Florida Senate - 2016 SB 1566
By Senator Hutson
6-01266-16 20161566__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to beach management and erosion
3 control; amending s. 161.101, F.S.; revising criteria
4 to be considered by the Department of Environmental
5 Protection in determining and assigning annual funding
6 priorities for beach management and erosion control
7 projects; requiring such criteria to be considered in
8 a specified order; providing an effective date.
9
10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
11
12 Section 1. Subsection (14) of section 161.101, Florida
13 Statutes, is amended to read:
14 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
15 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
16 control.—
17 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and
18 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this section act
19 is to direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s
20 most severely eroded beaches, and to prevent further adverse
21 impact caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal
22 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual
23 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal
24 input from local coastal governments, beach and general
25 government interest groups, and university experts. Criteria to
26 be considered by the department in determining annual funding
27 priorities shall include items of primary consideration pursuant
28 to paragraphs (a)-(f), items of secondary consideration pursuant
29 to paragraphs (g)-(i), and items for additional consideration
30 pursuant to paragraphs (j) and (k):
31 (a) The tourism-related severity of erosion conditions, the
32 threat to existing upland development, and recreational and/or
33 economic benefits of the project. Using data for the county in
34 which the project is located, the return on investment shall be
35 considered as a ratio of tourism-related tax revenues for the
36 most recent year to the amount of state funding requested for
37 the project and a ratio of the tourism-related tax revenues as a
38 percentage of all county tax revenues.
39 (b) The recreational benefits of the project determined by
40 calculating the percentage of linear footage of property zoned
41 for recreational or open space or commercial or public lodging
42 establishments within the project area.
43 (c)(b) The availability of federal matching dollars for the
44 project, considering federal authorization, the federal cost
45 share percentage, and the status of the funding award.
46 (d) The storm damage reduction benefits of the project,
47 considering:
48 1. Current conditions, including any recent storm damage
49 impacts, as a percentage of volume of sand lost since the most
50 recent nourishment event or most recent survey. If the project
51 has not been restored, the historical background erosion rate
52 will be used; and
53 2. Potential threat to existing upland development,
54 including public and private structures and infrastructure,
55 based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline within the
56 project boundaries.
57 (c) The extent of local government sponsor financial and
58 administrative commitment to the project, including a long-term
59 financial plan with a designated funding source or sources for
60 initial construction and periodic maintenance.
61 (e)(d) The previous state commitment and involvement in the
62 project, considering previously funded phases, project
63 eligibility, and previous partial appropriations for the
64 project.
65 (f) The cost effectiveness of the project based on the cost
66 per volume per mile per year of proposed beach fill placement
67 and recognition of projects with proposed structural or design
68 components to extend the nourishment interval; proposed
69 innovative technologies designed to reduce project costs or
70 proposed regional sediment management strategies; and
71 coordination to reduce project costs.
72 (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed
73 project, including the frequency of periodic planned
74 nourishment.
75 (g)(f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates
76 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on
77 adjacent beaches.
78 (h) The readiness of the project to proceed, considering
79 construction phase, status of required permits, easement
80 acquisition, availability of local funding sources, and
81 establishment of an erosion control line. If the department
82 identifies specific and documented concerns that the project
83 will not proceed, the department may choose not to include the
84 project in the annual funding priorities submitted to the
85 Legislature.
86 (i) The extent to which the project addresses the state’s
87 most significant beach erosion problems as a function of project
88 length.
89 (j) The increased prioritization of projects that have been
90 on the department’s ranked list for successive years without
91 success in securing state funding for project implementation.
92 (k) The environmental habitat enhancement of the project,
93 recognizing state or federal critical habitat areas for
94 threatened or endangered species which in the near term may be
95 subject to erosion that threatens the availability or quality of
96 habitat for such species. Turtle-friendly designs, proposed
97 incorporation of best management practices and adaptive
98 management strategies to protect resources, and innovative
99 technologies designed to benefit critical habitat preservation
100 may also be considered.
101 (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally
102 sensitive applications to reduce erosion.
103 (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or
104 adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.
105 (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach
106 erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,
107 design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of
108 identifiable cost savings.
109 (j) The degree to which the project addresses the state’s
110 most significant beach erosion problems.
111
112 If In the event that more than one project qualifies equally
113 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall
114 assign funding priority to those projects that are most ready to
115 proceed.
116 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016.