water-
fowl. This line should be redrawn to
include only those areas which are
previously developed.

24 ~~~~-,

4'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

'33

32~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 310 32

C..

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . 44

w,*zgXCLDE
I evil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,
4~~~~~~~------

12. ePI
A)~~~~~~~*4
09~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 4 9

--4.4- 44444I~~~~~~UDE

>~~~~~~~~~~~-- -------- -- ---------

Cr- EXCLUDED

'43~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"OM 29CORTANT CARD~~ SOUN--- D444. ~. . . 1 o;h
24 - R . - y.,fl 1-P.P.t

3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KRD MA;W o011 ON.*bbh

$CALE Ity I FL-35 wns.(yG'

*1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'" __".ae~. h Itl
26 M M3LO MW M F ETWstI DC20240
34 IMEGAUAR lose Nonh 5 S_ I26.

F~~~~~~L-3

+ -#

ol4
I~~~~~~~~

- 16~~~~~J

'I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reor t Cnres anteCatl-Brir3eores5
.1~~~~1M STT E +a '. p
-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I 21- -do S
DEATMN orTEITRO2UDAGEN 8,,R-$ag(--1. 38
031MP"W. 5"AYGRECOE---i)hkS msm. 1. o
El~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B- sy..fI. - 1
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LRD M&Pd 2ld n uls
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C Et nca~m SMS~y0.
/~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ EXC 0 )S ~ne flb. -ED0

3 S ' M 0lw20 m,0 mWmm ETWs&gm . 0*

.7~ ~ ~ FBUR MeWm7. M.1.-.S -- -I1 . "w

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EA

-A~~~~~~~

0~~~~~-~UKT

I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,

--; ~~~~~~~~~v E S AIO LPR

dY 1 ..a. ~~~~~~~~1

I~~~~~~~~~~~~* ~~~~~~~~~~-----*-------- ---i LITTLE SLACKW* FL-

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~arOWO SOSA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~is l

* EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

'I~~91" STAE
0" w EYO uf" R0tQARNL l-- AM SY-- i50 10 PciLI7- -5

Roped~~~~~~~~~~~C to the Coata Barrierl Resources System G

36 low~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10 0 Iwo20 m Mg mm IPE WSht00O. 100 440 700
MAUARY ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~I & 0 , KLOMEERINflES. .MD

B UTTONwoOD SOUND

26~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

NATIONAL P A R

jFi -f
A4

'V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

FL-370

+-.

UN I T FL-S SWAM

Report to Congress on~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t' the Coastal Swayre Reoucsyse

' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~IC1 0 1 I'LE US. Depasmat~e of the Inteori
OM I 3= OM0 5Ma MM FpE Wshingto. D.C 20240
S~~flUARY IB0* Nash 1 5 0 r ~~~~~~~~KILOMETER S- MaO S no .g so ~ 5ai 1M u 21,~ 58 u0W ~n~Pf

L 0 It -1 D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A I *-

* 5 5u&Kay. 5 * .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

4 . 5 55~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L3
S~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . V C. 5

* ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 *

1 'TE STATS 11
0"rS l Cw TH NEIRQARNL h~a. --Sy...4 01PL9.W

1< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ad d*d &M pbi- P

5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~GAIb th e CO3oasalSoli Sy FL-38
5~~~~~~~~~~D 00 M30 NW MT E D C22A

lit a "a ' , Ult Dopart hnr - el Iot

38FWAVil Nrhafa . 1.VSG",S-IR M

F 10 ORtD A ISA Y+

F~~~~~~L-4

~~~FL-44

Idl

p~~~~~~~~L4

'5 .

W~~fMO STATIS Report to Congress on the Coastal Barrier Resources System~~~~~~~~co

MP"MTO HE1M0%QARNL . 7 -0

SIONAW P. WIMM ICIRMNY GRASSYKEY-- .hI- ., M-.b1 - h
FLORIDA~~~~~~~~~~~~~

t~~~y tS. r~ ~ ~ ~~C-

FIBRTUET P Ir l~O I S GRASSY, KILMY~ 0-.-0t. 40,200 ,st.0005 5

V~~~~~~~~~~~~3.. * 2-'~,

Ky it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I. .--.. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

f r ,- a .a 35 Watt~~~~~~y ,.I ,
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3. 7.:

1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

~~~~~~~~ V I F- 0:

FL 50~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report to Congress an the Coastal Barrier Resources System~~~~CC

Report to ~~~~~~Conges by the Coasta Bar.ie Resorce Syste
0 IW STATU 'MO2M W - ftshugou. DC 20240e
4 EBARTSTO H w oQUADRYNGLE FEaCo. Cur SywoSto olE0-
sou ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Nd -Ma . .~o cTn I I!K YjCl,.' B U ou S.-,ot to2. M~y

I.2 28 21.

- 4-
32 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ �A

V~~~~ I

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a- --2 d k ' Pu

F 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

Report to Congress pn7 the. Coastal Barrier Resources System
UMIT3 STATES 50 l- in.. OW.P1 WQCwnmIftn. of dtm-n eth
F fhAfMENT OF THE INTERIOR ( QUADRANGLE J . he Co1... Be.- R-otf SViM. (Seot I0ol p1L97 349j

FLORIZDA IMapped, added and pubhnd]

1 41 412 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~I 0 UMi US Dep.nMenI of the Ihintor
low 400 "M3= w M Weshlogio DC 20240
N-o 0 --, 1s SeMo.f U S Seolog.OeJ DIse �2-A 00 ena e4ilq

of~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U; - OI~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-.. * 2-~~~~~~~~a
m - . ~~~~~~~~~~o

~~~~~~~

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

9. I
GUZAT WHITE UhEON I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

V-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S.\L

'VA~~~~ .V 0DIi 0U E
*WIOK~~~~~~y.- g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.. - .1~~~~~

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20

I I..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L5

L;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~.FL-54

Report to Congress on the Coastal Barrier Resources System]
UNJTED STATES P\ S.d I,. .'I800f .on~olOs0 0'.0 0O,0
IMPARTUET OF " THE NTROR IQUADRANGLE W 0C.0...1 Be",.,' Ft.-.,o S"-.n IS.000 100 PL 0 348
SOIMD f.. ,.oeL. sicat"A" [SUGARLOAF KEY -.--- D. I... d"' 0 the ,
I. ~~~~FLORIDA C*tl M00.eo 85.4
. 0 SCL y the Uni]o a ps ' soily oroos
I& I MIE US 8'1o,,1ment~he nOld.0 I
42 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~was O',n. DIC 20240
Fe"UA111f 1046 Won t , ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ 0 1 KIL470 .000 4OMETER00. S..U5 - .1-, 12'50.0 OM008.

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE � TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ April 4, 1988 THOMAS G. PELHAM
Gowern Secrfery

I MEMORANDUM

TO: Mary Tanner
State Planning & Development Clearinghouse
Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Southern Boulevard (State Road 80) Bridge Replacement,
Bridge Number: 930097, Work Program Item Number:
4118572, State Project Number: 93120-3550, Federal-Aid
Project Number: BRM-6566-(l), SAI# FL8803071000C

The Department of Community Affairs has reviewed the federal
and state-funded proposal to replace the existing two-lane bridge
and causeway crossing of Lake Worth by Southern Boulevard (State
Road 80) with a high or mid-level four-lane structure.

We find that the project is consistent with the statutes,
programs and policies for which the Department is responsible
under the Florida Coastal Management Program; however, insuffi-
cient information was provided to determine whether the project is
in accordance with Executive Order 81-105 and related policies.

The project proposes to increase the capacity of a bridge
that provides access to a hazardous coastal area and is located in
an area where State Road AlA has been undermined by coastal
storms. Executive Order 81-105 and the subsequent August 8, 1986
directive established a coastal infrastructure policy that
requires executive agencies to withhold funds which would be used
to subsidize growth on hazardous coastal barrier islands except
where a crucial need is identified. From the information provided
we were unable to assess the need for a bridge expansion. The
following information would be needed in order to make this
determination:

o Design capacity of the existing bridge.

o Most recent available estimates for average daily trips.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVLOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A2o

I Mary Tanner, office of The Governor
April 4, 1988
Page Two

o Accident frequency data.
I a~~ Hazard constraints during evacuation.
o Analysis of volume to capacity ratios regarding hurricane
I ~~~evacuation to determine if the bridge is a critical link
in the evacuation network.
* ~~o Hurricane evacuation times for the area.
o Existing traffic circulation levels of service for the
* ~~~subject bridge and other nearby crossings.
o A more detailed location map.
o An analysis of land use patterns in the area served by
I ~~~the bridge.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment an this proposal.
I MY staff is available for questions or further clarification.

I TGP/kmp

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor December 16, 1987 Secretary

MEMORANDUM

TO: George Meier, Director of Intergovernmental Coordination
Office of the Governor

FROM: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT: Intergovernment Project Review: SAI # FL8707290138C
Blackburn Point Bridge Number 170064, State Project
Number 17100-1601, Work Program Item Number 1129029,
Federal Aid Project Number BRM-0405-(1)

The staff of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has
reviewed the Blackburn Point Bridge proposal with respect to 1)
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and other regulations which
DCA implements as a part of the Florida Coastal Management Program
(FCMP) 2) the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) 3) the Coastal
Barrier Executive Order Letter (8/86) and Chapter 163. The pro-
posal appears to be consistent with our responsibilities within
the Florida Coastal Management Program. Since the bridge is not
located within a Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit, it is not
necessary to discuss consistency with the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act. Due to the nature of the proposal, the Executive
Order Letter and statutory requirements must be addressed
separately in order to evaluate whether the project is in accor-
dance with those policies.

The Coastal Barrier Executive Order Letter, issued on August
8, 1986 by Governor Graham, states the following:

... agency heads shall not permit payment by the state for
new or expanded infrastructure. . . in areas damaged or
undermined by coastal storms. After alternatives including
relocation have been evaluated, exceptions can be made where

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Memorandum
I ~December 16, 1987
Page Two

I ~~a need is found to alleviate dangerously overcrowded roads...
Agency heads may authorize payment for projects within the
Coastal Building Zone as defined in Sections 161.54(1) and
I ~~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 flood-
proof ing and evacuation.
This policy remains in effect until Sarasota County's compre-
hensive plan is deemed compliant with Chapter 163, F.S., and is
adopted. The proposed project is not in accordance with this
policy. The bridge which would be-expanded from one lane to two
lanes would extend to an area subject to frequent flooding as well
as within the Coastal Building Zone. Casey Key has had a history
of damage from coastal storms and hurricanes. For example,
although Hurricane Elena passed well to the north and west of
Casey Key, 2,500 feet of Casey Key Road was damaged by the storm.
Subsequently, the new road fill placed after Elena was eroded by
I Tropical Storm Juan (Clark, 1986). Given the existing evacuation
facilities, the residents of the less than 600 dwelling units on
Casey Key do not appear to be exposed to danger that warrants
expansion of this bridge. Although the bridge is operating at a
low sufficiency level, there is an alternate evacuation route at
the south end of Casey Key. This bridge has adequately served
Casey Key's needs during storms. (see attachments)
I ~~The policy under Section 380.27, F.S., may also affect the
proposed project. Once Sarasota County has an approved coastal
Imanagement element, pursuant to Section 163.3178, F.S., it would
be subject to the following conditioned prohibition under 380.27
(2), F.S.
.0.no state funds which are unobligated at the time the
I ~~element is approved shall be expended for the purpose of
planning, designing, excavating for, preparing foundations
for, or constructing projects which increase the capacity of
infrastructure. unless such expenditure is consistent with the
approved coastal management element.

The lane expansion in the proposed project would increase the
I capacity of the bridge. Since Sarasota County is not due to
submit its revised coastal management element until October 1,
I 1988 the policy does not apply to current state expenditures.
once the plan is adopted after this submittal and subsequent

Memorandum
December 16, 1987
Page Three

approval, it will be necessary to review new expenditures for
compliance with the coastal infrastructure policy.

As currently proposed by the Department of Transportion, the
Blackburn Point Bridge appears to be consistent with the DCA's
responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program.
The proposal, however, is not in accordance with the Coastal
Barrier Executive Order. Once the Sarasota County revised compre-
hensive plan is adopted, it will be necessary to review whether
the proposed bridge expansion is in accordance with Section
380.27(2), F.S. Mindful of the low sufficiency rating of the
existing bridge, 4.1 on a scale of 1 to 100, DCA recommends that
the Department of Transportion propose improving the bridge with-
out expanding it.

TGP/css

Enclosures

Reference

Clark, R. 1986: The impact of Hurricane Elena and tropical storm
Juan on coastal construction in Florida. Department of Natural
Resources, Beaches and Shores Post-Storm Report No. 85-3

1448
Longbool 41 1 I Counly Line Rd.
Key - SJeg0tev 932
1372 D8Y j 1865
SR 789 i~ - j1440 1079 *SR

Lido Ke R58 7

Ringling C$1woua; 8es Ridge Rd I
2010 941
2010 9 ~1042 792
a SR 72

Siesta . .
Key.

792.~rr

Casey Key

.'868 918 if

Everglades lvd.4

4330 Center rd.

eees s~~~~~~~~R 39 J
S~~~~~~~ttS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S
SWFRPC SS-RNC .

manasate Key LEGEND
0I 4'-6- ~tRESTRICTIVE POINTS
.-. 2 S $ Mllrr 8 745 EVACUATION' CAPACITY
SWFRPC (VEHICLES PER HOUR I
MAP E-6
EVACUATION ROUTES, CAPACITIES, AND RESTRICTIVE POINTS
SARASOTA COUNTY

I 18 r m m w w

Table S-6a

SARASOTA COUNTY PEAK EVACUATION TIME

TIME TO ii
Restricting Max.
Ultimate Shelter Total
Zone Route Category Evacuation Travel Flood Wind (hrs)-

Manasota Key 774 1 0.5 (1.0) 0.5 6.0 5.5 7.0 (7.5)
2 0.5 (1.0) 0.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 (8.0)
3 0.5 (1.0) 0.5 7.0 8.0 9.0 (9.5)

Casey Key 789(2) 1 0.4 (0.8) 0.5 6.0 5.5 6.9 (7.3)
2 0.4 (0.8) 0.51, 6.5 .6.5 7.4 (7.8)
3 0.4 (0.8) 0.5 7.0 8.0 8.9 (9.3)

Siesta Key1 SR 72/ 1 5.7 (11.4) 0.5 6.0 5.5 12.2(17.9) 9
758 2 5.7 (11.4) 0.5 6.5 6.5 12.7(18.4)
3 5.7 (11.4) 0.5 7.0 8.5 14.7(20.4)

Longboat Key SR 789 to 1 2.3 (4.6) 1.0 6.0 5.5 9.3(11.6)1
Ringling 2 2.3 (4.6) 1.0 6.5 6.5 9.8(12.1)
Only 3 2.3 (4.6) 1.0 7.0 8.5 11.8(14.1)

Lido Key Ringling 1 1.2 (2.4) 0.5 6.0 5.5 7.7 (8.9)
2 1.2 (2.4) 0.5 6.5 6.5 8.2 (9.4)
3 1.2 (2.4) 0.5 7.0 8.5 10.2(11.4)

Indian Beach Local(2) 1 0.4 0.5 - 5.5 6.4
Local(2) 2 0.8 0.5 - 6.5 7.8
US 41 3 0.8 0.5 - 8.5 9.8

Whittaker Bayou Local(2) 1 0.1 0.5 - 5.5 6.1
Local(2) 2 0.5 0.5 - 6.5 7.5
US 41 3 0.5 0.5 - 8.5 9.5

Downtown 'Local(2) 1 0.7 0.5 - 5.5 6.7
Local(2) 2 1.7 0.5 - 6.5 8.7
IUS 41 3 1.7 0.5 - 8.5 10.7

Hudson Bayou- Local(2) 1 0.2 0.5 - 5.5 . 6.2
Local(2) 2 0.6 0.5 - 6.5 7.6
US 41 3 0.6 0.5 - 8.5 9.6

Roberts Bay Local(2) 1 0.2 0.5 - 5.5 6.2
Local(2) 2 0.6 0.5 - 6.5 7.6
US 41 3 0.6 0.5 - 8.5 9.6

Phillippi Creek Local(2) 1 1.o 0.5 - 5.5 7.0
Local(2) 2 2.0 0.5 - 6.5 9.0
US 41 3 2.0 0.5 - 8.5 11.0

Upper Little Local(2) 1 0.7 0.5 - 5.5 6.7
Sarasota Bay Local(2) 2 1.4 0.5 - 6.5 8.4
US 41 3 1.4 0.5 - 8.5 10.4
G-1 0

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
I Gowernor October 12, 1987 Secretary

The Honorable Andrea Deratany
Chairman, Brevard County Commission
131 East New Haven Avenue
Melbourne, Florida 32901

Dear Ms. Deratany:

Governor Martinez has forwarded to me a copy of your letter
dated August 4, 1987, regarding a proposed bridge to the coastal
barrier island in the South Beach area of Brevard County. The
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning
agency with statutory responsibilities relating to barrier island
management and hurricane evacuation.

As of this date, we understand that Governor Martinez intends
to continue implementing the Coastal Barrier directive to which
you referred. That directive, issued on August 8, 1986, expands
upon Executive Order 81-105 which instructed the Governor's
agencies to limit funds which would be "used to subsidize
growth...in hazardous coastal barrier islands". The directive was
considered necessary as an interim measure until local governments
had implemented comprehensive plans consistent with the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act. Furthermore, upon the adoption of local government compre-
hensive plans, Section 380.27(2), F.S., will prohibit state funds
for projects which would increase the capacity of infrastructure
on coastal barriers unless such expenditures are consistent with
the coastal management element required in Section 163.3178, F.S.

The direction is clear that any infrastructure improvement
affecting a coastal barrier such as the proposed Malabar bridge,
should be fully coordinated with the County's comprehensive plan-
ning process. Any commitment of state funds independent of that
process would not be prudent. The expansion of infrastructure
must be addressed in the required revisions throughout each

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A 22A

The Honorable Andrea Deratany
October 12, 1987
Page Two

coastal local government's comprehensive plan. The bridge
proposal is integrally tied to the future land use element, the
traffic circulation element, the conservation element, the
infrastructure element, and the capital improvements element. The
goals, objectives, and policies required under 9J-5.012(3)(b)5,
9J-5.012(3)(b)6, and 9J-5.016(3)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code,
relate directly to the expansion of infrastructure in coastal high
hazard areas. The County's statements of the goals, objectives,
and policies must in turn be consistent with statements in the
other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

In addition, other issues have been identified which should
be addressed as the County contemplates the bridge proposal.

� The proposed location for the new bridge may necessitate
landfall on the island in or near an existing federally designated
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) unit. The purpose of the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) is to protect natural areas
and minimize loss of life and property on barrier islands by re-
stricting the use of federal funds which may have the effect of
encouraging development on coastal barriers. Governor Martinez
supports CBRA and the CBRS, and wishes to cooperate with the
Federal government in furthering the fair and balanced implementa-
tion of the Act. Therefore, CBRS areas should be addressed in the
formulation of comprehensive plans.

* A new bridge to the barrier island would encourage develop-
ment in the South Beach area. The larger the population, the
greater the evacuation problem would be during a major storm.
Although the information presented states that a potential evacua-
tion problem exists, the areas under consideration are relatively
undeveloped, and presently have adequate evacuation capabilities.
Brevard County's primary argument for an additional evacuation
corridor is based on projected growth, not on existing need. This
argument is not consistent with Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., planning
principles that require identification of coastal high hazard
areas from which future development should be limited.

I New access to and development on the barrier island would
necessitate other infrastructure expenditures including the
expansion of State Route AlA and additional water and sewer
lines, utilities, and other services.

The Honorable Andrea Deratany
I ~October 12, 1987
Page Three

* A new bridge would not fully alleviate other potential evacua-
tion problems. For example, the barrier island is extremely
narrow in several areas and has a relatively low elevation
throughout. Such areas may be subject to damage during major
storm events, canceling any positive effects of a new evacuation
I ~corridor over the Indian River Lagoon. Unless State Route
AlA is expanded, a new bridge would not increase evacuation
I ~capacity significantly.
* Any new bridge in the South Beach area may have adverse
impacts on the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve. Any proposed
bridge alignment must take into consideration important resource
I ~areas including grassbeds, endangered species habitat, marine
,fisheries and other aquatic habitat. The increased population
I ~which will be facilitated by additional access to the barrier
island-.may also have detrimental effects on water quality in the
Aquatic Preserve. Point and nonpoint source pollution, such as
sewage treatment plant outfalls, effluent from septic tanks and
stormwater runoff, are directly correlated with increased
population densities adjacent to estuarine areas.
a DCA would like to review the data presented in the "1% Pop
I ~evacuating" column in the supporting material you provided. It is
not clear how these percentages were derived, for they do not
conform with the information which is available to us. For
example, the percentages do not correspond with any of the be-
havioral response curves given in the ECFRPC Hurricane Evacuation
Study, but appear to be a combination of two of the curves.. It
must also be pointed out that approximately 20% of the population
I ~would evacuate before an evacuation order is given (2-6 hours).
This information will change the results of the evacuation study
considerably._
a A major assumption in the County's analysis is that a south-
erly evacuation route, via the Wabasso Bridge, would not be
available for evacuation. This is not consistent with either the
present Brevard County Beach Evacuation Plan or the ECFRPC
Hurricane Evacuation Study. Cooperation between neighboring
counties is extremely important during times of emergency. The
I ~comprehensive plan's intergovernmental coordination element,
pursuant to 9J-5.015(3)(c)2, F.A.C., should address such
situations.

The Honorable Andrea Deratany
October 12, 1987
Page Four

a The highway capacity figures used in your calculations should
be evaluated in view of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Tran-
sportation Research Board, Special Report 209) before your evacua-
tion study is completed.

We are looking forward to actively working with Brevard
County during the planning process on this and other issues. If
we can be of assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/gsw

cc: Walter Kolb, Office of the Governor
Jake Kraft, Department of Transportation
Gordon Guthrie, Division of Emergency Management

.'.TATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST � TALLAHASSEE, FLOQRIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ December 29, 1987 THOMASG. PELHAM
Governr Secretary
Mr. Walt Kolb
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Mr. Kolb:

This letter concerns the October 22, 1987 correspondence
from Mr. Jack Krieger, Chairman of the St. Lucie County
Commission, to Governor Martinez, requesting that a waiver of the
moratorium on state support of new bridges to barrier islands be
granted. The county requests the waiver so that state funds
could be utilized to construct a new bridge from Walton Road to
Hutchinson Island.

Because of the Department's various levels of involvement in
the Hutchinson Island planning area, we are providing you with
information relating to four items. These items include: the
Hutchinson Island Management Plan (HIMP), Governor Graham's
August 8, 1986 directive expanding upon Executive Order 81-105,
the local government planning requirements of Chapter 163, F.S.,
and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

After reviewing the HIMP and related documents, it is our
determination that the HIMP would allow funding a portion of the
Walton Road Bridge improvements that are.needed. This
determination was based on the May 4, 1983 interpretive memo
regarding Executive Order 81-105 and Appendix A of the plan,
which details development on the island (see enclosures). The
interpretive memo states that "The amount of existing development
as of the effective date will be used to determine the need for
State-funded projects. Any service demand generated by the
development in excess of that existing on September 4, 1981 will
be the responsibility of the local government." The memo also
states that "It will be the responsibility of the governmental
unit requesting state funds to provide accurate information
detailing the amount of existing development within its
boundaries as of the effective date." Appendix A addresses
development conditions on the island prior to September 4, 1981.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

* ~~~~A2?,

Mr. Walt Kolb
Page Two

Governor Graham issued a directive on August 8, 1986 which
expands upon Executive Order 81-105. The directive instructed
the Governor's agencies to limit funds which would be "used to
subsidize growth. . . on hazardous coastal barrier islands." The
directive was considered necessary as an interim measure until
local governments implement comprehensive plans consistent with
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The direction is clear that any
infrastructure improvements affecting a coastal barrier should be
fully coordinated with the county's comprehensive planning
process. Any commitment of state funds independent of that
process would not be prudent.

Additionally, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., must be considered while
resolving the Walton Road Bridge issue. Section
9J-5.012(3)(b)(5), F.A.C., requires that one of the objectives of
the local comprehensive plan shall be to "limit public
expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal
high-hazard areas subsequent to the elements adoption, except for
restoration or enhancement of natural resources." Also, Section
9J-5.016(3)(b)(2), F.A.C., states that the Capital Improvements
Element of the comprehensive plan shall "limit public
expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard areas."

Finally, regarding the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA), while the Walton Road Bridge would not fall directly in a
CBRA unit (see enclosure), it would fall between designated
units, clearly creating a benefit to those areas. This location
may preclude the use of federal funding for the bridge.

While the Hutchinson Island Management Plan would allow for
the use of some state funds to construct a bridge at Walton Road,
it is our recommendation that the resolution of this issue await
the adoption of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan consis-
tent.with the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. The resolution
of this issue is very important to the Department and it is hoped
this information is adequate for your needs. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact Jim Quinn or Edward Eckstein
at (904) 487-4545.

sincerely,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/eed

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
~,,.,.,;.,~ .... .. ~,~ ,. BO GRAHAM
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING A ,/. _ .- GOVERNOR
_600 BLAIR STONE ROAD- ORA IN
ALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301 VICTORIA t, TSCRINKEL
SECRETARY
IFA' ~~tEt .

TO=: John DeGrove, Secretaryv, Department of Community Affairs

| ~ FROM: Victoria J. Tschinkel, Chairperson
* Interagency Management Conmittee

SUBJECT: Executive Order 81-105

DATE: May 4, 1983

|I ~ At its February 17 meeting the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and
Management Committee voted to ask that the Interagency Management Committee
(IMC) clarify how Executive Order 81-105, which restricts the expenditure of
State funds on coastal barriers, would be applied to its study area. The
I
Committee was concerned that until a clear statement was received as to how the
State intended to apply the Executive Order it could not achieve its goal of
preparing a management plan for its study area. Based upon its examination of
J Ithe Executive Order, the IMC proposed six guidelines for the implementation of
the Executive Order. Today the Governor agreed to these guidelines with minor
changes. They now should be interpreted as follows:

I| ~1. The effective date of Executive Order 81-105 will be September 4, 1981,
the date of its signing.

|II ~ 2. Existing development shall be defined as structures completed or under
construction and structures approved under a Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) development order in effect as of September 4, 1981.

l* ~ 3. It will be the responsiblity of the governmental unit requesting State
funds to provide accurate information �deLli4ng the amount of existing
*J~ ~ development within its boundaries as of the effective date.

4. The amount of existing development as of the effective date will be
used to determine the need for State funded projects. Any service
demand generated by the develcpment in excess of that existing on
September 4, 1981 will be the responsibility of the local government.

5. In areas where this excess demand exists, State facilities shall be
* maintained, but no increase in capacity will be considered.

6. If a locally funded project is determined to stimulate new developent
the State should require a legally binding agreement be entered into by
the local government. This agreement would clearly state that the
provision of the required 25% match for disaster relief funds for the
development generated by the proposed project would be the sole
responsibility of the local government.

Ii VJT/mh

XIi~~~ | ~~~~~Prorecting Florida and Your Qu31ity of Life

Appendix A
TABLE I Revised 8/16/83
GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE ORDER 81-105 INTERPRETATION
BARRIER ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

AUGUST 1983

Zones Jurisdiction Living Units Total
*Existing Devel- #Post 9/4/81
opment as of Development
9/4/81 (State (local
responsibility) responsibility)

Indian River Co.

1 North Beach/Orchid 190 2,176 2,366 1/
2 Indian River Shores 1,036 1,045 2,081 2/
3 Vero Bech 3,650 781 4,431 3/
4 South Beach 1,158 872 2,030 4/

Subtotal 6,034 4,874 10,908

St. Lucie County

S North Beach 2,451 945 3,396 5/
6G7 Ft. Pierce 4,244 442 4,686 6/
Hutchinson Island
8 N. of FP&L 0 1,720 1,720 7/
9 S. of FP&L 5,469 1,457 6,926 8/

Subtotal 12,164 4,564 16,728

Martin County

10 A&B Hutchinson Island 3,223 800 4,023 9/

GRAND TOTAL 21,421 10,238 31,659

NOTES: * Existing development includes: structures completed or
under construction, structures approved under a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) development order in effect as of September
4, 1981 and structures having active building permits in effect
as of September 4, 1981.

Includes either development that had received local approval
prior to 9/4/81 but not constructed until after 9/4/81, or
development that has received local approval since 9/4/81.

Definitions:

.Living unit - includes residential, hotel/motel and
recreational vehicle spaces.
.Local approval - P.U.D. or subdivision plat approval.
.Under construction - units that have active building permits.

3.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Appendix3

*~~~......... .;..

1* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .....~....BAlE.
....... ........
. .... ... ........
. .............. .....
.....................................
~~~~~~~~...................
~~~~~~~............... .
~~~~...........................
.............

VERO BEACH.,
'U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ .....

.....***.*~...
II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .... ...
~~~~~~~~~~.......~........
~~~~~~~~.......~*.......
.........
SLUICONY.................

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....I ..~j.....
LEGEND '~~~~~~~~~~~~............
................

II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..........
-AREAS DESIGNATED .....
UNDEVELOPED BY....
E. ~RESOURCES ACT

~~~~STH BARTIR

* ~~~~~MARTIN COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
BoB MARTINEZ

J4'2 o

January 20, 1988

Honorable Jack Krieger
Saint Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 33482-5652

Dear Commissioner Krieger:

In response to your letter requesting a waiver of the moratorium
on Federal and State support for a proposed Walton Road Bridge
to Hutchinson Island I asked for an analysis from the Departments
of Community Affairs and Transportation. I am enclosing for
your information a DOT staff memorandum and Community Affairs'
Secretary Pelham's letter that comprehensively examines
the issue.

Executive Order 81-105, various state coastal protection laws
and the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act direct that state
and federal funds should not be used to subsidize growth in
hazardous coastal barrier areas. These regulations and the
Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan (HIMP) adopted by the
Hutchinson Island Committee, and accepted by the Governor and
Cabinet on November 18, 1983, collectively provide guidance for
answering your request.

The HIMP in our judgment allows for the consideration of a
request to use some state funds for constructing additional
bridge capacity to Hutchinson Island. However, the proposed
project is not listed on the Department of Transportation's Five
Year Transportation Plan and is not part of your existing local
comprehensive plan. Therefore, a final resolution of this issue
should await the adoption of your updated County Comprehensive
Plan and a determination by the Department of Community Affairs
regarding its compliance with the requirements
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-" 77727,

OWNF Of h

Honorable Jack Krieger
Page Two

of Chapter 9J-5 Florida Administrative Code. I understand that
a preliminary draft copy of your plan may be available for
review by the Department this year.

If we can be of further assistance please contact us.

BM/rdp

cc: Secretary Kaye Hender n
Secretary Thomas G. Pelham

Enclosure

I STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST � TAL LAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor Secretary
December 28, 1987

MEMORANDUM

I TO: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Pa^n fJ

THROUGH: Jim Quinn, C*ef, Bureau of Local Plannin
Woody Priceirector
Division of Resource Planning and Management

FROM: ( eorge Schmahl, Coastal Programs Unit

SUBJECT: Florida Coastal Management Program
Section 312 Evaluation

Attached is a copy of the draft evaluation by NOAA's Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) on the Florida
Coastal Management Program (FCMP) as required by section 312 of
the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This
evaluation covers the period from February 1985 through October
1987 and was carried out between April and June of this year. As
you will note, the findings conclude that the State of Florida has
not complied with some of the requirements of the CZMA, and that
the FCMP is deficient in several respects. If these deficiencies
are not corrected, the decertification process could be initiated
which could result in Florida being removed from the Federal
Coastal Management Program.

Although many of the criticisms in the evaluation are
demonstrably in error or the result of misunderstanding, several
of the comments have some merit and have pointed out some weak-
nesses in the FCMP. The major problem is the lack of coordination
between state agencies in the implementation of the FCMP. As you
know, management of Florida's coastal resources are divided among
various agencies, primarily the DER, DNR and DCA. Although the

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT a HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A2If

Memorandum
December 28, 1987
Page Two

DER is the designated lead agency of the FCMP, it has no authority
over DNR or DCA. In order to address this situation, the Inter-
agency Management Committee (IMC) was created, which receives
input from the Interagency Advisory Committee (IAC) and the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The IMC provides the mechanism
through which coastal issues and policy can be addressed on a
multi-agency level. The 312 evaluation report criticizes the IMC
for recent inaction and failure to demonstrate coordination of
agencies in the implementation of core FCMP regulations and
statutes. Two other specific findings of the 312 evaluation cite
the recent suspension of the Memorandum of Understanding between
DER, DOT and OPB which required advance state review of DOT pro-
jects for consistency with the FCMP, and the transfer of the
Office of Coastal Management within DER from the Secretary's
office to the Bureau of Surface Water Management. OCRM views
these developments as indication of less coordination between
agencies and lessening the importance of the Office of Coastal
Management.

I believe that involvement with the Federal Coastal
Management Program is important for Florida, for it gives us the
ability to have input on federal programs which affect the coastal
zone, such as offshore oil and gas exploration, offshore spoil
disposal siting and beach renourishment. I recommend that DCA
continue and increase its involvement in the FCMP. I believe that
at this point a letter of support for the Program to Secretary
Twachtmann (proposed draft attached) would be appropriate which
could be used in his response to NOAA concerning the evaluation.
In addition, DCA should explore ways in which the FCMP, through
the IMC, IAC or other methods, could be utilized to promote imple-
mentation of our policies and programs. One possibility is to use
the IAC as a mechanism to discuss agency review of coastal manage-
ment issues within local comprehensive plans. Chapter 163, F.S.
and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., which address many coastal issues, have
not yet been incorporated into the FCMP. By working with and
through the IAC, DCA could coordinate support for the inclusion of
the local government comprehensive planning legislation into the
program.

GS/ms

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST � TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

6B0 MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
January 5, 1988 Seaetry

Honorable Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Secretary Twachtmann:

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is in receipt of the
draft evaluation of the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP)
prepared by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) pursuant to section 312 of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972.

A number of the criticisms raised in the evaluation appear to
be of a procedural or administrative nature which can be adequate-
ly addressed by your staff. The primary substantive issue, how-
ever, is the concern that there is not adequate coordination
between the various state agencies in the implementation of the
FCMP. I would like to take this opportunity to reconfirm the
cooperation of the Department in working with DER and other state
agencies regarding the management of coastal resources. Sound
coastal management in Florida will require close coordination
among all participating state agencies. We will strive to assure
that the programs and responsibilities of this agency are inte-
grated within the FCMP to the maximum extent possible.

We believe that Florida's participation in the Federal Coastal
Management Program is extremely important from our agency's perspec-
tive. The program allows state agency input on proposed federal
actions which will affect the coastal zone. The ability to review
such proposals is essential for the purpose of comprehensive land

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Honorable Dale Twachtmann
January 5, 1988
Page Two

use planning and coastal management. In addition, the Interagency
Management Committee is a viable mechanism through which coastal
issues and policies can be discussed and implemented among the
various state interests.

The Department strongly supports the Florida Coastal
Management Program. Please feel free to contact me or my staff to
discuss ways in which we can participate to improve the program
for the benefit of the coastal resources and people of the state
of Florida.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/gsp

cc: Dave Worley, OCM

I
S TAT E OF F LOR I DA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2571 EXECUTIVE CFN TER CIRCLE, EAST � T ALI A HASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. I'PELHAM
Governor February 4, 1988 Se(retary

Mr. Paul Johnson
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
i Dear Xr. Johnson:
Staff within the Department of Community Affairs has reviewed
the Plan of Exploration, Site Specific Environmental Report and
Oil Spill Trajectory Analysis and Response Plan submitted by
Texaco Producing, Inc. for exploratory drilling in OCS Pensacola
Area Block 996 (SAI #FL8801040763C). The submitted materials
appear to be consistent with the Department's statutory respon-
sibilities, regulations and policies relating to the Florida
Coastal Management Program (FCMP).
The Department's interests are vested primarily in the on-
shore aspects of petroleum development. Our statutory respon-
sibility arises from Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (F.S.). We are
concerned that this statute, which is part of the federally
approved FCMP, has not been addressed in the Consistency Assess-
ment (Appendix I, pages 52-57) of this proposal. Chapter 380,
i F.S. is primarily involved with the establishment of land and
water management policies to guide and coordinate local decisions
relating to growth and development. We believe that offshore oil
exploration and development could have significant impact on
onshore development patterns and nearshore marine and estuarine
environments. The provisions of this statute include criteria for
the establishment of Resource Planning and Management Committee
areas. Two such committees occur in the general area of the
exploratory activity proposed: the Escambia/Santa Rosa area and
the Northwest Florida Coast area (Okaloosa and Walton counties).

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT e HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVUOPM[NT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

* AZS

Mr. Paul Johnson
February 4, 1988
Page Two

Chapter 380, F.S. also includes the Areas of Critical State
Concern (ACSC) Program. The Apalachicola Bay area has been
designated an ACSC and is within the potential oil spill impact
zone as indicated in the oil spill trajectory analysis and
response plan. In addition, the Development of Regional impact
(DRI) program is included within this statute. A DRI is defined
as a development which, becausb of its character, magnitude or
location, would have a substantial effect upon the citizens of
more than one county. The land-based development associated with
most exploratory operations would not be of the magnitude to
warrant a DRI review. Howeverv there is the potential that
related onshore development, such as construction of petroleum
storage facilities, could be considered a DRI. Any port expansion
which may be required to accommodate oil exploration activities
could also be considered a DRI. For these reasons, the Department
recommends that Chapter 380, F.S. be included routinely in any
future-coastal zone consistency assessments relating to offshore
oil exploration.

Thank you for this opportunity to review this proposal. We
will have further ground for comment in the event a marketable
discovery is made.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary

TGP/gsp

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

0OB MARTINEZ February 16, 1988 THOMAS G. PELHAM
Gvenor Secretary

Mr. Paul Johnson
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Staff within the Department of Community Affairs has reviewed
the Supplemental Plan of Exploration, updated Coastal Zone
Consistency Certification and Photodocumentation Survey submitted
by Sohio Petroleum Company for exploratory drilling in OCS Destin
Dome Area Blocks 81 and 82 (SAI #FL8801110797C). The submitted
materials appear to be consistent with the Department's statutory
responsibilities, regulations and policies relating to the Florida
Coastal Management Program (FCMP).

The Department's interests are vested primarily in the on-
shore aspects of petroleum development. Our review indicates that
the potential onshore impacts from this exploratory drilling
proposal (in the absence of an accidental oil spill) appear to be
minimal. We are concerned, however, that Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes was not included in the Consistency Assessment (Attach-
ment F) provided with the proposal. Our statutory responsibility
under the FCMP arises from this statute, which includes the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and the Areas of Critical
State Concern (ACSC) programs. The ACSC program is of special
concern in this proposal, due to the close proximity of the
exploratory wells to the Apalachicola Bay ACSC. The Department
recommends that Chapter 380, F.S. be included routinely in any
future coastal zone consistency assessment relating to offshore
oil exploration.

Thank you for this opportunity to review this proposal.
We will have further ground for comment in the event a marketable
discovery is made.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary
TGP/gss
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT * HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

I STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
Govrnor Secretary
June 16, 1987

Mr. Paul G. Johnson and Ms. Debby Tucker
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Tucker:

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has completed its
review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
proposed oil and gas lease sales 113/115/116 in the Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region. The following comments
pertain primarily to proposed sale 116 in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico, for it is the one which will most affect the State of
Florida.

I. Scope of issues addressed in the DEIS

The DCA is the land planning agency of the State of Florida
(380.031 (18) Florida Statutes). As such, the Department has
been charged with the responsibility of planning for and
guiding growth and development within this state in order to
provide optimum utilization of limited water resources,
facilitate orderly and well-planned development and protect
the health, welfare, safety and quality of life of the
residents of Florida (380.021 F.S.). Our interests are
therefore focused primarily on the onshore impacts asso-
ciated with offshore exploration and development of oil and
gas resources. It is of concern that many of the issues
with which we are primarily interested were specifically not
analyzed in the DEIS (Section I.B.2.c.(2)), due to a deter-
mina tion that no significant environmental issues existed.
Such issues include community infrastructure, ports, state
and local land use management, water supply and hurricane
hazards.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT a HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A2O

Ia. CommunitY infrastructure - Development of onshore support
facilities could have significant impacts on available infra-
structure in certain regions in the State of Florida. The
I ~existing infrastructure capabilities in many coastal areas,
which will receive the majority of impacts, are already
overburdened. It is generally accepted that the increased
I ~tax base created by new development is not sufficient to pay
for the impacts to infrastructure and services caused 'by that
development. This is even more pronounced in offshore oil
exploration, due to the timing and pattern of employment and
economic input generated from the development. Economic
benefits to local communities generated from offshore oil
development generally lag several years behind the negative
impacts imposed on local government's ability to provide
services and infrastructure.

For example, some environmentally sensitive areas, such
as the Florida Keys, have extremely limited solid waste
capabilities. The placement of support base facilities in
Key West, as anticipated under the high find scenario,; may
I ~sigiiificantly impact these facilities. Expansion of land-
fills is difficult in the Keys and other coastal areas due to
the extreme environmental sensitivity of available land.
Similar concerns exist for other potential land base sites.
An analysis of typical infrastructure needs by OCS
support facilities and recommendations for mitigative mea-
sures should be included in the final EIS.
b. Ports - The availability of adequate port facilities is
I ~a concern which should be addressed. As long as industry
interest remains concentrated off the northwest Florida
coast, support facilities will probably continue to be pro-
vided from the Central Gulf area, as stated in the DEIS (P.
I-13). If drilling activity expands to areas of f the south-
west coast or the Florida Keys, however, the issue of avail-
able ports becomes very important. Creation of new marinas
I ~is environmentally undesirable in most areas of Florida and
is subject to severe permitting restrictions. Existing deep-
water access points are in considerable demand from various
I ~economic sectors including commercial fishing, residential
development, marina development and industry. As in other
parts of the country which are tourist and recreationally
oriented, extreme pressure exists to convert historically
commercial and industrial marinas to those catering to re-
creational and residential uses. The establishment of indus-
trial marinas in many areas, could result in competition
I ~between interests. our analysis suggests that the commercial
fishing industry would be most affected by such a confronta-
tion. The DCA is committed to insuring the viability of

commercial fishing interests in Florida.

For example, in section IV.A.2.a. (p. IV-27), It is stated
that a "potential opportunity area" for an service base
exists on Boca Chica Island, in that it was vacant and
"designated for industrial use in the local comprehensive
plan." A new comprehensive plan was adopted by Monroe
County in 1986. The particular site referenced on Boca
Chica is now designated for commercial fishing, which would
preclude industry development not associated with fishing
I ~interests. In this case the DEIS appears to have been based
on outdated information in regards to potential sites avail-
able for port and service base development.
I C. State and local land use management - We disagree with the
statement (p. 1-13) "that land use is not a major or signifi-
cant issue." Any activity which will encourage growth
I ~and development in the coastal zone will contribute to a
variety of environmental and economic land use impacts.
Since onshore facilities associated with OCS development
I ~require waterfront sites, pressure for coastal land develop-
ment will occur. This can have adverse environmental effects
through-wetland alteration, channel dredging and site prepa-
ration. Ultimately, local governments will be faced with the
responsibility regarding zoning decisions which will allow
onshore development to service the oil industry. Every local
government is required to develop and implement a comprehen-
I ~sive land use plan beginning in 1988. These plans will
affect the siting of service bases and support facilities.
The drafters of the EIS should be aware of state policies
regarding'development in the Coastal Zone. An analysis of
the impacts of OCS-associated development as it pertains to
the State of Florida's Land Use Planning process should be
included in the final EIS. Land use management is one of the
I ~most significant issues facing the State of Florida today.
Impacts caused by onshore development associated with of f-
shore oil exploration cannot be ignored as a contributor to
the problem.
d. Water Supply - The availability of large amounts of fresh
water is one of Florida's most important resources. Due to in-
creased growth which is concentrated in the coastal zone,
many communities are experiencing water shortages and salt-
water intrusion into the water supply. Yet it is stated that
I ~OCS activities will have "negligible impact to regional water
supplies" (p. 1-13). This seems to conflict with statements
made elsewhere in the document (section III.C.12., p. 111-97)
I ~which acknowledge the potential of water supply problems,
especially in Southwest Florida and the Florida Keys. Both
of these areas may experience support base facility develop-
* ~ment.

U ~~~Although it is true that state and local governments have
the opportunity to comment on individual plans of exploration
in regard to water usage, there is no mechanism in that
review process to address cumulative impacts. Such cumula-
tive impacts should be addressed in documents for the entire
planning area, such as the present DEIS.

e. Hurricane hazards - The discussion of hurricane hazards on
p. I-14 is totally inadequate. The occurrence of hurricanes
I ~~in the Eastern Gulf planning area is very common and in-
creases the potential for oil spills and accidents. If
hurricanes were not taken into account in the section on oil
spills (section IV.B.), then the accuracy of that entire
I ~~analysis is called into question. Definitive hurricane plans
should be formulated which require specific actions on the
part of offshore operators in response to the various levels
I ~~of hurricane warnings. Specifics of the "platform verifica-
tion program" as they relate to hurricane hazards should be
presented. Reliance an local Civil Defense and State
National Guard to protect against damage inflicted by off-
shore oil facilities, besides being unrealistic, is passing
the responsibility to entities which are not prepared to
handle such emergencies. Hurricane hazards must be addressed
in the final EIS.
III. Proposed actions and assumptions

a. Assumptions of the M scenario (section I.C.l.a.)

1. The assumption of 10 exploration wells between 1990-
I ~~~~1994 (p.II-29) appears to be a significant underesti-
mate based on reaction to previous lease sales in
* ~~~~this area.
2. Reference to existing pipelines (p.11-29) is
confusing. According to visual lE (attached to the
I ~~~~DEIS), there are no existing pipelines near Escambia or
Santa Rosa counties or anywhere else in the eastern
planning area. Clarification is needed on this
* ~~~~point.
3. The construction of 35 miles of pipeline again ap-
pears to be an underestimate. The average distance
I ~~~~of drilling sites from land is considerably greater
than 35 miles. If a pipeline is warranted, it will
probably be in excess of 35 miles.
4. Onshore support being provided "entirely from
facilities ... existing prior to the proposed ac-
tion..."1 will be true only if the two assumed produc-
tion platforms are located in the northwestern por-

tions of the planning area (Destin Dome, DeSoto
Canyon). Since there are minimal existing facilities
elsewhere in the state, exploration and development
in other areas will require some onshore support
facility development.

b. Mitigating measures

I ~~~~The DCA supports the live bottom stipulation and
recommends that this stipulation be extended from 100
meters to 280 meters in depth especially in the area
U ~~~~South of 26 N latitude. It is known that there are
many areas within the southwest Florida basin which
support significant live bottom communities in depths
greater than 100 meters.

c. Alternative B

I ~~~~The DCA supports the areas of deferral outlined by
comments submitted by representatives of Governor
Martinez in public testimony during the public
hearing process. The DCA has particular interest in
certain areas due to our statutory responsibilities.

1. Areas of Critical State Concern:

Chapter 380.05 F.S. establishes a method by which
regional areas of significance to the State of Florida can be
designated as Areas of Critical State Concern, so that they
may benefit from special planning considerations. There are
two such coastal areas which may be affected by lease sale
116: The Florida Keys and the Apalachicola Bay Region. The
reasons why these areas are of special concern to the state
I ~should be obvious, both from environmental and economic
perspectives. Special consideration should be given to
these areas during the development of the offshore oil
leasing program.
A. Florida Keys - The DCA concurs with the decision to defer
areas contiguous with the Florida Keys (areas 3,4,5 and 6 as
described in the addendum to the DEIS) from lease sale 116.
We strongly recommend that these areas be deleted from consid-
eration in the five-year plan, rather than on a sale by sale
I ~basis. In addition, at a minimum we recommend that additional
blocks in the Pulley Ridge Planning Area which correspond to
the historical extent of the Tortugas shrimping grounds
(alternative B-4 in the DEIS and additional area) also be
deferred from the five year plan. Interference with fishing

U ~activities and possible effects of drilling mud discharges on
juvenile and adult shrimp should be thoroughly studied before
this important fishing arai offered for lease. Previously,
all of the area South of 26 N latitude had been deferred
from leasing pending environmental studies of the area. Although
these studies are reportedly complete, there is no specific
I ~reference to the findings of those investigations in the DEIS.
We are Concerned that the results of the studies were not used
to the fullest extent in the formulation of leasing decisions
in this area. We request a thorough Analysis of the environ-
mental data from the area South of 26u N in the final EIS.
In addition, we request that a copy of the environmental report
* ~be sent to our office for review.
For a variety of reasons, placement of support base
facilities anywhere in the Florida Keys is infeasible. water
I ~access, land availability, inadequate infrastructure and
ground transportation accessibility would make the location of
service operations in the Keys difficult. Analysis of the
unique problems associated with onshore development in the
Keys should be included in the final EIS.
I B. Apalachicola Bay - The DCA concurs with the decision to defer
a buffer area near Apalachicola Bay from lease sale 116 (area
I as described in the addendum to the DEIS). However, in
order to provide adequate protection for this important comn-
I ~merical fishing area, we recommend that the buffer be in-
creased to 30 miles in width from Panama City to Port
St. Joe, to make it consistent'with the buffer zone provided
along the Western Florida Coast (Eastern portion of alterna-
tive B-5 in the DEIS)-. Again this area should be deferred
from the five year plan, rather than only lease sale 116.

2. Resource Planning and Management Areas
3 ~~~Chapter 380.045 Florida Statutes allows the Governor of
the State-of Florida to appoint resource planning and manage-
ment committees to address problems which may affect resources
of statewide significance, as identified by the state land
I ~planning agency (DCA). Two such areas in the Northwest
Florida Gulf have been the subject of such actions: The
Escambia/Santa Rosa Coast (Pensacola area) and the Northwest
I ~Florida Coast (Okaloosa and Walton Counties). In order to
provide protection for these important areas from impacts
associated with oil development, the DCA supports the
addition of a Panhandle Nearshore Coastal Buffer area
between Panama City and the Florida/Alabama State Line
(Western part of Alternative B-S of the DEIS.)

Ill. General Comments
I A. oil Spill Analysis - The effect of hurricanes and
tropical storms on oil spill impacts should be included in the
analysis. Such storms could have significant impacts on the
probability and rate of spreading of an oil spill.-

The statement on P. VI-66 that the amount of oil released
in small spills (less than 50 bbls) "is insignificant compared
I ~to production" is irrelevant and misleading. The significance
of an oil spill has nothing to do with the amount of unspilled
oil obtained. In fact, the probability of an oil spill is
I ~positively correlated with total production. Various places
throughout the document refer to the high potential for
oil spill impacts to the Florida Keys. These statements are
always followed by the explanation that this high potential
is due to import oil traffic and not the result of drilling.
This implies that OCS development in the area would reduce
the level of tanker-related spills. However, it is also
I ~~acknowledged in the document that transport of oil by pipe-
line in the Florida Keys or Southwest Florida area is infea-
sible, and that transportation of oil from production wells
in this area would be by tanker. Therefore, tanker related
oil spills would not be reduced in this area due to the
proposed action. In fact, the potential of such accidents
would probably be increased due to the added activity of
loading of oil from rig to tanker.
NB. Environmental impacts - The conclusion on P. IV-221 maintains
that "the lack of any projected new construction of pipelines"
renders impacts to barrier beaches very low. Yet on P.IV-226,
as well as elsewhere in the document, it is stated that "135
miles of pipeline are estimated in the Eastern Gulf, from
which ruptures could occur." Pipelines do not have to inter-
cept a barrier beach to have impacts. If pipelines are
warranted, they will most probably be in the vicinity of
I ~barrier beaches in the Northwest Florida/Panhandle region,
which would be extremely vulnerable to impacts from pipeline
*~~leaks.

The statement on P.IV-231 that "impacts to offshore sea-
grasses from a surface spill are expected to be limited to
water depths less than bin"l is extremely misleading, consider-
ing the fact that "extensive seagrass beds are not found
deeper than 1in" (Zieman, 1982). The statement is therefore
almost meaningless and implies that impacts to seagrass is
I ~somehow minimized. The fact that many of the shallow seagrass
areas have been deferred does not completely protect them from
oil spill damage. Spills occurring elsewhere, and then trans-
ported into seagrass areas, could significantly impact these
important resources.

As exploration and development increases in the waters
off Florida, the incidence of oil industry-related trash and
debris on beaches will also increase. Contrary to the state-
ment on P.IV-264 that trash and debris "has not been consid-
ered an issue or even measurable in the Eastern Gulf", repre-
sentatives of Gulf Islands National Seashore have perceived it
U ~to be a problem in that area. oil-related trash debris could
have significant impacts on tourism in affected beach areas.

IC. "Unavoidable" impacts -It is not enough to say that something
is unavoidable without presenting a way to mitigate the im-
pacts which result from that action. For example, increased
I ~incidence of trash and debris due to "human nature" (P.IV-276)
could be offset by the establishment of a beach cleanup fund
which would be contributed to by all successful bidders in the
lease program.
Other unavoidable impacts cannot be mitigated such as
loss of endangered species or sensitive offshore habitats.
The-~loss of such resources should be carefully weighed against
the low potential of oil finds in the Eastern Gulf.

ID. "Short-term" use and "long-term" Productivity - Destruction of
wetlands and other valuable habitat for construction of infra-
structure and facilities is a permanent alteration which will
not return to its previous condition. Although the marine
environment is generally resilient, some areas such as live
bottom communities will never recover after substrate altera-
U ~tion. other areas, such as seagrass beds and mangrove commu-
nities, if impacted by oil spills, may not recover within a
human lifetime. This should not be considered "short term."

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for lease sales 113/115/116.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary
ITGP/gjsw

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST * TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

BOB MARTINEZ July 21, 1988 THOMAS G. PELHAM
Gmer"Or Secretary

MEMORANDUM

ITO: Paul Johnson, Office of the Governor

. Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary

SUBJECT:. FY 1990 Public Works Application Review

Staff within the Department has reviewed the applications for
the FY 1990 Public Works Program for consistency with the Florida
Coastal Management Program (FCMP). Our statutory responsibilities
under the FCMP are primarily directed at provisions within Chapter
380, Florida Statutes (F.S.), which includes the Area of Critical
State Concern (ACSC) Program (Section 380.05, F.S.). There are
two proposed projects located within the Florida Keys ACSC. We
would like to offer the following comments on the proposed Monroe
County Beach Erosion Control project.

The application proposes to restore eroded beach and create
new beach area in the vicinity of Smathers and Rest beaches within
the City of Key West. Key West has been designated an ACSC and
principles for guiding development have been adopted pursuant to
Rule 28-36, F.A.C. (formerly 27F-15, F.A.C.). Pursuant to Rule
28-37, F.A.C. (formerly 27F-16, F.A.C.) the City of Key West's
Comprehensive Plan (1981) has been incorporated, with revisions,
as the comprehensive plan and land development regulations for the
ACSC, as required by Section 380.05(8), F.S. The referenced
statute and rules are a part of the federally approved Florida
Coastal Management Program.

The project, as outlined in the subject application, would
result in the destruction of 7.8 acres of seagrass and an
unspecified amount of unvegetated benthic area. Due to unresolved
questions which are outlined below, we find the proposal to be
inconsistent at this time with the Principles for Guiding
Development and the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Key West.
Therefore, due to insufficient information, the proposal is
inconsistent with statutes and policies for which the Department is
responsible under the Florida Coastal Management Program.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT � HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A27

Memorandum
July 21, 1988
Page Two

The following objectives identified in the principles for
guiding development (28-36.003, F.A.C.) are relevant to this
proposal:

(1)(b) Protection of tidal mangroves and associated
shoreline and marine resources and wildlife.

(g) Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public
investments on the natural and environmental resources
of the City of Key West.

The following citations from the City of Key West's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (Rule 28-37,
F.A.C.)-are also relevant to the project proposal:

Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection Element, Section II
(pp. 5.17-5.25), Management Policies:

2.E. Dredging and/or filling associated with necessary
water-dependent public projects shall be carefully
managed to prevent unnecessary adverse
environmental impact.

2.1. Marine grass beds, mangrove communities, and
associated shoreline vegetation will be preserved
to the fullest extent possible. Removal of
vegetation or modification of natural patterns of
tidal flow and nutrient input, cycling and export
should be considered only in the case of
overriding public interest or when such will
improve the local biotic community.

Future Land Use Element, Section II (Goals, objectives and
Policies), Land Use Policy l.D. (page 9.22):

Insure that all future development occurs in a manner
consistent with Figure 9-2, the Future Land Use Map of
the City of Key West.

Figure 9-2 (attached) indicates that the area south of South
Roosevelt Boulevard, in the area of proposed renourishment, has
been designated "Environmental Preservation."

The primary issues of concern are 1) the adverse impact to
natural resources (seagrass beds, other benthic communities,
wading bird habitat, water quality), 2) the protection of
designated preservation areas, and 3) the determination of the

Memorandum
I July 21, 1988
Page Three

I "overriding public interest" associated with this project. While
there are positive public interest aspects associated with the
I improvement of a recreational beach, we have not been provided
with enough information to determine if the positive impacts
outweigh the significant negative impacts associated with the
I destruction of seagrass communities. Given the limited success
with previous seagrass mitigation attempts in the Florida Keys,
we are unable to determine if the proposed mitigation can offset
the loss of important natural resources.

I I~~n addition to direct impacts to seagrass communities,
indirect impacts to hard bottom and coral reef areas in the
I vicinity may also occur and should be addressed. The
.availability of an appropriate borrow area must also be
investigated and identified. It is noted that the EIS referred
Ito in the proposal was completed prior to the adoption of the
comprehensive plan and land development regulations under the
ACSC designation, and also prior to the designation of the waters
adjacent to the proposed renourishment area as "Outstanding
I Florida Waters". Threr,'the EIS should be updated to include
such considerations.

It should also be noted that the beach in question
historically was of extremely limited area. it was not until
the 1960 nourishment project that there was a significant
recreational beach in Key West. It may not be advisable to
I perpetuate an artificially created beach which is significantly
larger than what was naturally present. The presence of
seagrass within close proximity of the shoreline indicates that
this is a low energy environment which is typically indicative
I of conditions not conducive to beach formation.

in reviewing this application, DER should consider the
I findings of the Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 86-
1216 (OGC File NOS. 86-0347, 86-0387), concerning the Florida
Keys Citizen Coalition and the City of Key West v. 1800 Atlantic
I Developers and the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. In this case, a similar beach renourishment project
in the vicinity of the subject proposal was denied a DER dredge
E and fill permit based on failure to provide reasonable assurances
that the project was clearly in the public interest as required
by Section 403.918(2) (a), F.S., regarding outstanding Florida
Waters. That project did not provide public access and therefore
His clearly different than the subject proposal. Nevertheless,
the hearing officer found (Recommended Order, Case No. 85-1216,
p.26):

The project will adversely affect the conservation of
fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values and
marine productivity in the vicinity. The site, which

Memorandum
IJuly 21, 1988
Page Four

3 ~~would be permanently covered with beach sand, now
provides viable intertidal marine habitat and a
feeding ground for migratory, shore and wading birds.
It supports numerous species of juvenile fish and
crustaceans, a diverse benthic and algae community,,
and patches of seagrass which benefit water quality
and enhance the ecology of the marine environment.
I ~~This shallow water habitat, gently sloping to the sea
from an extended unfortified shoreline, is a
diminishing resource in Key West.

The need for the project was also questioned by the hearing
Iofficer, whose findings were supported in the final order of
-October 17, 1986 (p. 13), which stated that:
... the existing shoreline is currently a relatively
I ~~stable area and that the addition of fill would make
that shoreline less stable. This conclusion was also
supported by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, qualified as an
expert in hydrographic engineering.
Although the question of the public interest aspect of a
I public recreational beach was not specifically addressed in the
1800 Atlantic case, the following observations in the final order
(p. 19) are relevant:
I cannot say that the construction of a beach is in itself a
I ~~positive recreational value, inasmuch as it may be offset by-
a loss of recreational values associated with fishing, bird
watching, snorkeling and other types of activities for which
the existing habitat may be better suited.
Unless the concerns outlined above are resolved, the
I Department finds that the proposed Monroe County Beach Erosion
Control proposal is inconsistent with the statutes and rules for
I which we have responsibility under the Florida Coastal Management
Program. The project should not be presented for funding until
questions regarding protection of marine resources and adverse
impacts on water quality are resolved. In addition, an
I affirmative finding of overriding public interest must be
established which considers environmental as well as
recreational/economic concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
I If you have further questions contact George Schmahl in the
Bureau of Local Planning at (904) 488-9210.

I GS/Ms

-~~~~GL Up- m ------- ----m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NUSTRA

~CITY OF ALY WEST 4-:-,MREDARA

FUTURE LAND USE ~~ ~ - EGOVENMENTA

INSTORICAL AE

- - - - PREPAREO BlY:
REGIONAL RESEARCH* ASSOCIATES FIGURES911