2019 Florida Statutes
BEACH AND SHORE PRESERVATION
OTHER PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
The timeframes for license approval or denial set forth in s. 120.60(1) do not commence until all required information is received. The rules authorized under this section may also require submittal of such information as is necessary to determine whether the proposed activity will occur on submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and shall contain provisions for permit processing and issuance of orders which are consistent with s. 373.427 and provisions for providing notice of applications which are consistent with s. 373.413. Authorization under this subsection may not be issued unless the requirements for issuance of any additional required authorizations, permits, waivers, variances, and approvals described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) are also satisfied.
Structures built pursuant to permits granted under this subsection may be ordered removed by the department only if such structures are determined to be unnecessary or to interfere with the installation of a beach restoration project.
In the event that more than one project qualifies equally under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall assign funding priority to those projects that are ready to proceed.
(14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most severely eroded beaches and to prevent further adverse impact caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal input from local coastal governments, beach and general government interest groups, and university experts. The department shall implement a scoring system for annual project funding priorities that consists of criteria equally weighted within the following specified tiers:
(a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the economic impact of the project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the department must assess each county individually using these ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the multicounty project.
(b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score and consist of all of the following criteria:
1. The availability of federal matching dollars, considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share percentage, and the status of the funding award.
2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based on the following considerations:
a. The current condition of the project area, including any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been previously restored, the department must use the historical background erosion rate;
b. The overall potential threat to existing upland development, including public and private structures and infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline that exists within the project boundaries; and
c. The value of upland property benefiting from the protection provided by the project and its subsequent maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the project boundaries to be considered under the criterion specified in this sub-subparagraph.
3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill placement. The department shall also consider the following when assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph:
a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or design components that could extend the beach nourishment interval;
b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation projects;
c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce project costs; and
d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs.
(c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score and consist of all of the following criteria:
1. Previous state commitment and involvement in the project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations for the proposed project.
2. The recreational benefits of the project based on:
a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and
b. The percentage of linear footage within the project boundaries which is zoned:
(I) As recreational or open space;
(II) For commercial use; or
(III) To otherwise allow for public lodging establishments.
3. The extent to which the project mitigates the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on adjacent beaches.
4. The degree to which the project addresses the state’s most significant beach erosion problems as a function of the linear footage of the project shoreline and the cubic yards of sand placed per mile per year.
(d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score and consist of all of the following criteria:
1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on the department’s ranked project list for successive years and that have not previously secured state funding for project implementation.
2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring, or recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle-friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of best management practices and adaptive management strategies to protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered.
3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a timely manner, considering the project’s readiness for the construction phase of development, the status of required permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted to the Legislature.
If more than one project qualifies equally under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall assign funding priority to those projects shown to be most ready to proceed.
The beach management plan may be prepared at the regional level based upon areas of greatest need and probable federal funding. Such regional plans shall be components of the statewide beach management plan and shall serve as the basis for state funding decisions upon approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of Florida. In accordance with a schedule established for the submission of regional plans by the department, any completed plan must be submitted to the secretary of the department for approval no later than March 1 of each year. These regional plans shall include, but shall not be limited to, recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing districts or other revenue generation measures by state and local governments and the private sector. Prior to presenting the plan to the secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public meeting in the areas for which the plan is prepared. The plan submission schedule shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions to such schedule must be approved in like manner.
(1) The department shall develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits of Florida. In developing and maintaining this plan, the department shall:
(a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of critically eroded beaches in this state.
(b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet, including, but not limited to, inlet sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design, and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches; and beach restoration and beach nourishment.
(c) Evaluate criteria for beach restoration and beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to, dune elevation and width and revegetation and stabilization requirements and beach profiles.
(d) Consider the establishment of regional sediment management alternatives for one or more individual beach and inlet sand bypassing projects as an alternative to beach restoration when appropriate and cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional sediment management alternatives and the source of beach-compatible sand.
(e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change, determine erosion rates, and maintain an updated list of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and investigations of shoreline conditions.
(f) Assess impacts of development and coastal protection structures on shoreline change and erosion.
(g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and benefits of beaches to the state and individual beach communities.
(h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing beach projects without dune features or with dunes without adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery projects or future dune maintenance events.
(i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and nesting locations.
(j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve undeveloped beach and dune systems and to restore damaged beach and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the department shall consider, at a minimum, beach restoration and nourishment, armoring, relocation, dune and vegetation restoration, and acquisition.
(k) Document procedures and policies for preparing poststorm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans, including repair cost estimates.
(l) Identify and assess appropriate management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded sandy beaches.
(2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year work plan for beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet management projects that lists planned projects for each of the 3 fiscal years addressed in the work plan.
(a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plans prepared at the regional level, taking into account areas of greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon approval in accordance with this section, such regional plans, along with the 3-year work plan identified in subparagraph (c)1., must serve as the basis for state funding decisions. Before finalizing the strategic beach management plan, the department shall hold a public meeting in the region for which the plan is prepared or hold a publicly noticed webinar.
(b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in paragraph (1)(e).
(c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at least 5 years of planned beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet management project funding needs as identified, and subsequently refined, by local government sponsors. This plan must consist of two components:
1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet management projects viable for implementation during the next 3 fiscal years, as determined by available cost-sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory considerations, and the ability of the project to proceed as scheduled. The 3-year work plan must, for each fiscal year, identify proposed projects and their current development status, listing them in priority order based on the applicable criteria established in ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding requests and criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2), may be modified as warranted in each successive fiscal year, and such modifications must be documented and submitted to the Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year one projects shall consist of those projects identified for funding consideration in the ensuing fiscal year.
2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may be presented by region and do not need to be presented in priority order; however, the department should identify issues that may prevent successful completion of such projects and recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress into the 3-year work plan.
(3) The secretary shall present the 3-year work plan to the Legislature annually. The work plan must be accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability of funding for the projects.
The enumeration of types of structures in this subsection shall not be construed as excluding from the operation of ss. 161.52-161.58 any other structure which by its usage, design, dimensions, or structural configuration would require engineering consideration similar to the listed structures.
The total cost does not include nonstructural interior finishings, including, but not limited to, finish flooring and floor coverings, base molding, nonstructural substrates, drywall, plaster, paneling, wall covering, tapestries, window treatments, decorative masonry, paint, interior doors, tile, cabinets, moldings and millwork, decorative metal work, vanities, electrical receptacles, electrical switches, electrical fixtures, intercoms, communications and sound systems, security systems, HVAC grills and decorative trim, freestanding metal fireplaces, appliances, water closets, tubs and shower enclosures, lavatories, and water heaters, or roof coverings, except when determining whether the structure has been substantially improved as a result of a single improvement or repair.
For the purposes of this definition, “substantial improvement” is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places.
The property being purchased may be subject to coastal erosion and to federal, state, or local regulations that govern coastal property, including the delineation of the coastal construction control line, rigid coastal protection structures, beach nourishment, and the protection of marine turtles. Additional information can be obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, including whether there are significant erosion conditions associated with the shoreline of the property being purchased.