Bill Text: FL S1566 | 2016 | Regular Session | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Beach Management and Erosion Control

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Failed) 2016-03-11 - Died in Environmental Preservation and Conservation [S1566 Detail]

Download: Florida-2016-S1566-Introduced.html

---

       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.