[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization Limits on State Expenditures in Hazard Areas ,7 309 Project of Special Merit Z Final Performance Report to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce June 1994 INTRODUCTION This is the 3' and final performance report on the progress of activities related to creating an executive order to limit state agency expenditures in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resource Areas (CBRA) within the State of New York. This action was recommended by the State Task Force on Coastal Resources, and recently by the Govemor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion. To implement this recommendation and achieve the objectives within the 309 Grant from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, the Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization began by investigating the potential impacts of such an executive order. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the executive order target those activities funded by the State which encourage new development in coastal hazard areas (FEMA V-Zones and State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas). A draft executive order was prepared using the CBRA legislation and infonnation developed in the analysis of impacts. REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND SUBNHSSION TO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE During this quarter the draft executive order was thoroughly reviewed by Department of State (DOS) legal staff and appropriate changes where incorporated. Additional in-house review and discussion followed to further refine the executive order. The revised executive order and the analysis of potential impacts were distributed to pertinent State agencies for review (attachment 1). At the same time, a copy of the executive order was sent to the Govemor's office for consideration (attachment 2). One significant issue identified in the reviews is how the executive order will be implemented. As presently written, most actions which promote new development through the use of State funds in Coastal Barrier Resource Areas and coastal hazard areas are prevented unless exception is granted by DOS. This could be viewed unfavorably by other agencies, thus jeopardizing acceptance by the Govemor's Office. Altematively, compliance with the executive order could be left to the discretion of the individual agencies, but this could result in ineffective application. A middle ground would be for DOS to develop specific guidelines for agency application of the executive order. The manner in which compliance with the executive order will be enforced will be detennined after review comments are received from other agencies and the Govemor's office. It is anticipated that comments from other agencies and the Govemor's Office win be received during the next month. These comments will be used to revise the executive order into a final form for submission to the Govemor for signature. ATTACHMENT 1 CELS101' STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 1223 1 -0001 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Rudy Runko Director, Division of the Budget FROM: Gail S. Shaffer SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that: "The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas." In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your information. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. I would appreciate receiving your comments by July 29th on the enclosed copy. In particular, I would value your thoughts on the exceptions to the Executive Order. As presently worded, many exceptions would be contingent upon approval by the Department of State. Alternatively, policing of exceptions could be left to interpretation by individual State agencies. A possible middle ground is for the Order to direct the Department of State and/or others to develop specific guidelines which would provide a basis for self-policing by agencies. Upon receipt of your comments, we will revise the proposed Executive Order and forward it to the Governor's Office. GSS:Ivs Attachment cc: Joe Martens Laura Chasin David Boyle Peter Sistrom Olinted o-ecwled oane, ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 1223 1 -0001 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Honor-able Langdon J. Marsh, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation FROM: Gail S. Shaffer SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Govemor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that: "The Govemor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Govemor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Banier Resources Act areas." In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your infonnation. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. I would appreciate receiving your comments by July 29th on the enclosed copy. In particular, I would value your thoughts on the exceptions to the Executive Order. As presently worded, many exceptions would be contingent upon approval by the Department of State. Alternatively, policing of exceptions could be left to interpretation by individual State agencies. A possible middle ground is for the Order to direct the Department of State and/or others to develop specific guidelines which would provide a basis for self-policing by agencies. Upon receipt of your comments, we will revise the proposed Executive Order and forward it to the Govemor's Office. GSS:Ivs Attachment cc: Joe Martens Laura Chasin o David Boyle Peter Sistrom 4ri wimed on,ecvcIed,.oe, ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 -0001 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Joan Davidson, Commissioner Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation FROM: Gail S. Shaffer SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that: "The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas." In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your information. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. I would appreciate receiving your comments by July 29th on the enclosed copy. In particular, I would value your thoughts on the exceptions to the Executive Order. As presently worded, many exceptions would be contingent upon approval by the Department of State. Alternatively, policing of exceptions could be left to interpretation by individual State agencies. A possible middle ground is for the Order to direct the Department of State and/or others to develop specific guidelines which would provide a basis for self-policing by agencies. Upon receipt of your comments, we will revise the proposed Executive Order and forward it to the Governor's Office. GSS:Ivs Attachment m Joe Martens Laura Chasin David Boyle Peter Sistrom rs orinted on recycled oaoer ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 -000 1 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Vincent Tese, Commissioner Department of Economic Development FROM: Gail S. Shaffer SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that: "The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas." In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your information. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. I would appreciate receiving your comments by July 29th on the enclosed copy. In particular, I would value your thoughts on the exceptions to the Executive Order. As presently worded, many exceptions would be contingent upon approval by the Department of State. Alternatively, policing of exceptions could be left to interpretation by individual State agencies. A possible middle ground is for the Order to direct the Department of State and/or others to develop specific guidelines which would provide a basis for self-policing by agencies. Upon receipt of your comments, we will revise the proposed Executive Order and forward it to the Governor's Office. GSS:Ivs Attachment cc: Joe Martens I-aura Chasin David Boyle Peter Sistrom f*4 miot@d on rpcvcled Daner ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 1223 1 -0001 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Gerniano, Director State Emergency Management Office FROM: Gail S. Shaffer SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that:"'The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas. " In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your information. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. I would appreciate receiving your comments by July 29th on the enclosed copy. In particular, I would value your thoughts on the exceptions to the Executive Order. As presently worded, many exceptions would be contingent upon approval by the Department of State. Alternatively, policing of exceptions could be left to interpretation by individual State agencies. A possible middle ground is for the Order to direct the Department of State and/or others to develop specific guidelines which would provide a basis for self-policing by agencies. Upon receipt of your comments, we will revise the proposed Executive Order and forward it to the Governor's Office. GSS:Ivs Attachment cc: Joe Martens Laura Chasin David Boyle Peter Sistrom -L J ofinted on recycled DaDer ATTACHMENT I DRAFT Executive Order No. : Limiting expenditure of State funds which promote new development in coastal barrier resource and coastal hazard areas. WHEREAS, new development in coastal hazard areas could significantly increase the threats to public health and safety from the effects of hurricanes, winter storms, and long term erosion and flooding; and WHEREAS, continued development in coastal barrier resource areas and coastal hazard areas could significantly increase the economic burden to the public for emergency response and protection from long term erosion and flooding; and WHEREAS, sea level rise can be expected to continue in the future causing increased shoreline erosion and flooding, thus increasing the potential for damage to new development in hazard areas; and WHEREAS9 such areas as designated coastal barrier resource areas are wor 'thy of protection because of their open space character, aesthetic value, and wealth of natural resources unique in New York; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of New York, do hereby order that all State agencies cease expenditure of present and future funds in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas, which promote new residential and non-residential development, except as noted below. Such funds include, but are not limited to, contracts, grants, loans, cooperative agreements, use of equipment and personnel, and other direct and indirect expenditures which promote or guarantee construction of infrastructure, utilities, any structures, or other projects which facilitate, expedite, plan, or otherwise aid in the potential promotion of new development of coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource areas. Such projects also include construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any coastal hazard area or coastal barrier resource area; and the carrying out of any project to prevent the erosion of, or to oth6rwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, nearshore or inshore area, except as noted below. ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT I. Definitions A. The term "coastal barrier resource area" shall mean any one of the 90 marine or Great Lakes coastal areas designated and mapped under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, (P.L. 97-348), and any areas designated and mapped under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591), as administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and any future designations that may occur through amendments to these laws. Copies of maps showing the boundaries of designated coastal barrier resource areas in New York State are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of State. B. The term "coastal hazard area" shall mean any marine or Great Lakes coastal area included within the Erosion Hazard Area as designated by the State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act of 1981 (Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law), and any marine or Great Lakes coastal area included within a V-zone as designated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448) and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234). This Executive Order includes changes to the map boundaries of Erosion Hazard Areas and V-zones as they may be adjusted to account for changes in coastal conditions. Copies of maps showing the Erosion Hazard Area boundary are available from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Copies of maps showing the boundary of V-zones are available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of State, and local government offices. C - The term "new development" means any land or water use activity, construction, or placement by any person of a structure or appurtenance, or any action which materially alters the condition of subaerial and submerged lands and waters, including grading and excavating or other disturbance of the soil which commences after the date of this Executive Order. New development also includes additions to existing structures which result in a 25 percent or greater increase in usable space, and restoration of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the estimated full replacement cost of the structure at the time of restoration. D. The term "State agency" means any department, bureau, commission, board, public authority, or other entity of the government of the State of New York, including any public benefit corporation, any member of which is appointed by the Governor. ATTACIMENT I DRAFT II. Exceptions A. This order is not intended to preclude expenditures by federal agencies determined to be consistent with the New York State Coastal Management Program, nor by local governments, or private individuals. B. It is not the intent of this order to limit expenditure of State funds for the following purposes: funding which is a condition of a State permit process; or assistance pursuant to programs entirely unrelated to promotion of new development, such as State retirement benefits or welfare benefits. Other exceptions may be allowed after consultation with the Secretary of State, including the maintenance of existing public channel improvements, public shoreline protection, and related public structures, including the disposal of dredge material related to such improvements; the maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of publicly-owned or operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential links in a larger network or system; the maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of existing coastal development; new development for water dependent uses which require a location in a coastal hazard area, including public recreational facilities; projects for the study, management, protection, and enhancement of natural resources and recreation; scientific research, including atmospheric, geologic, marine, fish and wildlife, and other research, development, and applications such as the monitoring of coastal erosion impacts, consistent with this order; acquisition of land for purposes of recreation, open space, and reduction of coastal hazard impacts; soft- structural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore natural stabilization systems; and, assistance for emergency actions essential to the saving of lives and the protection of public health and safety that are necessary to alleviate the emergency. ATTACHMENT I New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization Limits on State Expenditures in. Hazard Areas Analysis of Impacts June 1994 ATTACIMENT I Introduction The explicit and implied goals of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) include protection of natural resources, reduction of federal costs for coastal management, and reduction in dependence on engineering solutions to coastal erosion problems. The CBRA achieves these goals by prohibiting expenditure of federal funds which promote development on barrier landforms. The inherent policy is that public dollars should not be spent to support unwise development of hazardous coastal locations. Since passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982 there has been discussion in New York State of limiting State agency expenditures within federally designated areas. This idea was formally recommended by the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources in its final report of November, 1991. The recommendation stated: " The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resource Act areas, in coastal high hazard areas, and in additional areas identified as such in the regional elements... " The Task Force expressed concern for State expenditures for public services and infrastructure which promote unwise use of hazardous coastal locations. The recommendation was not intended to preclude open space acquisition or public expenditures to provide reasonable public access to the shore for recreation. A similar proposal by the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion recommends State action that would focus on areas designated in the federal CBRA legislation and coastal hazard areas. Coastal hazard areas are defined as Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas (CERA's) designated in the State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act and V-zones designated on federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These recommendations are in keeping with CBRA findings which stated the need for a program of coordinated action by Federal, State, and local governments to ensure appropriate use and conservation of coastal barriers. Background Coastal Barrier Resources Act The Department of Interior established a task force in 1977 to map the Atlantic and Gulf Coast barrier chain that remained undeveloped and unprotected by public ownership. The concern was that undeveloped barrier landforms, an important natural resource, were rapidly disappearing because of a sharp increase in coastal development. This concern was heightened by a General Accounting Office report which indicated that the National Flood Insurance Program was providing an incentive to coastal development. The work of the task force, combined with some of the latest research regarding the resource value of barrier islands and the potential impacts of development and attendant shore protection, resulted in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Signed on October 18, 1982, the Act (P.L. 97-348) established a Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) to be administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The system included 656 miles of "undeveloped barrier shoreline" requiring protection. Undeveloped barriers are depositional geologic features that consist of unconsolidated sedimentary materials subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies, which protect landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack, and have a development density of less than I structure per five ATTACHMENT 1 acres. Furthermore, inclusion in the system was limited to areas not included within the boundaries of an area already protected under Federal, State, or local law or held by a qualified organization primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. Protection was afforded through a prohibition on all expenditure of federal funds for development, including flood insurance. Section 5 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act provided that "no new expenditure or new financial assistance may be made available under authority of any Federal law for any purpose within the Coastal Barrier Resources System..." Financial assistance is clarified to mean any form of direct or indirect assistance, including but not limited to construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility or related infrastructure; the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility, or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any system unit; and the carrying out of any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area, except in cases where an emergency threatens life, land, and property immediately adjacent to that unit. After October 1983 the CBRA amended the National Flood Insurance Act to eliminate any new flood insurance coverage for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located on any coastal barrier within the CBRS. However, federally insured financial institutions were still permitted to make loans secured by structures which were not eligible for flood insurance as a result of this Act. Exceptions to the use of federal funds in CBRS units include general revenue-sharing grants; FDIC type bank account insurance; the Federal purchase of mortgages or loans; funding incident to a Federal permit process; or, assistance pursuant to programs entirely unrelated to development, such as any Federal or Federally assisted public assistance program or any Federal old-age survivors or disability insurance program. Other exceptions may be allowed after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, including any use or facility necessary for the exploration, extraction, or transportation of energy resources which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to coastal water areas; the maintenance of existing channel improvements and related structures, including the disposal of dredge materials related to such improvements; the maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of publicly-owned or operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential links in a larger network or system; military activities essential to national security; the construction, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Coast Guard facilities and access thereto; projects for the study, management, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and recreational projects; the establishment, operation, and maintenance of air and water navigation aids and devices; scientific research; assistance for emergency actions that are necessary to alleviate the emergency; nonstructural. projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore natural stabilization systems; and projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. All federal agencies administering programs within the system were affected. CBRA recognized that federally funded infrastructure projects and flood insurance were supporting inappropriate development on barrier islands. Within New York State 12 areas were included in the CBRS (Table 1, unit numbers begin with F). 2 ATTACHMENT I The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) (P.L. 10 1 -59 1) was signed into law on November 16, 1990. Its purpose was to reauthorize and amend the CBRA. Among other amendments, it expanded the CBRS, adding many new areas around the nation and within New York State (Table 1, unit numbers begin with NY). "Otherwise protected" units were designated for areas held for conservation purposes under Federal, State, or local law, or held by an approved organization. The CBIA amends the National Flood Insurance Act to state that structures built within these otherwise protected areas after November 16, 1991 will not be eligible for Federal flood insurance unless the structures "are used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected. " If elected by the local owner, otherwise protected areas could be fully included in the CBRS, which would eliminate all federal subsidies for development. CBIA also directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to at least once every 5 years review the CBRS maps and make such minor and technical modifications to boundaries as may be necessary to correct for results of natural forces. Analysis Impact of Federal Laws in New York State Along the coast of New York approximately 90 areas have been designated as either otherwise protected (Table 1, unit number followed by "P") or CBRS areas. There is no evidence available to specifically address the impact of the CBRA in most units around the State. Although no new development has occurred at most sites since 1982, the contribution of CBRA in causing this cannot easily be separated from other factors, such as the economic recession. Nevertheless, the lack of Federal funds, particularly flood insurance, has presumably deterred some coastal development along protected barriers. However, development continued in at least one area despite its CBRS designation. The barrier spit east of Shinnecock Inlet was included in the CBRS in 1982, but development of single- family residences continued. AN of the homes that were constructed were expensive, large@ structures, each probably exceeding $1 million in value. Apparently, elimination of federal flood insurance, which has a claims cap of $240,000 per structure (including contents), was not a major factor in deterring development of this site. In addition, there are several sites in New York where boundary locations for CBRS units are being challenged by property owners who either want to develop or relocate homes. Examination of the CBRA consequences in New York State suggests that while it may be having the impact of reducing construction in certain areas of the coastline, the disincentive to development has a greater impact on lower income households. Lower income house holds have a greater dependency on federal support, especially flood insurance, and would be less likely to develop in an area where these subsidies were not available. Higher income households, however, would be less likely to need federal support since the amount available would be a relatively small percentage of total development costs for a large house. Such was the case for development in a CBRS unit near Shinnecock Inlet. The net result is a unstated program preference toward new coastal development only by high income households. 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Elimination of State Funds As presented above, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources and the Task Force on Coastal Erosion have both recommended that State funds which promote development be eliminated in CBRS units. It is evident that simply eliminating Federal funds is not a deterrent to development in New York State. It is uncertain how much additional impact elimination of State funds would have in achieving the goals of the CBRA at designated sites. Development 'could still proceed with private and local government funding, however, it can be assumed that elimination of Federal and State funds would be a disincentive to further CBRS development. Most, if not all, sites included in the CBRS are in coastal hazard locations. Preventing unwise development within hazardous sites is an important proactive coastal management goal that, over the long-term, will ensure public safety, protect natural resources, and reduce the use of limited public funds for unwise development and subsequent shoreline protection in coastal hazard areas. The long-term benefits to the State and its residents will outweigh any potential short term loss of development values at these hazardous sites. Where development values are high for private individuals and local governments, they can proceed with development at their cost. With this executive order the State would simply be executing wise fiscal responsibility by withhold funds which promote development in hazards areas; there is no attempt on the part of the State to block private development or to remove existing development through regulation, and thus the private property "takings" issue would not be a concern. The implementation procedure recommended by the Task Force on Coastal Resources was issuance of an Executive Order from the Governor's Office to direct State agencies to limit expenditures in CBRS units. The impact of this Executive Order would apply only to the areas listed in Table 1. In addition to the elimination of State funds in Federal CBRS units, the Task Force on Coastal Resources and the Task Force on Coastal Erosion have also recommended expanding the ban on State funds which promote development to all coastal hazard areas. As defined by the Coastal Erosion Task Force, this would include all V-zones defined on National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas defined by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act. This recommendation departs from several CBRA definitions, which could have significant impact if implemented. As discussed above, in order for an area to qualify for inclusion in the CBRS it must be a barrier landform subject to wave and tidal action. In New York State, it is not certain if all V-zones meet this criteria. It is known that many CEHA's include bluff and mainland beaches. Thus, shoreline protection through elimination of State development funds could be extended to all coastal landforms. Furthermore, if all V-zone and CERA's are included in the State ban on development funds, heavily populated areas would be included along with undeveloped lands. As discussed above, CBRA only includes property with a development density of I structure per 5 acres or less. V-zones and CERA's are defined regardless of the level of development. Implementation of this recommendation could result in no State funding for development (including shore protection if not exempted) in heavily developed areas. This would be in direct conflict with certain goals and principles developed by the Coastal Erosion Task Force, and 4 ATTACHMENT I would likely meet with political opposition. However, review of V-zone maps and CEHA maps around the State suggests that most heavily developed shorelines are outside of the V-zones and CEHA erosion zones. For example, both the V-zone and the Erosion Hazard Line extend inland to the dunes, and thus exclude all residential and commercial structures in the heavily developed locations of Coney Island, Rockaway, Long Beach, and Bayville. Despite the problems discussed, the Executive Order should proceed to limit State expenditures within CBRS units. Several options exist for implementation of a ban on State expenditures beyond the CBRS units. In order to minimize conflicts with the goals and principles of the Coastal Erosion Task Force the limit on State expenditures in V-zones and CEHA's could apply only to those areas which had defined minimum development densities. This would ensure protection for relatively undeveloped and natural shorelines. Alternatively, the limit on State dollars could apply to certain types of development projects. For example, some types of shore protection might still be permitted. This could be used to reinforce an expressed Task Force preference for use of soft erosion control methods, but elimination of hard alternatives in heavily developed areas could still be problematic. Elimination of State funds could be used to control new growth in hazard areas. Funds for new or expanded infrastructure could be eliminated while still permitting maintenance funding. Alternatively, some combination of expenditure limits and development density could be applied on a graduated scale. For example, State funding for all types of shore protection might be permitted in heavily developed areas, only soft protection methods in moderate and lightly developed areas, and no State expenditures for shoreline protection in undeveloped areas. Similar limits on funds promoting growth and development in V- zones and CEHA's could be generated for varying levels of. existing development. Presently, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion is debating the appropriate level of State expenditure for shoreline protection at various locations. The Task Force has stated a preference toward protecting heavily developed shorelines. The Task Force has not eliminated the possibility of shore protection for moderate and lightly developed areas. Recent Task Force discussion has focused on providing shoreline protection to a level commensurate with benefits received by the State. Any effort to expand the CBRA concept beyond CBRS units would have to consider the final recommendations of the Coastal Erosion Task Force in order to avoid conflicts within the coastal management program. Although each Task Force has recommended limiting State expenditures in CBRS units and coastal hazard areas to achieve the CBRA goals, each has also recommended that exceptions apply. A major concern is that State funding which promotes development for recreational purposes and public access to the shoreline, and scientific research, not be eliminated. Likewise, many of the other exceptions listed in the CBRA and presented above, should have similar exceptions at the State level, and should be included in the Executive Order. Each of the CBRA exceptions should be reviewed for application to the State level. In some cases, the State may wish to eliminate some exceptions, such as an exception for mortgage funding from State chartered banks. In other cases, new exceptions should be included to ensure funding for state priorities, such as the coastal erosion monitoring program. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 Given the need for distribution of CBRS unit maps to State agencies and the likelihood of questions regarding eligible funding, exceptions, and unit boundaries, the Executive Order could designate the Department of State as the point-of-contact for this effort. If the Executive Order simply includes present CBRS units, the cost for administratiod would be limited. If, however, the Executive Order includes a limit on State funds which promote development in V- zones and CEHA's, then the cost to the Department of State for mapping, distribution of materials, and answering inquiries could be significant and may require the addition of staff. Enforcement of the executive order could have several options. The executive order could lay out very general guidelines for compliance, and have each agency consult with the Department of State for exceptions. This would have the advantage of ensuring that all actions are consistent with the State Coastal Management Program, but could impose a significant increase in work load on DOS and increase the review time required before agencies could undertake the action. Another alternative is to have each agency make their own determination as to the consistency of the expenditure with the executive order. This would minimize any time delay caused by the review, but consistency with the State coastal policies would not be assured. Furthermore, it is not clear that agencies would have the incentive to fairly implement the executive order as intended. A third alternative would be for the executive order to direct the Department of State, in consultation with the other affected agencies, to develop explicit guidelines for implementation. Once established, each agency could use them to guide its actions relative to the executive order. This would result in a compromise between stricter enforcement and review delays, but would increase the length of time before the executive order could be implemented. 6 ATTACHMENT I TABLE I COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM UNITS IN NEW YORK STATE UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER I LONG ISLAND REGION I FOI Fisher Island Barrier Suffolk Southold I-I Sound, Block Isl Sound, Stony Bch, Hay Hbr, Island Pond 2 F02 Eatons Neck Suffolk Asharoken I-I Sound, Eatons Neck, Eatons Neck Pt 3 F04 Crane Neck Suffolk Old Field I-I Sound, Crane Neck, Flax Pond 4 FOS Old Field Beach Suffolk Old Field, Port I-I Sound, Old Field Bch, Mt. Misery Pt, Port Jefferson Jefferson, Belle Hbr Terre, Poquoft, Brookhaven 5 F06 Shelter Island Barriers Suffolk Shelter Island Gardiners Bay, Upper Bch, Lower Bch, Coecles Inlet, Nichols Pt, Reel Pt, Cedar Isl 6 FOBA Sammys Beach Suffolk East Hampton Gardiners; Bay, Sammys Bch, Three Mile Hbr, Maidstone Park Bch 7 F08B Acabonack Harbor Suffolk East Hampton Gardiners Bay, Acabonack Hbr, Louse Pt, Gerard Park 8 F09 Gardiners Island Barriers Suffolk East Hampton Gardiners Bay/Block Isl Sound, Cartwright IsI, Cherry Hill Pt, Bostwick Pt, Bostwick Crk, Bostwick Bay, Great Pond, Tobaccolot Bay, Tobaccolot Pond, Cherry Hbr, Home Pond 9 F10 Napeague Suffolk East Hampton Atlantic Ocean/Napeague Bay, Napeague Hbr 10 Fil Mecox Suffolk Southampton Atlantic Ocean, Mecox Bay, Watermill Bch 11 F12 Southampton Beach Suffolk Southampton (V) Atlantic Ocean, Shinnecock Bay, Shinnecock Spit Southampton (T) 7 ATTACHMENT I UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER 12 F13/F13P Tiana Beach Suffolk Southampton Atlantic Ocean, Tiana Bch, East Pt, Shinnecock Bay, Shinnecock Inlet -13 NY-03 Sands Point Nassau Sands Point I-I Sound, west side of Sands Pt 14 NY-04P Prospect Point Nassau Sands Point I-I Sound, Prospect Pt 15 NY-05P Dosoris Pond Nassau Lattingtown I-I Sound, East Bch, Dosoris Pond I Glen Cove 16 NY-06/NY-06P The Creek Beach Nassau Lattingtown LI Sound, The Creek Bch, Frost Crk, Stehil Bch, F 17 NY-07P Centre Island Nassau Centre Island I-I Sound, Centre Island Bch Bayville -18 NY-09P Lloyd Beach Suffolk Lloyd Harbor Ll Sound, Lloyd Bch, West Neck Bch 19 NY-10 Lloyd Point Suffolk Lloyd Harbor LI Sound/Cold Spring Hbr, Lloyd Pt 20 NY-11/NY-11P Lloyd Harbor Suffolk Lloyd Harbor LI Sound/Huntington Bay, East Bch, Lloyd Hbr, Sandy Huntington Bay Pt, East Fort Pt 21 NY-12 Centerport Harbor Suffolk Huntington LI Sound/Northport Bay, Centerport Hbr, Centerport Bch 22 NY-13 Hobart Beach Suffolk Huntington LI Sound/Huntington Bay/Northport Bay, Hobart Bch, West Bch 23 NY-14 Crab Meadow Suffolk Huntington I-I Sound, Crab Meadow, Makamah Bch 24 NY-15 Sunken Meadow Suffolk Nissequogue I-I Sound, Sunken Meadow State Park, Short Bch, Smithtown Nissequogue River, Callahans Bch 25 NY-16 Stony Brook Harbor Suffolk Nissequogue I-I Sound, Long Bch, Youngs IsI, Stony Brook Hbr Smithtown Head of Harbor ATTACHMENT 1 UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER 26 NY-17/NY-17P Cedar Beach Suffolk Port Jefferson LI Sound, Cedar Bch, Mt. Sinai Hbr Brookhaven 27 NY-18 Wading River Suffolk Brookhaven I-I Sound, Wading River Riverhead 28 NY-19 Baiting Hollow Suffolk Riverhead I-I Sound, Fresh Pond Landing 29 NY-20P Luce Landing Suffolk Southold I-I Sound, near Luce Landing 30 NY-21P Mattituck Inlet Suffolk Southold LI Sound, Mattituck Inlet, Mattituck Crk 31 NY-22P Goldsmith Inlet Suffolk Southold I-I Sound, Goldsmith Inlet 32 NY-23P Truman Beach Suffolk Southold I-I Sound/Gardiners Bay, Orient Hbr, Truman Bch, Dam Pond 33 NY-24 Plum Island Suffolk Southold Gardiners Bay, Plum Gut, Plum IsI, Pine Pt 34 NY-25 Orient Beach Suffolk Southold Gardiners Bay, Orient Hbr, Long Bch, Orient Bch State Park, Long Bch Bay, Little Bay, Peters Neck, Browns Pt 35 NY-26 Pipes Cove Suffolk Southold Pipes Cove, near Arshamonaque 36 NY-27 Conkling Point Suffolk Southold Shelter Isl Sound, Conkling Pt 37 NY-28 Southold Bay Suffolk Southold Shelter Isl Sound, Southold Bay, Goose Crk, Jockey Crk, Town Crk 38 NY-29P Cedar Beach Point Suffolk Southold Little Peconic Bay, Cedar Bch Pt, Cedar Bch Crk 39 NY-30 Hog Neck Bay Suffolk Southold Little Peconic Bay, Hog Neck Bay, Corey Crk, Richmond Crk 40 NY-31/NY-31P Little Creek Suffolk Southold Little Peconic Bay, Little Crk, Broadwater Cove 41 NY-32 Downs Creek Suffolk Southold North Race/Great Peconic Bay, Downs Crk 9 ATTACHMENT I UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER 42 NY-33 Robins Island Suffolk Southold North Race/Great Peconic Bay, NW corner of Robins Isl 43 NY-34 East Creek ead Great Peconic Bay, East Crk I. Suffolk Riverh 44 NY-35 Indian Island Suffolk Riverhead Great Peconic Bay/Flanders Bay, Indian IsI, Terrys Crk 45 NY-36 Flanders Bay Suffolk Southampton Flanders Bay, Goose Crk, Goose Crk Pt, Cow Yard, Birch Crk, Hubbard Crk, Red Cedar Pt 46 NY-37 Red Creek Pond Suffolk Southampton Great Peconic Bay, Red Creek Pond 47 NY-38 Squire Pond Suffolk Southampton Great Peconic Bay, Squire Pond 48 NY-39 Cow Neck Suffolk Southampton Great Peconic Bay, Sebonac Crk, Little Sebonac Crk, West Neck Crk, Island Crk, Scallop Pond 49 NY-40/NY-40P North Sea Harbor Suffolk Southampton Little Peconic Bay, North Sea Hbr, Davis Crk, Towd Pt, Conscience Pt 50 NY-41/NY-41P Clam Island Suffolk Southampton Noyack Bay/Little Peconic Bay, Clam IsI, Noyack Crk, Jessup Neck, Morton NWR 51 NY-42 Mill Creek Suffolk Southampton Noyack Bay, Mill Crk 52 NY-43/NY-43P Short Beach Suffolk North Haven Noyack Bay, Long Bch, Sag Hbr Cove, Paynes Crk Sag Harbor Southampton 53 NY-44 Gleason Point Suffolk North Haven Shelter tsi Sound, Gleason Pt 54 NY-45 Shell Beach Suffolk Shelter Island Shelter Isl Sound, West Neck Hbr, Shell Bch, Dickerson Crk 55 NY-46 Crab Creek Suffolk Shelter Island Little Peconic Bay, Crab Crk Pt, Crab Crk 56 NY-47 Hay Beach Point Suffolk Shelter Island Gardiners Bay, Hay Bch Pt 10 ATTACHMENT I UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER 57 NY-48 Mashomack Point Suffolk Shelter Island Gardiners; Bay/Shelter Isl Sound, Mashomack Pt, Gibsons Bch, Majors Hbr 58 NY-49 Smith Cove Suffolk Shelter Island Shelter Isl Sound, Smith Cove 59 NY-50 Fresh Pond Suffolk North Haven Sag Harbor Bay, Fresh Pond 60 NY-51/NY-51P Northwest Harbor Suffolk East Hampton Gardiners Bay, Northwest Harbor, Cedar Pt, Cedar Pond, Northwest Crk, Alewife Brook -61 NY-52 Hog Creek Suffolk East Hampton Gardiners Bay, Hog Creek 62 NY-53 Big Reed Pond -Suffolk East Hampton Block Isl Sound, Big Reed Pond, Little Reed Pond -63 NY-54 Oyster Pond Suffolk East Hampton Block Isl Sound, Oyster Pond 64 NY-55 Montauk Point Suffolk East Hampton Block Isl Sound, Montauk Point State Park, Fal 65 NY-56/NY-56P Amagansett Suffolk East Hampton Atlantic Ocean, Amagansett Bch 66 NY-57 Georgica/Wainscott Suffolk East Hampton(T) Atlantic Ocean, Georgica Pond, Wainscoft Pond, Ponds East HamptonM Wainscott Bch 67 NY-58 Sagaponack Pond Suffolk Southampton Atlantic Ocean, Sagaponack Pond 68 NY-59/NY-5913 Fire Island Nassau Hempstead Atlantic Ocean, Lido Bch, Jones IsI, Fire Isi, Great Suffolk Oyster Bay South Bay, Oyster Bay, Moriches Bay, Cupsoque Bch Babylon, Islip Brookhaven Saltaire Ocean Beach Southampton 69 NY-60P Jamaica Bay Kings New York City Atlantic Ocean, Jamaica Bay, Rockaway Bch, Plumb Queens Bch, Floyd Bennett Field, Rulers Bar Hassock, Canarsie Pol, Old Mill Crk, Jacob Rils Park ATTACHMENT 1 UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY I MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER GREAT LAKES REGION 70 NY-61 Wilson Bay Jefferson Cape Vincent Lake Ontario, Wilson Bay 71 NY-62 Grenadier Island Jefferson Cape Vincent Lake Ontario, Grenadier Island 72 NY-63 Fox Island Jefferson Cape Vincent Lake Ontario, Fox IsI, Basin Hbr, Little Grenadier Island 73 NY-64 The Isthmus Jefferson Lyme Lake Ontario, The Isthmus, Chaumont Bay 74 NY-65 Point Peninsula Jefferson Lyme Lake Ontario, Point Peninsula 75 NY-66 Hounsfield Jefferson Hounsfield Lake Ontario, NE tip of Stony Isl 76 NY-67 Dutch John Bay Jefferson Hounsfield Lake Ontario, Stony Isl 77 NY-68 Sherwin Bay Jefferson Brownville Lake Ontario, Sherwin Bay 78 NY-69 Association Island Jefferson Henderson Lake Ontario, Snowshoe Bay, Six Town Pt Hounsfield 79 NY-72 North Pond Jefferson Ellisburg Lake Ontario, North Pond & barriers Oswego Sandy Creek 80 NY-73 Deer Creek Marsh Oswego Richland Lake Ontario, Deer Crk, N. of Selkirk 81 NY-74 Grindstone Creek Oswego Richland Lake Ontario, Grindstone Crk, S. of Selkirk Shores 82 NY-75 Butterfly Swamp Oswego New Haven Lake Ontario, Butterfly Crk, Butterfly Swamp 83 NY-76 Walker Oswego City of Oswego Lake Ontario, NE. of City of Oswego Scriba 84 NY-77 Snake Swamp Oswego Town of Oswego Lake Ontario, Snake Swamp, SW of City of Oswego IF85 NY-78 Juniper Pond Cayuga Sterling Lake Ontario, Juniper Pond 12 ATTACHMENT I UNIT UNIT NAME COUNTY MUNICIPALITY LOCATION NUMBER 86 NY-79 Blind Sodus Bay Cayuga Sterling Lake Ontario, Blind Sodus Bay, W. of Little Sodus Bay Wayne Wolcott -87 NY-82 PortBay Wayne Wolcott Lake Ontario, E. of Port Bay 88 NY-84 Maxwell Bay Wayne Sodus Lake Ontario, Maxwell Bay, Salmon Crk 89 NY-86 Bogus Point Monroe Parma Lake Ontario, between Bogus Pt and Payne Bch L--90 NY-87 Big Sister Creek Erie Evans Lake Erie, Big Sister Crk, N. of Angola-on-the-Lake 13 A ATTACHMENT 2 W tXCELS10 - STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 -0001 GAIL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph Martens FROM: James N. Baldwin SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Order on State Agency Expenditures in Coastal Hazard Areas In its November 1991 report, the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that: "The Governor should issue an Executive Order requiring State Agencies to limit public subsidies and expenditures in federally identified Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas, in coastal hazard areas, and in additional areas identified in the regional elements ...... The Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force is making a similar recommendation to: "Limit State agencies from expending funds which promote new development in coastal hazard areas and Coastal Barrier Resources Act areas." In accordance with these recommendations, the Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization analyzed the potential impacts that this Executive Order could have. The analysis concluded that the Order should focus only on prevention of new development in coastal hazard areas and coastal barrier resource (CBRA) areas through removal of State financial support for projects which support new development. A copy of the analysis, explaining the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, is provided for your information. Based on the analysis, a proposed Executive Order has been prepared. A draft copy is attached for your information. Our examination of the location of hazard and CBRA areas indicates the Executive Order would affect only a thin strip of land parallel to the Great Lakes and the marine shoreline. In most locations there is no existing development within this strip, so the impact would only be a deterrent to new development. However, in a few locations, such as Fire Island and along sections of the Long Island north shore bluffs, presently developed land is within the hazard zone. State support for new development in these areas would be affected. Numerous exceptions are presented in the Order. We have distributed the draft Executive Order to other State agencies for their review and comment. Based on agency comments, the Executive order will be revised and forwarded to you for additional review. JNB:1vs Attachment cc: David Boyle Identical copies of the executive order and the analysis of impacts Laura Chasin which accompanied the previous memo - attachment 1. - were included with this memo to the Governor's Office. Peter Sistrom NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY iA\ 1 3 6668 14111880 4 @of