The Community Vulnerability Handbook

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMUNITY VULNERABILITY STUDY:

THE COMMUNITY VULNERABILITY HANDBOOK

A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF POLICIES, ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ‘PERILS OF FLOOD’, FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

VOLUME 1 OF THE COMMUNITY VULNERABILITY STUDY (CVS), 2nd EDITION JUNE, 2020

1 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA FACULTY School of Architecture and Community Design Brian Cook, ASLA, MLA, PLA (Coordinating Author) Community Vulnerability Study Project Manager Visiting Assistant Research Professor School of Architecture and Community Design The Florida Center for Community Design Research

Taryn Sabia, Ed.M., M.Arch, MUCD Director and Research Associate Professor School of Architecture and Community Design The Florida Center for Community Design Research

College of Public Health Joe Bohn, Ph.D., MBA Assistant Professor, Director, Community Engagement & Deputy Director, DrPH Program USF College of Public Health

Marie Bourgeois Ph.D., MPH Assistant Professor College of Public Health Center for Environmental/Occupational Risk Analysis and Management

Elizabeth A. Dunn, MPH, CPH Instructor, I Global Disaster Management, Humanitarian Relief, and Homeland Security College of Public Health

GRADUATE ASSISTANTS Florida Center for Community Design and Research Emilia Ribadeneira Olivia Leamer Riddhi Shah Tyler Dobson William Cook Ana Cheng Margaret Winter

College of Public Health Carson Bell, MPH William Gardner, MPH Amy Polen

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 7 DOCUMENT SUMMARY ...... 8 A SHARED VOCABULARY OF RESILIENCY ...... 10 REFERENCES ...... 15 FRAMEWORKS FOR RESILIENCY PLANNING ...... 17 SUMMARY ...... 18 BASELINE RESILIENCE INDICATORS FOR COMMUNITIES (BRIC) MODEL ...... 19 DISASTER RESILIENCE OF PLACE (DROP) MODEL ...... 23 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (DA) MODEL ...... 25 A CASE STUDY EVALUATION OF LOCAL CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANS ...... 27 REFERENCES ...... 29 POLICY AND PROGRAMS ...... 30 SUMMARY ...... 31 FEDERAL LEVEL: REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES ...... 34 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) ...... 34 FLOOD INSURANCE ZONES ...... 34 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS) ...... 36 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT (CBRA) (1982)...... 38 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) (1972) ...... 38 CLEAN WATER ACT / SECTION 404 (1972) ...... 38 RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT (1930) ...... 39 STATE POLICY: AGENCIES, REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES ...... 39 THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (FDEM) ...... 39 THE STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SFMO) ...... 40 COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PROGRAM (CCCL) ...... 41 COASTAL BUILDING ZONE (CBZ) ...... 41 THE FLORIDA BEACH AND SHORE PRESERVATION ACT (1995) ...... 42 STRATEGIC BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN (SBMP) ...... 42 BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM (BECP) ...... 43 THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC) ...... 43 EDITORIALS AND PERIODICALS ON THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ...... 50 ROMANO: WHY IS FLORIDA RISKING FUTURE HURRICANE MISERY? ...... 50 TOUGHEN FLORIDA’S BUILDING CODE ...... 50 FLORIDA INITIATIVES ...... 50 3

SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL COMPACT (2009) ...... 50 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ...... 51 FLORIDA FOREVER (1999) ...... 52 STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IN FLORIDA ...... 53 STATE GOVERNANCE ARTICLES ...... 53 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON LAW AND POLICY IN FLORIDA ...... 53 LOCAL GOVERNMENT: THE REAL SEAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA-LEVEL RISE ACTION IN FLORIDA (FROM ARTICLE ABOVE) ...... 55 FEDERAL POLICY IMPACTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ...... 57 ‘SAND WARS’: THE BATTLE TO REPLENISH FLORIDA’S BEACHES AMID CLIMATE CRISIS ...... 58 LOCAL AND REGIONAL POLICY ...... 59 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...... 59 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ...... 60 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ...... 62 THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ...... 65 THE REDEVELOPMENT COMPONENT...... 67 FLORIDA SB 1094: “AN ACT RELATING TO THE PERIL OF FLOOD” ...... 67 SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT (SWIM) PROGRAM (1987) ...... 73 ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM (ELAPP) ...... 73 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN, TAMPA BAY PLANNING REGION (2015) ...... 74 REFERENCES ...... 75 HAZARD PLANNING AND FEDERAL FUNDS ...... 78 SUMMARY ...... 79 FEMA SPONSORED GRANT PROGRAMS ...... 81 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PA) GRANT PROGRAM ...... 82 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) ...... 83 FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE (FMA) GRANT PROGRAM ...... 84 PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM) GRANT PROGRAM ...... 85 BUILDING RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES (BRIC) PROGRAM ...... 86 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) SPONSORED GRANT PROGRAMS ...... 87 LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY (LMS) ...... 90 THREAT AND HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT (THIRA) ...... 96 POST-DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDRP) ...... 102 ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ACT (1988) ...... 104 REFERENCES ...... 106 4

REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT VULNERABILITIES ...... 108 SUMMARY ...... 109 BILLION-DOLLAR WEATHER AND CLIMATE DISASTERS (2004 - 2019) ...... 111 RECOMMENDED PROJECTION OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2019) .... 112 SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA (2017) ...... 116 THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2017) ...... 119 HILLSBOROUGH MPO TRANSPORTATION VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT (2014) ...... 125 PROJECT PHOENIX: TAMPA BAY DISASTER RESILIENCY STUDY (2011) ...... 131 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A HURRICANE EVENT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (2009) ...... 135 SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2006) ...... 139 LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION III ...... 141 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STORM SURGE CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION STUDY (2012) .... 141 SCENARIOS USED FOR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION ...... 152 SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA (2017) ...... 152 THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2017) ...... 152 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MPO: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTATION PILOT PROJECT (2014)...... 152 TAMPA BAY DISASTER RESILIENCY STUDY: PROJECT PHOENIX (2011) ...... 153 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A HURRICANE EVENT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (2009) ...... 153 SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2006) ...... 154 REFERENCES ...... 155 POPULATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH VULNERABILITIES ...... 156 SUMMARY ...... 157 VULNERABLE POPULATION GROUP SUMMARIES ...... 158 SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS [SES] ...... 158 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND DISABILITY ...... 158 MINORITY STATUS AND LANGUAGE ...... 159 HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION ...... 160 HEALTH ...... 161 MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS ...... 162 THE SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX [SVI] BACKGROUND ...... 162 5

DEVELOPING AN IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF ELDERLY ADULT’S VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 164 SEXUALITY AND NATURAL DISASTER: CHALLENGES OF LGBT COMMUNITIES FACING HURRICANE KATRINA ...... 165 NATURAL DISASTERS AND PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS ...... 166 THEY BLEW THE LEVEE: DISTRUST OF AUTHORITIES AMONG HURRICANE KATRINA EVACUEES ...... 166 IMPACT OF A NATURAL DISASTER ON DIABETES ...... 167 THE IMPACT OF DISASTERS ON POPULATIONS WITH HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES ...... 167 THE IMPACT OF HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: A LOOK BACK AND REMAINING CHALLENGES ...... 168 GRANTMAKERS CONCERNED WITH IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES ...... 168 A SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT ...... 169 SVI 2016 DOCUMENTATION...... 170 REFERENCES ...... 172 ECOLOGIC VULNERABILITIES ...... 178 SUMMARY ...... 179 TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON STUDY ...... 180 2020 Habitat Master Plan Update ...... 186 CARIBBEAN MANGROVES ADJUST TO RISING SEA LEVEL THROUGH BIOTIC CONTROLS ON CHANGE IN SOIL ELEVATION ...... 187 PREDICTING THE RETREAT AND MIGRATION OF TIDAL FORESTS ALONG THE NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO UNDER SEA-LEVEL RISE ...... 189 BARRIERS TO AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDWARD MIGRATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS WITH SEA- LEVEL RISE ...... 192 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CRITICAL COASTAL HABITATS ...... 194 WILL COASTAL WETLANDS CONTINUE TO SEQUESTER CARBON IN RESPONSE TO AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL SEA LEVEL: A CASE STUDY OF THE RAPIDLY SUBSIDING MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTAIC PLAIN ...... 197 COASTAL HABITAT INTEGRATED MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA: CHAPTER 10 BISCAYNE BAY ...... 199 RAPID HEADWARD EROSION OF MARSH CREEKS IN RESPONSE TO RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE ...... 200 INDIRECT RESPONSE OF THE PEACE RIVER, FLORIDA TO EPISODIC SEA LEVEL CHANGE . 202 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ON EXCESSIVE WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS IN STRATIFIED FRESHWATER LAKES ...... 202 6

RESPONSE OF BALD CYPRESS AND LOBLOLLY PINE SEEDLINGS TO SHORT TERM SALTWATER FLOODING ...... 204 UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE RELATED RISKS ...... 205 THE GLOBAL VALUE OF MANGROVES FOR RISK REDUCTION ...... 206 CLIMATE CHANGE’S IMPACT ON KEY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE HUMAN WELL- BEING THEY SUPPORT IN THE US ...... 208 COASTAL HABITATS SHIELD PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM SEA-LEVEL RISE AND STORMS ...... 210 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF GULF COAST HURRICANES: SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ...... 211 REFERENCES ...... 212 HURRICANE CASE STUDIES ...... 214 SUMMARY ...... 215 Hurricane Case Studies ...... 217 HURRICANE KATRINA (2005) ...... 217 HURRICANE SANDY (2012) ...... 220 HURRICANE HARVEY (2017) ...... 223 HURRICANE IRMA (2017) ...... 227 HURRICANE FLORENCE (2018) ...... 229 REFERENCES ...... 231 REFERENCES ...... 238

INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT SUMMARY

The Community Vulnerability Handbook is a research document to support a comprehensive study of the ‘Perils of Flood’, especially for Hillsborough County in Florida. It is aligned with the project, ‘The Community Vulnerability Study,’ (CVS) commissioned by Hillsborough County Department of Emergency Services, with project management assistance provided by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. It will be used to inform decision-makers about the vulnerabilities with regards to flooding. The impetus for the project is Senate Bill (SB) 1094, adopted by the Florida Senate effective July 1, 2015, which requires all coastal municipalities in Florida to address the Perils of Flood within their Comprehensive Plans. In addition to serving as a handbook for that requirement, the document will be used for other emergency management planning, urban planning and utility management. It will be used to guide Hillsborough County’s submittal for their Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to apply for federal mitigation grants.

This document serves as an archive, it catalogues and summarizes the literature review for the project. In addition, the resources contained within were mined to identify a community’s vulnerabilities to flood. The extracted items were aggregated into a list titled the Matrix of Vulnerabilities (see appendix). That list became the criteria for mapping vulnerabilities in Hillsborough County. Lastly, a workshop with County administrators helped to consider interrelationships between vulnerabilities, as did an interdisciplinary design studio conducted in the School of Architecture and Community Design at the University of South Florida. Rather than consider impacts from flooding as unique and separated elements, this study seeks to understand them as a system, and as compounding risk factors, and to address them systematically.

The CVS undertakes a multi-phased process, and is represented as such in this document. First, resiliency assessment frameworks were reviewed. These provide a foundational methodology for the project and help to understand established categories of vulnerability. Three main categories were identified: The Built Environment, Populations and Public Health, and Ecology. Another category, Governance, was extracted from the literature and will be used later in the CVS, but for mitigation strategies (not as a vulnerability). Governance is an infrastructure that can help communities cope with environmental hazards, but is not directly impacted by them.

Additionally, the Study reviewed other regional vulnerability assessments, for example the 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the City of Tampa. Findings revealed that previous assessments focused on the built environment features, such as property, buildings and infrastructure. This research finds that other categories of vulnerability, and of mitigation, are just as important if not collectively more important than simply addressing a community’s physical infrastructure.

Other research introduces the laws, codes, statutes and standards that affect decision making in regards to flood. A review of Hillsborough County’s governmental structure, and its situation within the Federal Government, highlights the decision and project-making capacity at different levels of administration. Other municipalities, such as Boston, Copenhagen and Broward County were studied to make comparisons, and understand the differences with Hillsborough County’s approach to Flood.

Finally, since this research will guide new policy for Hillsborough County’s Comprehensive Plan and Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), the CVS includes a review of other municipalities’ Comprehensive Plan updates, per the requirements for SB 1094.

This Handbook will continue to evolve as research continues, with future editions expected.

The graphic on the following page describes the project’s overall process and structure of content. 9

Figure 1: Community Vulnerability Study, Organizational Chart 10

A SHARED VOCABULARY OF RESILIENCY “The advances that have given rise to perceived improvements to our way of life have at the same time increased our vulnerability to the impact of natural systems.” (Beck, 1992; Irwin, 2001)

Words like resiliency and vulnerability are becoming more common in conversations about our urban environments. But what is it that makes something resilient? And what makes a community vulnerable? The terms, as described below, help to form a shared vocabulary for communicating and understanding the topic of ‘community vulnerability.’

Risk

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines risk as “the potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, recognizing the diversity of values.” (IPCC, 2018) Risk is often represented as the probability of occurrence of hazardous events multiplied by the impacts if these events actually occur. The impacts can vary depending on the characteristics of the community. Some may be much more affected, or vulnerable, than others. It can be said, then, that risk can be understood ascr the compounding effects of hazards, sensitivities, and adaptive capacities on an individual or community. (Engle, 2011) The alteration of any one of these factors will affect overall risk to and impact of a disaster.

Figure 2: The Elements of Risk Diagram. Adapted from diagrams by Engle (2011) and Tostevin (2014)

Hazard

The term hazard refers to the potential occurrence of natural or human-induced physical events that may have adverse effects on vulnerable and exposed elements. (Cardona et al., 2012) In our project, this is related to storm surge, sea level rise or other forms of flooding. Whereas this term is often thought of in the same way as risk, it is currently and widely acknowledged, now, that it is a component of risk and not risk itself. (Cardona et al., 2012)

Exposure

All of the elements in an area where a hazard may occur are said to be exposed, or have exposure to risk. If there are not assets to be affected by a hazard, then there is no exposure. For example, a house can be in a flood zone but if the house is raised and out of harm’s way, there is no exposure, therefore no risk. This is often 11 associated with built environment features, but this also includes categories of populations and ecological zones. (Cardona et al., 2012)

Sensitivity

Sensitivity explains how affected a system or individual is after being exposed to stress, or a hazard. (Engle, 2011) For example, a building could be completely exposed to a hazard, such as a flood. It could be directly in its path. But if the building is completely sealed, there is no sensitivity, therefore no risk. In our communities, it is important to realize that there are many population types, and that there are many different levels of sensitivity.

Adaptation

Adaptation is the action of helping communities cope with changing conditions. Adaptation occurs as ecosystems and animal species respond to changing environmental conditions such as temperature, water salinity, disaster frequency, etc. In the same sense, humans can employ adaptation techniques to help society adjust to changing conditions such as climate change and sea level rise. Adaptation is a process of deliberate change in anticipation or in reaction to external stimuli and stress (Folke, 2016). Adaptation differs from natural selection because it does not occur on a cellular level, but rather through behaviors and decision-making (Engle, 2011).

Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive Capacity essentially describes the ability to adapt (Engle, 2011), the ability of a system to prepare for stresses and changes in advance or adjust and respond to the effects caused by the stresses (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Adaptive capacity in ecological systems is related to genetic diversity, biological diversity, and the heterogeneity of landscape mosaics. In social systems, the engagement of institutions in groups or community initiatives can strengthen networks that enhance social capital (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014). These networks learn and store knowledge through experience, create flexibility in problem solving and balance power among interest groups, which can play an important role in building adaptive capacity (Resilience Alliance, 2020). Adaptive capacity influences the ultimate potential for the implementation of sustainable adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

There are multiple types of adaptive capacity (Cardona et al., 2012):

● Capacity to Anticipate Risk: The ability to reduce risk, prior to its occurrence. This can occur through abilities associated with governance, finance, community and communication. Planning and urban design, land management, the creation of codes and landscape design are all ways that communities can anticipate and effectively mitigate foreseen risks. ● Capacity to Respond: This includes disaster response, or coping mechanisms, but also the pre-disaster planning that prepares a community for what to do after the hazard has occurred. ● Capacity to Recover and Change: In recognition of new forces effecting the security of a community, climate change for example, a community must change. (Cardona et al., 2012)

Vulnerability

Vulnerability is 1) the susceptibility of people to injury as the result of a hazardous event, and 2) the susceptibility of the things people value to damage as the result of a hazardous event. Vulnerability is a key component of risk, and is a composite of several factors such as geography, poverty, built environment, and governance (Engle, 2011) (See the Community Vulnerability Handbook, 2020, for further details). 12

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as having three components (Engle, 2011): ● Exposure (as a pre-qualifying attribute): The extent to which a system is physically in harm’s way. ● Sensitivity: The degree to which a system is affected. ● Adaptive Capacity: The ability of a system to adapt, moderate, take advantage of, or cope with change.

Resilience

Resilience was first defined in ecology as an ecosystem’s ability to maintain the status quo (structure and function) regardless of a disturbance to the system (Cashman, 2011). This ecological concept is now applied to human society and sustainability, for example it is often referred to as a system’s ability to recover or “bounce back” after a disturbance (Perrings, 2001). In this handbook, the system is a community of people and the disturbance is a flood or hurricane. Resilience is about information flows, self-learning, flexibility, and improved feedback mechanisms (Cashman, 2011). Resilience is social, natural, and economic. It exists in multiple scales; at individual, group, and system levels and over time (e.g., immediate, intermediate, and long-term) (Linkov et al., 2014). Reduced resilience increases the vulnerability of a system to smaller disturbances that it could previously handle. Even in the absence of disturbance, gradually changing conditions, such as nutrient loading, climate, and habitat fragmentation, can surpass threshold levels, triggering an abrupt system response.

Resilience is often thought of as the ability to return to pre-disturbance equilibrium, but the new benchmarks for recovery are shifting. Resilience thinking is about incorporating the realities of change; specifically, the way that periods of gradual change (pre-disaster) interact with abrupt changes, and the capacity of people, communities, societies, cultures to adapt or even transform.

Mitigation

Mitigation as a concept is the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something. In the context of disasters, mitigation is the effort to reduce the loss of life and property from disaster impacts. To establish effective mitigation, there must be the understanding that disasters can happen at unexpected times, and it is essential to be prepared for potential impacts.

Resilience, Adaptation and Adaptive Capacity

While resilience describes the ability to recover from an impact and return to the current “normal,” adaptive capacity refers to the ability for a person or community to adapt to a new set of conditions. It is known, now, that new conditions arise all the time, unexpectedly (Holling, 1973; Folke, 2016). This is proven by sea level rise and storm events, but also with unforeseen economic situations, changes within theories of transportation, or even as seen when there are secondary effects from other hazards. In the face of these challenges a set of terms have developed that are worth explaining in order to set a framework for this study.

Mitigation and adaptation exist in a sphere, with mitigation describing the reduction of potential impacts and adaptation referring to changes in human actions that perpetuate development while taking into account new factors in the system (Folke, 2016). Mitigation is mostly associated with the reduction of risk. In looking at resilience as a curve with time and impacts as axes, mitigation exists as forces that affect the shape of the curve during a disaster (See Figure 2). Alternatively, constructs such as social and human capital foster both resilience and adaptation. Human capital refers to individual characteristics that affect resilience while social capital refers to preparedness factors for a collective of individuals, institutions in one or more communities. Recently, resilience has been linked to social-ecological systems (SES). When resilience is enhanced, a system is more likely to tolerate disturbance events without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes. 13

If the graphed lines (Figure 2) represent an individual or community, the black arrows indicate the forces acting on that entity’s ability to resist and recover from a disaster / disruption. Robustness is a resisting force, or the strength to keep that entity’s trajectory from hitting an irreparable low. Mitigative actions, resilience, and post- recovery activities affect the speed and degree of recovery possible. Depending on the forces affecting recovery, some trajectories may not return to the existing norm. The multiple red lines represent different redevelopment timelines and capacities. It has been shown that a resilient community can use unexpected events to learn about their environment and to make changes to better situate their community within contextual forces. Through the event, the community gets stronger and better. “Non-resilient social-ecological systems are vulnerable to external change, whereas a resilient system may even make use of disturbances as opportunities to transform into more desired states” (Folke, 2005).

Figure 3: Risk and Recovery. Adapted from diagrams by Linkov (2014) and Zong (2013)

Social Capital

Social capital is a resource that facilitates collective action for mutual benefit (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2011). Social capital can also be defined as the networks that connect individuals to each other either through weak or strong ties (Aldrich, 2017; Granovetter, 1973). According to Aldrich (2017), there are three types of social capital: bonding, bridging, linking. Bonding social capital is the connections between people of similar ethnic, racial, nationality, class. Bridging social capital occurs in institutions (schools, clubs, corporations) as the cooperation between groups. Linking social capital, allows normal citizens to have access to power brokers, authority figures, and decision makers. Social capital can have a positive impact on growth and development in a community (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2011). It also plays a role in pre-disaster community-level preparedness and post-disaster recovery (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2011).

Human Capital

Human capital refers to individual characteristics of a person including income level, skills, health status, education attainment, etc. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines 14 human capital as the knowledge, skills, competencies, and other attributes embodied in individuals that are relevant to economic activity. (OECD, 2009)

Social Ecological Systems

Social-ecological systems are complex and integrated systems in which humans are part of nature. The seven principles for building resilience and sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems are: maintaining diversity and redundancy, managing connectivity, managing slow and variable feedbacks, fostering complex adaptive systems thinking, encouraging learning, broadening participation, and promoting polycentric governance systems (Resilience Alliance, 2020). The resilience approach emphasizes that social-ecological systems need to be managed and governed for flexibility and emergence rather than for maintaining stability (Folke, 2016).

REFERENCES

Aldrich, D. (2017). The importance of social capital in building community resilience. In W. M. Yan & W. Galloway (Eds.), Rethinking Resilience, Adaption, and Transformation in a Time of Change pp. 357-364. Boston, MA: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50171-0_23

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American behavioral scientist, 59(2), 254-269. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. Trans. By M. Ritter. London: SAGE publications.

Cardona, O.D., van Aalst, M.K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., & Sinh, B.T. (2012) Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (Eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65- 108. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244062037_Determinants_of_risk_exposure_and_vulnerability

Cashman, A. (2011). Case study of institutional and social responses to flooding: reforming for resilience. Journal of Flood and Risk Management, 4, 33-41. doi:10.111/j.1753-318x.2010.01087.x

Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2011). Social capital as collective narratives and post-disaster community recovery. The Sociological Review, 59(2), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2011.02008.x

Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 647–656. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019

Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society 21(4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088- 210444

Folke et al. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pdf

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4. Retrieved from https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2018). Annex II: Glossary. From the Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-AnnexII_FINAL.pdf

Irwin A. (2001) Sociology and the environment: A Critical introduction to society, nature and knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Linkov et al. (2014). Changing the resilience paradigm. Nature Climate Change, 4, 407-409. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2227

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2009). The value of people, in Human Capital: How what you know shapes your life. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264029095-3-en. 16

Perrings, C. (2001). Resilience and sustainability. In Folmer, H., Gabel, H., & Rose, A. (Eds.), Frontiers of Environmental Economics, 319-340. Cheltenham, UK: Edwin Elgar. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/1929_13.html

Resilience Alliance. (Web, Accessed 2/12/2020) Key Concepts. Retrieved from https://www.resalliance.org/key- concepts

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16(3), 282-292. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

Tostevin, R. (2014). Hazards and the Himalaya: Landslides. Gill, J., Tostevin, R. & Hussain, E. (Eds.). Geology for Global Development. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313185393_Hazards_and_the_Himalaya

Resilience Alliance. (Web, Accessed 2/12/2020) Key Concepts. Retrieved from https://www.resalliance.org/key- concepts

Zhong, S., Clark, M., Hou, X., et al. (2014) Development of hospital disaster resilience: Conceptual framework and potential measurement. Emergency Medicine Journal 31:930-938.

FRAMEWORKS FOR RESILIENCY PLANNING

SUMMARY

There are several academic articles that discuss how communities can evaluate their resiliency. Within this field, four main models emerge:

1. Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) Model: A baseline checklist for examining the status of inherent resilience at the county level. (Cutter, 2014) 2. Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) Model: A model designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community scale. This examines a community’s ability to mitigate risk. (Cutter, et al., 2008) 3. Discourse Analysis (DA) Model: A discursive analytical framework that recognizes the importance of multiple points-of-view from within the community about resilience, and uses community dialogue to establish vulnerabilities and goals. (Aldunce, Beilin, Howden, & Handmer, 2015) 4. A Climate Change Framework: Case Study Evaluation of Local Climate Adaptation Plans: A quantitative, multi-criteria analysis on the effectiveness of existing plans. (Baker, Peterson, Brown, & McAlpine, 2012)

While these models are focused on assessing resilient capacity, or the potential to reduce (mitigate) risk, the frameworks also provide valuable insight as to the vulnerable elements within a community. These can be categorized into the following groups: The Built Environment, Populations and Public Health, and Ecology. Governance, also recognized within the literature, is slightly different. Rather than being directly vulnerable to flood, it is an infrastructure related to risk management. As such, it is considered something related to mitigation and not vulnerability, and will be included in a subsequent volume of work associated with mitigation.

Additionally, within the four models of assessment, a few main concepts were recognized in regards to assessing a community’s vulnerability and capacity for resiliency:

Key points . Self-reliance (something mentioned in most of the models) is only effective during small scale disasters, and can be more harmful if that is the only planned option during large scale disasters. (Aldunce, Beilin, Howden, & Handmer, 2015) . Local population knowledge is essential to understanding the complex nature of the local culture, environment, and population. (Dolan & Walker, 2004) . However, local governments, given too much responsibility and limited resources, can be incapable of developing documents and plans to the highest degree. Because of this, formal evaluation assessments are essential. (Baker, Peterson, Brown, & McAlpine, 2012) . Scenario-based planning should be implemented. (Baker, Peterson, Brown, & McAlpine, 2012) . Climate change affects groups differently based upon: age and distribution of resources, technology, information and wealth, risk perceptions, social capital and community structure, and existing institutional frameworks in place that address climate change. (Dolan & Walker, 2004) . Public education is one of the most important factors in establishing resiliency. The most vulnerable places have populations that either do not speak the local language fluently, are tourists, elderly, or special needs. (Dolan & Walker, 2004) (Aldunce, Beilin, Howden, & Handmer, 2015) . Long term funding is needed for local governments, to enhance their information base and to enable them to plan for climate impacts. (Baker, Peterson, Brown, & McAlpine, 2012)

ASSESSING RESILIENCY AND CATEGORIES OF VULNERABILITY

Figure 4: Graphic of Resiliency Indicators and Potential Vulnerabilities

The following summaries provide a more in-depth review of resiliency assessment models.

BASELINE RESILIENCE INDICATORS FOR COMMUNITIES (BRIC) MODEL SOURCES: Cutter, S., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The Geographies of Community Disaster Resilience. Global Environmental Change, 65-77. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005

Dolan, A. H., & Walker, I. J. (2004). Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Climate Change Related Risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 1316-1323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742967

Frazier, T., Thompson, C. M., Dezzani, R., & Butsick, D. (2013). Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography, 95-107. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004

Summary The BRIC Model is used as a baseline checklist for examining the status of inherent resilience at the county level. It allows examination and/or comparison of present levels of social vulnerability and disaster resilience to find possible targets for intervention and improvement. Resilience is measured using existing data of the demographics, and resilience is scored.

Process 1. Assessing needs: . Preliminary interviews to develop research goals . Plan reviews of County's planning priorities . Focus groups with stakeholders . Spatial analysis of geographic patterns of resilience

2. Identify the occurrence of indicators: Several resilience categories, with specific elements, are listed. Each is given a numerical value. Each of the category indicators are summed to construct the BRIC score. These indicators include: . Societal . Economic . Institutional . Infrastructure . Community Capital

3. Targeting intervention or mitigation programs: This model allows for the most important elements in those indicated areas to be targeted by county officials.

Results Spatial relationships: The study focuses on a common set of resilience factors that can be applied across the United States. . The Midwest has the highest resilience values. Key indicators include: “higher percentage of persons with health insurance, higher levels of food security, higher rates of employment and homeownership, and high percentages of residents who are not recent immigrants.” . The lowest values occurred in the South. Key indicators include: “low levels of equality in educational attainment, a lower English proficiency. Fewer households with access to a vehicle, fewer physicians, high levels of food insecurity, a high number of recent immigrants, lower levels of voter participation and hazard experience, and a high level of water stress.” Temporality: The temporal context becomes significant. These factors should be present in creating scenario planning and preparedness plans. For example, population fluctuates dependent on seasonal populations and tourism. Homes become vulnerable when owners are away. Likewise, as tourist populations arrive, they do not have the local knowledge about disaster preparedness or evacuation procedures.

Scale: Hazards are expressed quickly at local scales, making it the most important scale to address.

Figure 5: Cronbach’s Alpha Results for Indicators within Each Resilience Category

Figure 6: Ten Highest and Lowest Resilience Scores in Continuous U.S. With Ranks in Parenthesis

Figure 7: Indicator Sets with Descriptions of Calculation for Individual Indicators. 23

DISASTER RESILIENCE OF PLACE (DROP) MODEL SOURCE: Cutter, S., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters. Global Environmental Change, 598-606. Retrieved from doi:/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Summary The Disaster Resilience of Place Model (DROP) is designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community scale level. It discusses the relationship between vulnerability and resilience. The DROP focuses on natural hazards, social resilience at the community level, and specifically on the social resilience of place. It identifies resilience as the combination of inherent/antecedent conditions and the process by which they are mitigated.

Process 1. Antecedent Conditions + Hazard Event Characteristics + Coping Responses = Hazard or Disaster Impact. Identify Each of The Following: . Antecedent conditions include: inherent vulnerability and inherent resilience. . Hazard event characteristics include: frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude, and rate of onset. . Coping responses are “actions that allow a community to respond in a certain way to the immediate event impacts and include predetermined evacuation plans, creation of shelters, information dissemination, and emergency response plans.”

2. Absorptive Capacity: The “ability of community to absorb event impacts using predetermined coping responses” . If absorptive capacity is not exceeded, level of recovery will be high. . Capacity can be exceeded if the hazard is too large and overwhelms capacity, or during a less catastrophic event combined with a low level of self-sufficiency.

Figure 8: A Visual Explanation of the DROP Model

Community resilience indicators (comparative baselines): . Ecological . Social . Economic . Institutional . Infrastructure . Community competence

Figure 9: List of Community Resilience Indicators

Example “If a community experiences a 10-year flood, it is unlikely that its absorptive capacity will be exceeded. However, if this same community experiences a 10-year flood every year for several years, each event has reduced the monetary resources available to cope with the next event, making it that much harder to recover. Conversely, if the community learns from the hazard event and the opportunity to improve mitigation and preparedness are utilized, the community is likely to have increased its inherent resilience before the next event occurs.”

Key points Resilience factors are either inherent (non-crisis periods) or adaptive. Resilience can be measured in relative terms and temporality of resilience is important to consider.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (DA) MODEL SOURCE: Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Howden, M., & Handmer, J. (2015). Resilience for Disaster Risk Management in a Changing Climate: Practitioners' Frames and Practices. Global Environmental Change, 1-11. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.010

Summary The Discourse Analysis Model recognizes the importance of multiple points of view about resilience, and is a discursive analytical framework. It views the community as the primary agency that constructs goals (defined as “storylines”), and to identify the best course of action for their own resiliency plans. The work is based on Martin Hajer’s Social Interactive Discourse Theory.

Method and Storyline Types: Documentation is done through interviews and texts and is categorized into the following three storyline types: 1. Mechanistic/ Technocratic - Emphasis on rules, norms and regulations with the need for better preparation. More rules and plans should be implemented with the goal to educated everyone. 2. Community-based - Community participation, self-reliance, and building social capital. 3. Sustainability - Recognizes that humans are part of nature, and should protect it.

Based on The Different Storyline Responses, Seven Discourse Categories Were Established: 1. Preparedness/Response 2. Self-reliance 3. Governance/Co-management 4. Experiential Learning 5. Surrounding Environment 6. Information/Education/Communication 7. Social Capital

Figure 10: Relation between Discourse, Storylines, and Discourse Categories

Figure 11: Proportion of interviewees who mentioned each discourse category, either in the diagnosis, prescription or in both

Key points . A bottom up approach is the most useful. . Self-reliance is only helpful during small-scale disasters. . Information and education are key if simple and readily available.

A CASE STUDY EVALUATION OF LOCAL CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANS SOURCE: Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning Journal, 127-136. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009

Summary This research sought to investigate the capacity of local-scale planning to address issues of climate change. Previous research had questioned the effectiveness of local adaptation efforts. This was confirmed with the results of the study, which “revealed key structural, procedural, and contextual constraints to local adaptation planning and indicated a need to focus future discussion on fundamental limitations to local adaptation planning.”

After a review of several municipalities, overlaps in policy suggested eight criteria that were common to the group:

Criteria: 1. Water quantity is maintained or improved. 2. Water quality is maintained or improved. 3. Impacts of flooding are minimized or avoided. 4. Landscape structure, composition, and function are maintained or restored. 5. Composition, structure, and function of ecosystems, species, and general diversity is maintained or restored. 6. Urban heat island effects and associated heat stress are minimized or avoided. 7. Impacts of sea level rise, storm surge, and coastal inundation are minimized or avoided. 8. Increased risk of wildfire is minimized or avoided.

Figure 12: Outcome Criteria Used to Evaluate Local Climate Strategies

Scale of Effectiveness: The effectiveness of each community’s plan was measured on a scale of 0-4 by category as to the depth and breadth of planning.

Figure 13: Scoring System Used to Code Data

Findings Three recommendations were made to improve the quality of local adaptation plans: . Long-term funding for local governments would enhance a community’s information base regarding local climate effects and would enable them to plan for climate impacts. . Specific standards should be established by higher ranks of government, but should be discussed and modified after coordinating with local forms of government. . Communities should engage in public participation programs while developing climate adaptation plans.

REFERENCES

Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Howden, M., & Handmer, J. (2015). Resilience for disaster risk management in a changing climate: Practitioners' frames and practices. Global Environmental Change, 30, 1-11. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.010

Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning Journal, 107(2), 127-136. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009

Cutter, S., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18, 598-606. Retrieved from doi:/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Cutter, S., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65-77. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005

Dolan, A., & Walker, I. (2006). Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 1316-1323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742967

Frazier, T., Thompson, C. M., Dezzani, R., & Butsick, D. (2013). Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography, 42, 95-107. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004

POLICY AND PROGRAMS

SUMMARY

The following graphic summarizes the overall structure of governance as it relates to flood issues within Hillsborough County, Florida and the United States. Federal, state and local levels are included, along with acts, statutes, ordinances and agencies that are involved. At each level, there is an opportunity to implement projects, to create standards and policy, or to provide funding for other organizations.

In the case studies that follow, various municipalities are discussed to show different approaches to the structure and organization of governance.

FEDERAL POLICY At the federal level there is no policy that specifically addresses Sea Level Rise (SLR). However, several acts, plans, and programs (specifically coastal management and planning and zoning guidelines) aid governments and communities to prepare. Policies within The Coastal Zone Management Act, The Coastal Barrier Resources Act, The Clean Water Act, and The Rivers and Harbors Act, address many of the effects of sea level rise.

In the United States the higher levels of government provide an administrative role, rather than as an active participant in the mitigation or adapting to flooding problems. Some projects are accomplished by the Army Corps of Engineers, but these are usually large-scale endeavors and not integrated into the daily life of local communities. The Army Corps of Engineers is also responsible for regulatory development in wetlands, the capacity of which has been greatly reduced since administration changes in the 1980’s. Other agencies supply funding to more regionally recognized organizations or they provide minimum standards through codes and programs.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is an example of a federally supported program that aims to regulate and reduce the number of homes, and people impacted by flood at the municipal level. For communities, the Community Rating System (CRS), within the NFIP, is a voluntary program that encourages and rewards floodplain management. The NFIP transfers costs for private property flood loss to taxpayer funds, to people who live within floodplains. This is regulated through insurance premiums and increased construction standards. Much of FEMA’s resources are associated with post-disaster assistance. Within their organization, flood is one of the many hazards under their purview.

FLORIDA POLICY At the state level, Florida is also very much administrative when it comes to addressing the issues of sea level rise and flooding. Codes and standards are provided by such organizations as the Building Commission and the Water Management Districts, and most recently the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The DEO is responsible for one of the most important elements of policy relating to sea level rise and storm surge, the recently adopted Peril of Flood Act. This Senate Bill (SB 1094), passed in 2015 “requires consideration of future flood risk from storm surge and sea level rise in certain portions of local government comprehensive plans.” In accordance with SB 1094, Florida Statute Section 163.3178(2)(f)1 now includes sea level rise as a cause of flood risk that must be addressed in the “redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions to reduce flood risk.”

Through building codes and land use regulations such as the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) or the Coastal Building Zone the State sets minimum standards and/or building criteria to better accommodate issues of flooding. Funding is provided by the DEO for planning and projects at the regional level. The Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act allows water management districts to identify, prioritize and 32 implement projects. However, in recent years, these projects have related mostly to surface water and to maintaining the health of ecosystems rather than flooding or coastal water inundation.

LOCAL POLICY Minimum standards are either mandated or incentivized at the state or federal level, such as with the National Flood Insurance Program (see the Community Rating System and its associated components) or through FEMA (see the THIRA). However, some municipalities are more proactive and go beyond minimum standards, putting effort into their local level planning and policies (see Broward County, Treasure Island, or Boston in this section).

In Hillsborough County, the Planning Commission is responsible for long-range comprehensive planning and land use. Hillsborough County staff is responsible for zoning and local building and development codes.

The Hillsborough River is a major focus within the County and has an associated River Board and Technical Advisory Council. Many of its flooding issues were addressed in the 1960s and 1970s with the construction of the Hillsborough River Bypass Canal. Other major rivers include the Alafia and the Little Manatee.

The Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition has recently been formed and modeled after the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact, which is based on Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe Counties. These organizations bring together multiple municipalities to share information and to coordinate projects. These groups have the unique opportunity, as evidenced in Southeast Florida, to enhance local planning practices through regional information sharing and project identification.

Figure 14: Florida Political Structure 34

FEDERAL LEVEL: REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) SOURCE: Congressional Research Service. (2019). Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf

Summary The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It was established in 1968 to provide federally supported (subsidized) flood insurance for properties with significant flood risk. In return, supported communities must meet minimum flood plain management standards. Risk areas are designated and mapped by FEMA with their Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Depicted on the maps are special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These are areas with a 1% or greater risk of annual flooding. As maps are updated communities must adopt them and enact minimum standards to regulate development in flood designated areas. If a community does not adopt their FIRMs or does not maintain their standards they can be put on probation or suspended from the Program. If a community does not participate with the NFIP, properties within those boundaries cannot purchase reduced rate flood insurance. Individuals in these areas can also face challenges receiving federal disaster assistance in flood hazard areas, or in receiving federally backed mortgages.

The maximum building insurance is $250,000, and content coverage (personal items) is $100,000. Additional insurance can be purchased through private companies. Lower elevation buildings and basements may get reduced coverage. Flood insurance usually takes 30 days to take effect. Rates do not differ from insurance companies with regards to the NFIP. Factors include year built, type of use, code compliance and deductible.

The minimum standards are intended to: 1. Constrict the development of land which is exposed to flood damage where appropriate. 2. Guide the development of proposed construction away from locations which are threatened by flood hazards. 3. Assist in reducing damage caused by floods. 4. Otherwise improve the long-range land management and use of flood-prone areas.

FLOOD INSURANCE ZONES SOURCE: FEMA. (2019). Flood Zones. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones

Summary “Flood zones are geographic areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.”

Terms Non-Special Flood Hazard Area: A Non-Special Flood Hazard Area (NSFHA) is an area that is in a moderate-to-low risk flood zone and is not in any immediate danger from flooding caused by overflowing rivers or hard rains. Zone B and X (shaded) are areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance (or 500-year) flood, while Zone C and X (unshaded) are areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent annual chance flood. NSFHA zones are not required to have flood insurance and include: Zone B, X (shaded), C, X (unshaded), D.

. Zone B, X (shaded) – Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100‐year and 500‐year floods. B Zones are also used to designate base floodplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from 100‐year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. . C, X (unshaded) - Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500‐year flood level. Zone C may have ponding and local drainage problems that don't warrant a detailed study or designation as base floodplain. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500‐year flood and protected by levee from 100‐year flood. . Zone D - Area with undetermined but possible flood hazards.

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA: Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Properties categorized in SFHA are areas that are considered at high risk and have a 1 in 4 chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage. SFHA zones include: Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30.

. Zone A – Areas typically located near bodies of water, they are the second most vulnerable properties. They are considered to have a high potential of flooding due to the rising of water and are required to have flood insurance. There are five types of A Zones: A, A#, AE, AO AH. . Zone AE - The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE Zones are now used on new format FIRMs instead of A1‐A30 Zones. . Zone A1-30 - These are known as numbered A Zones (e.g., A7 or A14). This is the base floodplain where the FIRM shows a BFE (old format). . Zone AH - Areas with a 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. . Zone AO - River or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. . Zone AR - Areas with a temporarily increased flood risk due to the building or restoration of a flood control system (such as a levee or a dam). Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements will apply, but rates will not exceed the rates for unnumbered A zones if the structure is built or restored in compliance with Zone AR floodplain management regulations. . Zone A99 - Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. No depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. 36

. Zone V – Are the most hazardous flood zones and are typically beachfront coastal properties that are subject to additional hazards associated with the increase of wave velocity in storm-induced waves. There are three types of V Zones: V, V#, V. . Zone VE, V1-30 - Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐ year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS) SOURCE: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Summary The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) implemented the Community Rating System (CRS) as a voluntary program that encourages and rewards floodplain management. Communities can participate by implementing local mitigation strategies, floodplain management, and outreach activities. The three main objectives are to reduce flood damage to insured property, strengthen and support the insurance aspects of NFIP, and encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. There are nine class ratings, and for every class improvement, the community produces a 5-percent increased discount on their flood insurance premiums. CRS Credit is awarded to communities for any of 19 creditable activities within the public information, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction, and warning and response categories.

The Highest-Rated CRS Communities: 1. Roseville, California (Class 1) 2. Tulsa, Oklahoma (Class 2) . Clear buildings from floodplain 3. King County, Washington (Class 2) . Preserve floodplain as open space (additional for maintaining natural state) 4. Pierce County, Washington (Class 2) . 80 miles of river levees . Mails information brochures to residents 5. Ft Collins, Colorado (Class 2) . Keep student population informed . Identify and protect critical facilities . Improve GIS system 6. Sacramento County, California (Class 2) . Public outreach on protecting waterways, purchasing flood insurance, preparing for floods 7. Thurston County, Washington (Class 2) . Planning for hazard mitigation, watershed protection and open space . Strict development standards . Stormwater management

Figure 15: 2018 Florida NFIP Community Rating System Participation Based on Flood Insurance Policy Count (FEMA 2018)

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT (CBRA) (1982) SOURCE: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). Coastal Barrier Resources System. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/cbra/maps/index.html

Summary “In the early 1980s, Congress recognized that certain actions and programs of the Federal Government have historically subsidized and encouraged development on coastal barriers, resulting in the loss of natural resources; threats to human life, health, and property; and the expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year. To remove the federal incentive to develop these areas, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 and subsequent amendments designated relatively undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts as part of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), and made these areas ineligible for most new federal expenditures and financial assistance. CBRA encourages the conservation of hurricane prone, biologically rich coastal barriers by restricting federal expenditures that encourage development, such as federal flood insurance. Areas within the CBRS can be developed provided that private developers or other non-federal parties bear the full cost.”

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) (1972) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Management, N. O. (2019, 02 15). Coastal Zone Management Act. Retrieved from NOAA Office for Coastal Management: https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/

Summary The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is a federal law that creates and guides coastal management programs, to manage the threats in coastal zones caused by increased demand on the land and water of these zones. CZMA established coastal management policy as preserving, protecting, developing, and restoring the coastal zones by encouraging and assisting states to develop and implement coastal management programs.

CLEAN WATER ACT / SECTION 404 (1972) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2019, 03 11). Summary of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Summary “The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters… Under the CWA, the EPA has 39 implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.” (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2019)

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act overall sets the national policy for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, adjacent wetlands, and inland wetlands. Discharge is prohibited to avoid impact on aquatic ecosystems or degradation of water. This act gives jurisdictional responsibility to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuing dredge permits and regulatory wetlands.

RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT (1930) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Agency, U. S. (2019, 04 11). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/section-10-rivers-and-harbors- appropriation-act-1899

Summary The Rivers and Harbors Act is a federal environmental law which controls the discharge of material as well as regulates construction on navigable waters. Sections 9 & 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate construction of any structure or work within navigable waters in the U.S. The types of construction include modifications affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of navigable waters.

STATE POLICY: AGENCIES, REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (FDEM) SOURCE: Florida Division of Emergency Management. (Accessed Sept. 06, 2019) About the division. Retrieved at https://www.floridadisaster.org

Summary “The Division of Emergency Management plans for and responds to both natural and man-made disasters. These range from floods and hurricanes to incidents involving hazardous materials or nuclear power. The division prepares and implements a statewide Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and routinely conducts extensive exercises to test state and county emergency response capabilities.”

“Division staff members provide technical assistance to local governments as they prepare emergency plans and procedures. They also conduct emergency operations training for state and local governmental agencies.”

“After a disaster, the division conducts damage assessment surveys and advises the Governor on whether to declare an emergency and seek federal relief funds.”

This office conducts regional evacuation studies, to provide information to regional decision-makers for evacuation planning and operational procedures. These studies can be found on their website. This includes data such as the amount of mobile/manufactured homes within each evacuation zone, the number hours to reach road clearance, and the quantities of people that end up at different destinations, i.e. friends and family, hotels, public shelters, and others.

The FDEM offers technical assistance such as ‘higher standards’ for ordinances, information about the building code, as it pertains to flood, and many other tools. They also offer grants, workshop materials and checklists.

“FDEM’s Mitigation Planning Unit provides technical assistance as counties update their LMS plans and reviews and approves LMS plans and coordinates with FEMA.”

“The Mitigation Planning Unit has developed a Florida Review Tool for a county to complete during the plan update process, as well as an LMS Update Manual to provide specific guidance during the plan update process.”

THE STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SFMO) SOURCE: Florida Division of Emergency Management. (Accessed Sept. 06, 2019) About the division. Retrieved at https://www.floridadisaster.org/

Summary This program is situated within the Division of Emergency Management. “The Division of Emergency Management serves as the State Coordinating Agency of the National Flood Insurance Program to work with Florida's municipalities and counties to administer their local flood damage reduction regulations. The State Floodplain Management Program promotes and ensures sound land use development in floodplain areas in order to promote the health and safety of the public, minimize loss of life and property, and reduce economic losses caused by flood damages.” “The State Floodplain Management Office also coordinates and collaborates on the following activities:

. Map Modernization and FEMA Risk MAP priorities . Integration of flood-resistant standards into the Florida Building Code . Coordination with Federal flood mitigation grant programs . Integration of floodplain management concepts and tasks into multi-jurisdictional local mitigation strategies developed by counties and municipalities . Participation in maintaining the State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan and planning process . Consultation with State agencies on state-owned facilities in special flood hazard areas . Training of local floodplain managers and building officials, in partnership with the Florida Floodplain Managers Association (FFMA) . Coordination with the Florida Dam Safety Program . Partnerships with federal, state and local organizations pertinent to floodplain management” 41

COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE PROGRAM (CCCL) SOURCES: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019) Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/coastal-construction-control-line

Summary The Coastal Construction Control Line Program (CCCL) “was designed to protect Florida’s beach and dune system from irresponsible construction that could weaken, damage or destroy the health of the dune system. Structures built too close to the sea can inhibit the beach and dune system from its natural recovery processes and can cause localized erosion” and are a threat to other nearby coastal structures. “The CCCL Program gives the State the jurisdiction to apply stringent siting and design criteria to construction projects within the Control Line. It must be noted that the CCCL is not a setback line, but rather a delineation of the State’s authority.”

“The CCCL is marked at the landward limit of coastal areas subject to the effects of a 100-year storm surge… The State prohibits the construction or siting of structures that would cause a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system…” Structures must be located at specific distance from the beach and frontal dune, must not remove or destroy any vegetation or marine turtle habitat, and must withstand the wind and water effects of a 100-year storm surge event (meet specific American Society Civil Engineering standards). Rebuilding is not prohibited. The Program discourages the construction of rigid coastal armoring (seawalls) and encourages protection methods such as foundation modification, structure relocation and dune restoration.

The CCCL does not apply to Hillsborough County, since its location is on a bay, not the Gulf or Atlantic Ocean.

COASTAL BUILDING ZONE (CBZ) SOURCES: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019) Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/coastal-construction-control-line

Summary The Coastal Building Zone (CBZ) was established as part of the Coastal Protection Act (1985) to protect coastal areas, life, and property. As with the CCCL, it is a regulatory jurisdiction rather than a setback line. “The CBZ envelops land from the seasonal high-water line to 1,500 feet landward of the CCCL. In those areas fronting on the ocean but not included within an established CCCL, the Coastal Building Zone includes the land area seaward of the most landward V-Zone line, as established by NFIP’s flood maps.”

“Within the CBZ, new construction is required to meet the Standard Building Code 1997 wind design standard of 110 mph and 115 mph for the Keys. As for water standards, structures are required to meet National Flood Insurance Program requirements or local flood ordinance requirements, whichever are stricter. Foundations must also be designed to withstand a 100-year storm surge.”

THE FLORIDA BEACH AND SHORE PRESERVATION ACT (1995) SOURCES: The Florida Legislature. (2012). The 2012 Florida Statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0161/0161ContentsIndex.html

Summary The Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act allows “legislature to preserve and protect Florida’s beach and dune system. Beaches and dunes are the first line of defense against storms, acting as a buffer between the sea and coastal development,” and initiates the Strategic Beach Management Plan and the Beach Erosion Control Program.

Goals . Maximize the infusion of beach-quality sand into the coastal system. . Implement projects that contribute to addressing the state’s beach erosion problems. . Promote inlet sand bypassing to replicate the natural flow of sand. . Extend the life of beach restoration projects. . Encourage regional approaches to ensure the geographic coordination and sequencing of projects. . Reduce equipment mobilization and demobilization costs.

STRATEGIC BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN (SBMP) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019, 02 13). Beaches Funding Documents. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program/content/beaches-funding-documents

Summary The Strategic Beach Management Plan “is a repair and maintenance strategy to carry out state responsibilities of a comprehensive, long-range, statewide program of beach erosion control; beach preservation, restoration and nourishment; and hurricane protection. It is divided into four specific coastal regions, the Southwest Gulf Includes Manatee and Pinellas County.”

The Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP) gives authority to the Department of Environmental Protection for beach and shore protection for the state. It is also in charge of developing and maintaining a comprehensive long-term management plan for the restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded beaches. The SBMP contains information and management strategies for coastal inlets. It identifies strategies consistent with the goals of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act.

BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM (BECP) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Beaches Funding Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program

Summary The BECP is authorized by the Beach and Shore Prevention Act and is the primary program that implements the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s beach management recommendations. It coordinates efforts of local, state, and federal governments in protecting, preserving, and restoring coastal resources. “One of the activities this program offers is financial assistance of up to 50 percent of project costs to counties, local governments, and special districts for shore protection and preservation.”

THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC) SOURCES: Florida Housing. (2017). Overview of the Florida building code. Retrieved from http://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/aboutflorida/august2017/august2017/tab4.pdf

International Code Council. (2017). 2017 Florida building code. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FBC2017

Greenberg, Sam. (2019, June 28). Interview by phone. [B. Cook]

Summary It was not until Hurricane Andrew wreaked havoc on the state of Florida and destroyed the town of Homestead in 1992 that Florida got serious about combatting hurricane damage. In 2002, under former Governor Jeb Bush, the legislature passed some of the strictest building codes in the nation.

Scope and Intent of the Florida Building Code: The Florida Building Code is based on the International Building Code, which is referred to as the “base code”. Florida-specific amendments and supplements modify the base code to address issues specific to Florida. The Florida Building Commission is required to update the Code every three years (Triennial Code Cycle) to incorporate proposed changes from industry and other interested parties and correct conflicts and omissions.

The Florida Building Code (FBC) has been developed over time with its beginnings in the Southern Standard Building Code and the more stringent South Florida Building Code. Standards are also influenced by the International Code Council (ICC). The FBC sets criteria for all public and private building construction and is synchronistic with the Florida Fire Prevention Code.

Local Jurisdiction Building Codes: Local governments may amend requirements to be more restrictive than the statewide Code.

Costs, Affordability and Fiscal Impact of the Florida Building Code: The Code serves to protect property investments and to save insurers, the state, and local government in mitigation costs linked to natural disasters. It is explicitly mandated that the Code “is affordable, does not inhibit competition, and promotes innovation and new technology.” The Code’s commitment to affordability is also delineated in the specifications governing the adoption. The following describes dates that have affected the building code in Florida. *Starred dates are noted as having more impact in Hillsborough County.

Timeline *1957 - 1960 The Masonry Institute of America is formed and concrete block material became more prevalent in construction. (Masonry Institute of America) (Hurtibise, 2015)

1974 Hurricanes led to the state mandate for local adoption and enforcement of the State Minimum Building Code. “Local governments could amend and enforce their local codes as they desired.” (During this time, Hillsborough County was subscribed to the Southern Standard Building Code) (Greenburg, 2019)

*1980 Flood Damage Control Regulations were adopted in Hillsborough County (Both City of Tampa and Hillsborough County) (Henry, 2019)

*1986 Coastal beach and dune systems were damaged by construction practices and the development of coastal land increased the risk. The first engineering-based codes created, requiring elevated and wind resistant buildings.

1992 “Hurricane Andrew revealed the deficiencies of the state’s existing building code compliance and enforcement processes. Andrew broke all records for insurance losses, and was the direct cause of Florida’s worst insurance crisis in history. It became obvious that building codes and their administration and enforcement was a statewide issue with statewide implications.”

1996 “The Florida Building Code Study Commission was appointed to review the system of local codes created by the 1974 law and to make recommendations for modernizing the entire system. The code was developed, amended, administered and enforced differently by more than 400 local jurisdictions and state agencies with building code responsibilities.”

“The reforms proposed included a streamlined uniform family of codes, strengthened administration and enforcement of codes and enhanced compliance with codes through education, training and discipline.”

1998 “Legislature adopted the Study Commission’s recommendations and amended Chapter 553, Florida Statures, Building Construction Standards to create a single minimum standard building code that is enforced by local governments.”

*2002 The Florida Building Code is established after Hurricane Andrew. It is developed and maintained by the Florida Building Commission and supersedes all local building codes. The Florida Building Code is updated every three years and may be amended annually to incorporate interpretations and clarifications.”

*2005 Florida adopts Florida Product Approval into code, which establishes requirements and responsibilities pertaining to the structural integrity of the building envelope. (Greenberg, 2019)

Terms Base Flood – “A flood having a one -percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.”

Base Flood Elevation – “The elevation of the base flood, including wave height, relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) or other datum specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).”

Coastal A Zone – “Area within a special flood hazard area, landward of a V zone or landward of an open coast without mapped coastal high hazard areas. In a coastal A zone, the principle source of flooding must be astronomical tides, storm surges, seiches or tsunamis, and not riverine flooding. During the base flood conditions, the potential for breaking wave height shall be greater than or equal to one and a half feet (457 mm). The inland limit of the coastal A zone is (a) the limit of moderate wave action if delineated on a FIRM, or (b) designated by the authority having jurisdiction.”

Coastal High Hazard Area – “Area within the special flood hazard zone extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary dune along an open coast, and any other area that is subject to high-velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources and shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other flood hazard map as velocity Zone V, VO, VE or V1-30.”

Coastal Construction Line – “The line established by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and recorded in the official records of the respective county and which defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves or other predictable weather conditions.”

Combined Total Storm Tide Elevation (Value) – “The elevation of combined total tides including storm surges, astronomical tide and dynamic wave setup which occurs primarily inside the wave breaking zone. The combined total storm tide elevations (values) for various return periods are determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for each coastal county with an established coastal construction control lines and published in reports for each county titled “Revised Combined Total Storm Tide Frequency Analysis.”

Flood Damage Resistant Materials – “Any construction material capable of withstanding direct and prolonged contact with floodwaters without sustaining any damage that requires more than cosmetic repair.”

Design Flood Elevation – “The elevation of the design flood (including wave height) relative to the datum specified on the community’s legally designated flood hazard map. In areas designated as Zone AO, the design flood elevation shall be the elevation of the highest existing grade of the building’s perimeter plus the depth number (in feet) specified on the flood hazard map. In areas designated as Zone AO where a depth number is not specified on the map, the depth number shall be taken as being equal to two feet (610 mm).”

Dry Flood Proofing – “A combination of design modifications that result in a building or structure (including the attendant utilities and equipment and sanitary facilities) being water tight with walls substantially 46 impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capacity to resist loads as identified in ASCE 7.”

Design Grade – “The predicted eroded grade, accounting for erosion and localized scour resulting from the presence of structural components, used in the calculation of flood loads, pile reactions and bearing capacities. The design grade shall be determined by a site-specific analysis prepared by a qualified registered design professional or the design grade may be determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the report titled ‘One-Hundred-Year Storm Elevation Requirements for Habitable Structures Located Seaward of a Coastal Construction Control Line’ (1999).”

Fifty Foot Setback Line – “A line of jurisdiction, established pursuant to the provisions of Section 161.052, Florida Statutes, in which construction is prohibited within 50 feet (15.13 m) of the line of mean high water at any riparian coastal location fronting the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic coast shoreline.”

Flood Hazard Area – “The greater of the following two areas: 1. The area within a flood plain subject to a 1-percent or greater chance of flooding in any year. 2. The area designated as a flood hazard area on a community’s flood hazard map, or otherwise legally designated.”

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - “An official map of a community on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.”

Flood Insurance Study- “The official report provided by the FEMA containing the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), the water surface elevation of the base flood, and supporting technical data.”

Floodway – “The channel of the river, creek, or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.”

Habitable Structure – “Structures designed primarily for human occupancy. Typically included within this category are residences, hotels, and restaurants.”

Low-Rise Building – “A structure with mean roof height less than or equal to 60 feet.”

Lowest Floor – “For the purpose of Section 3109, the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, which excludes any enclosure that complies with the requirements and limitations of Section 3109.3.4 applicable to enclosures below the flood elevation.”

Lowest Horizontal Structural Member – “A horizontal structural member that supports floor, wall or column loads and transmits the loads to the foundation.”

Special Floor Hazard Area – “The land area subject to flood hazards and shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30.

100-Year Storm Elevation – “The height of the breaking wave crest or wave approach as superimposed on the storm surge with dynamic wave setup of a 100-year (one-percent-annual chance) storm. The 100- year storm elevation is determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection based on studies published as part of the Coastal Construction Control Line establishment process and an analysis of topographic and other site-specific data and found in the report “One-Hundred-Year Storm Elevation Requirements for Habitable Structures Located Seaward of a Coastal Construction Control Line” (1999). An applicant may request the Department of Environmental Protection to determine a site-specific 100- year storm elevation for the location of the applicant’s proposed structure as part of the environmental permit application process.”

RELEVANT CHAPTERS AND ARTICLES FOR FLOOD Existing Building:

Chapter 4: Prescriptive Compliance Method Section 402 Additions 402.2 Flood hazard areas Section 403 Alterations 403.2 Flood hazard areas Section 404 Repairs 402.2 Flood hazard areas Chapter 5: Classification of Work 501.3 Structures seaward of a coastal construction line Chapter 6: Repairs 601.4 Structures seaward of a coastal construction line Chapter 7: Alterations - Level 1 706.7.2 Roof secondary water barrier for site-built single-family residential structures Chapter 12: Historic Buildings 1201.3 Flood hazard Areas

Construction:

Chapter 16: Structural Design Section 1603 Construction Documents 1603.1.7 Flood design data Section 1611 Rain loads 1611.1 Design rain loads 1611.3 Controlled drainage Section 1612 Flood loads 1612.3 Establishment of flood hazard areas 1612.3.1 Design flood elevations 1612.3.2 Determination of impacts 1612.4 Design and Construction 1612.4.1 Modification of ASCE 24 1612.5 Flood Hazard Documentation 1. For construction in flood hazard areas other than coastal high hazard areas or coastal A zones 2. For construction in coastal high hazard areas and coastal A zones Section 1616-1622 High Velocity Hurricane Zones 48

Chapter 18: Soils and Foundations Section 1803 1803.5.4 Ground-water table - A subsurface soil investigation shall be performed to determine whether the existing ground-water table is above or within five feet (1524 mm) below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished ground level adjacent to the foundation. 1804.5 Grading and fill in flood hazard areas - In flood hazard areas established in Section 1612.3, grading, fill, or both, shall not be approve. Section 1805 Damp proofing and water proofing 1805.1.1 Story above grade plane 1805.1.2 Under-floor space 1805.1.2.1 Flood hazard areas 1805.1.3 Ground water control 1805.2 Damp proofing 1805.3 Waterproofing 1805.4 Subsoil drainage system Section 1817-1821 High velocity hurricanes

Chapter 31 Special Construction Section 3109 Structures seaward of a coastal construction control line 3109.1.1 Modification, maintenance of repair of existing habitable structures * If the modification or repair is determined to be substantial improvement or substantial damage, and if the building is located in a special flood hazard area (Zone A and Zone V) established in Section 1612.3, the requirements of Florida Building Code, Existing Building applicable to flood hazard areas shall apply. 3109.1.2 Approval prior to construction 3109.1.3 Elevation certification 3109.3.1 Flood loads 3109.3.2 Foundations 3109.3.2.1 Piles and columns 3109.3.2.2 Shear walls 3109.3.3 Elevation standards 3109.3.4 Walls and enclosures below the flood elevation 3109.3.5 Structural slabs below the 100-year storm elevation

Residential: R301.2 Climatic and geographic design criteria R322.1.2 Structural systems R322.1.3 Flood-resistant construction R322.1.4 Establishing the design flood elevation R322.1.4.1 Determination of design flood elevations R322.1.4.2 Determination of impacts R322.1.5 Lowest floor R322.1.6 Protection of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems R322.1.7 Protection of water supply and sanitary sewage systems R322.1.8 Flood-resistant materials R322.1.9 Manufactured homes R322.1.10 As-built elevation documentation 49

R322.1.11 Structures seaward of a coastal control construction line R322.2 Flood hazard areas (including A Zones) R322.2.1 Elevation requirements R322.2.2 Enclosed area below design flood elevation R322.2.2.1 Installation of openings R322.2.3 Foundation design and construction R322.2.4 Tanks R322.2.5 Pools in flood hazard areas R322.2.5.1 Pools located in designated floodways R322.2.5.2 Pools located where floodways have not been designated R322.3 Coastal high-hazard areas (V Zones and Coastal A Zones, where designated) R322.3.1 Location and site preparation R322.3.2 Elevation requirements R322.3.3 Foundations R322.3.3.1 Pools R322.3.4 Walls below design flood elevation R322.3.5 Enclosed areas below design flood elevation

Figure 16: Year Structure Built by Jurisdiction (Estimate)

EDITORIALS AND PERIODICALS ON THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE

ROMANO: WHY IS FLORIDA RISKING FUTURE HURRICANE MISERY? SOURCE: Romano, J. (2018, October 13). Romano: Why is Florida risking future hurricane misery? Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/hurricane-guide/Romano-Why-is-Florida-risking-future- hurricane-misery-_172602583

Key Points . Governor Rick Scott “obliterated" the state’s growth management agency and cut funding to Regional Planning Councils. . In 2011 the Legislature “began chipping away at growth management laws.” . 2017 law (HB 1021) changes the old law, whereas Florida would automatically adopt the International Code Council’s newest regulations, and then discard those that did not make sense for the state. With the new law, the international codes are not automatically adopted and the Florida Building Commission instead “picks and chooses which codes it likes.”

TOUGHEN FLORIDA’S BUILDING CODE SOURCE: Toughen Florida's Building Codes. (2018, October 19). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-toughen-floridas-building-code-20181019/

Key Points . “The requirements for wind resistance vary widely by location. Across much of South Florida, the code requires that new construction withstand wind speeds of 160 mph, 170 mph or even 180 mph. By contrast, the design standard drops to as low as 120 mph in areas of the Panhandle hit hardest by Michael.”

FLORIDA INITIATIVES

SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL COMPACT (2009) SOURCE: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Florida Legislature. (2012). The 2012 Florida statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0161/0161ContentsIndex.html

Summary The Southeast Florida Regional Compact was created following after the Southeast Florida Climate Leadership Summit in 2009. It is a formalized, regional collaboration between Broward, Palm Beach, Miami Dade, and Monroe counties that aim to address climate change. Before the compact, each entity was lobbying on their own for climate action, but the creation of the compact has greatly strengthened their lobbying efforts. The Compact calls to the involved counties to: . Develop annual legislative programs and advocate for state and federal funding, . Dedicate staff and resources to create a Regional Climate Action Plan, . Meet annually at the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Leadership Summit to highlight progress and solve emerging issues.

Voting members: The official voting members of the Steering Committee involves two people from each of the four counties as well as one person from a municipality that exists within the three counties.

Other Key Players: . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . South Florida Regional Planning Council . South Florida Water Management District . The Nature Conservancy

Fundamental Papers: Established an important basis for the Compact . Sea Level Rise Technical Ad Hoc Working Group’s white paper on sea level rise projections . Unified Sea Level Rise Projection Paper

Plans: . Regional Climate Action Plan [RCAP]

SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN SOURCE: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. (2019). What is the Regional Climate Action plan. Retrived from: http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/about-us/what-is-the-rcap/

Summary In 2012, the first Regional Climate Action Plan was created in coordination with government staff, key stakeholders and partners, and members of the general public. The plan described a 5-year plan with the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. The plan will be updated every five years with the addition of lessons learned from previous plans. The RCAP is meant to act as a guiding tool for coordinated climate action in Southeast Florida as well as provide recommendations in each of the 12 focus areas and best practices for local entities to address.

Each of the 108 municipalities in the four counties in the Compact can create and implement their own plan by choosing recommendations within the 12 focus areas to work towards overall goals of planning. 52

12 Focus Areas: . Agriculture . Compact coordination . Energy and fuel . Natural systems . Public health . Public outreach and engagement . Public policy advocacy . Regional economic resilience . Risk reduction and emergency management . Social equity . Sustainable communities and transportation . Water

Since its inception, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact has been supported by the Institute for Sustainable Communities. This organization has helped to “advance the Compact from the planning stage to policy implementation – integrating climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, highlighting the importance of addressing natural and built systems holistically, and supporting the work across adjacent jurisdictions, using adaptive management principles to guide the process.”

FLORIDA FOREVER (1999) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

Florida Legislature. (2000). The 2000 Florida statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0259/Sec105.htm&StatuteYe ar=2000

Summary The Florida Forever Plan is a land and water acquisition program. According to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, “The revenue from this program is used for restoration, conservation, recreation, water resource development, historical preservation, and capital improvements on acquired conservation lands. The land acquisition is mostly voluntary since the state wishes to avoid the use of the power of eminent domain. The funding for this program comes from three billion dollars in bond issues over a ten-year period, which is being paid back from an excise tax” (TBRPC 2006). The funds are distributed annually to governmental agencies for land and water acquisition. “Since the program began in 1999, Florida Forever funds have been used to protect over 270,000 acres of natural floodplains, nearly 500,000 acres of significant water bodies, over 24,000 acres of fragile coastline, and over 520,000 acres of functional wetlands.”

STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IN FLORIDA SOURCE: University of Florida, IFAS Extension. (June 19, 2019). Comprehensive planning for growth management in Florida. Retrieved from: https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/IR/00/00/13/51/00001/FE64200.pdf

Summary The first land use planning regulations were enacted in 1972, which included the Environmental Land and Water Management Act (ELWM) of 1972, part of which includes a component addressing Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC). They also passed the Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act. However, eight years later the first Plan submitted was not approved by the legislature, who directed specifically that no part of it be implemented. During that process, to assist with the implementation of the ELWM, legislature established a committee that sponsored many proposals intended to “foster the sensible development of the state.” One of these proposals was the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975.

In 1982, Governor Bob Graham issued an executive order to renew the process for statewide coordination and planning. This concluded with the passing of the Regional Planning Act (Chapter 186, Florida Statutes) in 1984, which “called for the development of a State Comprehensive Plan and directed the Executive Office of the Governor to prepare a draft plan within six months.” This was adopted by the legislature in 1985 and established goals for ten and fifteen-year planning periods on twenty-five subject areas. It has been established by this document that “the Chief Planning Officer of the state is the Governor,” and that “there shall be no Future Land Use Map for the state.”

In 2011, under Rick Scott, the Community Planning Act “not only renamed the Florida planning program, but it also greatly reduced the State and Regional agency oversight of planning and land development activity.” (Arrant)

STATE GOVERNANCE ARTICLES

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON LAW AND POLICY IN FLORIDA SOURCE: Ruppert, T. & Deady, E. (2017) Climate change impacts on law and policy in Florida. Florida's Climate: Changes, Variations, & Impacts. Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_libsubv1_scholarship_submission_1515444138_4fbf0e2e

Summary This chapter is an overview of law and policy issues at state, local and federal levels, and how these have changed in response to climate change and sea level rise. It focuses on local governments, regional collaboration, financial issues, and examinations of impacts on infrastructure and the use of beaches.

Introduction: “Climate change and sea level rise have made obsolete the notion that law and policy develop in the context of a relatively stable natural environment. The need of communities to adapt to climate change and sea level 54 rise reflects the need for laws and policies governing those communities to facilitate rather than undermine such adaptation.”

State Law, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: In 2006, Governor Jeb Bush signed the Renewable Energy Technologies and Energy Efficiency Act. The act created the Florida Energy Commission, whose first report included recommended steps for the development of a state climate action plan, setting targets to reduce greenhouse gasses.

In 2007, Governor Charlie Crist continued a policy approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with bills that address a cap and trade program for utilities, a renewable portfolio standard for energy, and automobile efficiency. Under Governor Rick Scott, in 2011, HB 7207 passed and changed the state’s growth management policy and reorganized the Florida Department of Community Affairs into a new Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This law focused on the economic development policy and reduced state oversight of local planning decisions and actions. Moreover, the law eliminated many energy efficiency and greenhouse reduction provisions. The remaining provisions mandate that elements of the comprehensive plans must be based upon appropriate data and analysis, and include a conservation element.

“As part of its efforts to deal with the impacts of such changes, the 2015 Florida Legislature passed a law entitled ‘An Act Relating to the Peril of Flood.’ While important parts of the law directly address flood insurance issues, other portions focus on flooding issues, disaster planning and recovery, and pre-disaster mitigation. Under the 2015 law, coastal management elements must include a redevelopment component that outlines the principles that must be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise. While the redevelopment component itself is not new, what is required to be addressed in the component has been enhanced.” The requirements include:

Required in Component: 1. Employing development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that reduce the flood risk in coastal areas that result from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea level rise. 2. Encouraging the use of best practices development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that will result in the removal of coastal real property from flood zone designations established by FEMA. 3. Identifying site development techniques and best practices that may reduce losses due to flooding and claims made under flood insurance policies issued in the state. 4. Being consistent with, or more stringent than, the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and applicable flood plain management regulations set forth in 44 C.F.R. part 60. 5. Requiring that any construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control lines established pursuant to Section 161.053, F.S. be consistent with Chapter 161, F.S. 6. Encouraging local governments to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System administered by FEMA to achieve flood insurance premium discounts for their residents.

The Department of Economic Opportunity provides technical assistance for local governments to review compliance to the Peril of Flood act of 2015. They have also created guides and resources for local governments to address sea level rise in their policy framework.

Other Legislation: The Florida “Coastal Control Line” has failed to address sea level rise, by not mentioning or accounting for it.

“The Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program regulates activities that alter the flow of surface waters, such as construction creating stormwater; the ERP also regulates dredging and filling in wetlands or surface waters.” However, it does not consider future conditions, so areas where construction is being permitted might be affected by rising waters and changing rain patterns.

“In the 2017 legislative session, SB 464/HB 181 (now Section 252.3655, F.S.) passed creating an interagency workgroup to share information on the current and potential impacts of natural hazards throughout the state. The goal is to coordinate the ongoing efforts of state agencies in addressing the impacts of natural hazards, and collaborate on statewide initiatives to address the impacts of natural hazards.”

Key Messages . Florida’s engagement with climate change started in 2006 with the energy law. Since then, the focus has shifted from energy to disaster planning and flooding, resulting from infrastructure being affected from sea level rise. . Local governments have focused most of their actions on infrastructure. . Collaboration among governments resulted in an increased focus on climate change and sea level rise . Protecting the beaches, which are a major source of tourism, is one of the primary challenges . Federal action drives and supports local activities. Recent changes at federal level have eliminated some of these drivers.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: THE REAL SEAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA-LEVEL RISE ACTION IN FLORIDA (FROM ARTICLE ABOVE) SOURCE: Ruppert, T. & Deady, E. (2017) Climate change impacts on law and policy in Florida. Florida's Climate: Changes, Variations, & Impacts. Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_libsubv1_scholarship_submission_1515444138_4fbf0e2e

Summary At the local level, climate change approaches are driven by local politics or efforts to comply with federal or state planning requirements. Some impacted communities have started to work together regionally. “In terms of implementation of the 2015 Peril of Flood legislation, 195 local governments are required to have a coastal management element in their comprehensive plans (161 municipalities and 34 counties). Some local governments have added optional elements to their comprehensive plans. Broward County has a “Climate Change Element” and Monroe County has a “Energy and Climate Element”. They include greenhouse gas reduction and linkages between climate change and the built environment. The optional element gives the governments a wider spectrum to address issues at a more individual level. Several governments are using their own resources to develop climate-related policy. This is in part due to the Peril of Flood legislation but also because it is good planning sense.

As of May 2017: . 43 (22%) municipalities explicitly address sea level rise in their comprehensive plans. 56

. Eleven municipalities mention Adaptation Action Areas (AAAs) in their comprehensive plans (six of these are in southeast Florida) . Six have a physical designation: o Satellite Beach designates coastal high hazard areas as AAAs o Village of Pinecrest designates AAAs o Broward County sand bypass project at Port Everglades o Ft. Lauderdale 16 areas 38 stormwater projects o Yankeetown o Fernandina Beach . The following local governments have addressed the new Peril of Flood requirements in Section 163.3178, F.S. within their comprehensive plans or updates to them, o North Miami o Miami Beach o Lake Park o Ponce Inlet o Sunny Isles Beach o St. Petersburg o Boynton Beach o Jupiter Inlet Colony o West Palm Beach o Jupiter o Yankeetown o Palm Beach o Clearwater o Broward County o Pinecrest

Regional Collaboration: In 2010, southeast Florida created what has become one of the best-known regional collaborations on climate change in the United States. Palm Beach, Broward, Miami Dade, and Monroe counties joined together to officially form the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. This was due to the realization that parallel lobbying efforts by the counties could be strengthened by working from similar baselines. One of the first activities of the Compact was the development of the “Sea Level Rise Technical Ad Hoc Working Group” of a white paper on sea level rise projections for Compact members in their planning efforts. This document was updated in the Compact’s 2015 “Unified Sea Level Rise Projection” paper.

Another important development and implementation document is the Compact’s Regional Climate Action Plan. This was a collaborative action project with nearly 100 subject-matter experts. It contains recommendations in seven areas: “sustainable communities and transportation planning; water supply, management and infrastructure; natural systems; agriculture; energy and fuel; risk reduction and emergency management; and outreach and public policy. The RCAP also contains 110 recommendations intended to be implemented.”

“In northeast Florida, an early effort of the Northeast Florida Regional Council to promote discussion by the business community about the potential risks of sea level rise led to members of the business community beginning to address not only the risks of sea level rise but also of climate change.”

“The Tampa Bay region has been working towards regional collaboration with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and its “One Bay Resilient Communities” working group. Together with Florida Sea Grant, they facilitated creation of the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel.” In August 2015, this panel released a report entitled 57

“Recommended Projection of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region.” It served to bring together several local actors, including local governments, state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and non-profit entities. The resulting sea level rise projections are now being integrated into policy and codes by some local governments in the region.

Drainage and Road Infrastructure: Local governments already face water supply issues, flooding, saltwater intrusion, and others. These, combined with other conditions, have a challenging effect on roads and drainage, which are essential for any area to be inhabitable. Due to the flat nature of the state, there has always been issues with drainage.

Beaches and Tourism: “Florida is the world’s number one tourist destination; tourism generates $67 billion of activity in the state. Florida’s beaches are the single biggest draw for tourists. Thus, access to beaches for those who do not own coastal property is essential to maintaining the tourism lifeblood in Florida’s economic veins. The most serious challenge remains in that DEP asserts that its current statutory authority to address lateral public access does not allow the department to look at the current situation; DEP indicates it lacks authority to investigate the future and consider potential or likely erosion or the impacts of sea level rise. This failure to look towards the future of the beach and lateral public access to the beach during the permitting of coastal construction may threaten the future of publicly accessible beaches. DEP indicates it lacks authority to investigate the future and consider potential or likely erosion or the impacts of sea level rise.”

FEDERAL POLICY IMPACTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Policy in Florida was affected by the 2012 and 2014 changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. Other than that, the federal government’s primary role is to provide aid for research. They also must consider, or possibly work toward, integrating climate change factors into intergovernmental agency operations.

Other federal activities that relate to climate change and sea level rise include: . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - They have considered sea level change since 1986 and have generating planning and adaptation guides for sea level rise. . National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) - guidance on how federal agencies should evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change. . Beach Fix - A tool to create vulnerability assessments of non-developed natural coastlines.

Terms Adaptation Area - A designation in the coastal management element of a local government’s comprehensive plan which identifies one or more areas that experience coastal flooding due to extreme high tides and storm surge, and that are vulnerable to the related impacts of rising sea levels for the purposes of prioritizing funding for infrastructure needs and adaptation planning.

Timeline 2006 Governor Jeb Bush signs the Renewable Energy Technologies and Energy Efficiency Act. The act created the Florida Energy Commission, whose first report included recommended steps for the development of a state climate action plan. 58

2007 Governor Charlie Crist sets targets and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide.

2008 Continued efforts such as green building designs, efficient land use patterns and provided for the Florida Building Commission to make recommendations on energy efficiency Energy efficiency and greenhouse reduction provisions added to chapter 163 of Florida Statute.

2009 Florida Energy and Climate Commission began meeting.

2010 Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Rick Scott becomes governor of Florida.

2011 Bill HB 7207 passes and changes the state’s growth management policy. It also reorganized the Florida Department of Community Affairs into a new Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This law focused on the economic development policy and reduced state oversight of local planning decisions and actions. Moreover, the law eliminated many energy efficiency and greenhouse reduction provisions. It also eliminated Chapter 9J-5 from the Florida Administrative Code governments were able to address sea level rise as a part of their Coastal Management Element through the establishment to optional adaptation areas.

2012 Changes to National Flood Insurance.

2015 SB 1094 “An Act Relating to the Peril of Flood” “Recommended Projection of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region” Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact’s “Sea Level Rise Technical Ad Hoc Working Group” updated the “Unified Sea Level Rise Projection” Paper.

2017 BS 464/HB 181, creates an “interagency workgroup to share information on the current potential impacts of natural hazards throughout the state.”

‘SAND WARS’: THE BATTLE TO REPLENISH FLORIDA’S BEACHES AMID CLIMATE CRISIS SOURCE: Bakkalapulo, Maria (Oct. 25, 2019). ‘Sand wars’: the battle to replenish Florida’s beaches amid climate crisis. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/25/surfside- florida-beaches-climate-crisis-sea-levels

Summary “Since the 1950’s Florida authorities have spent $1.3 billion ‘nourishing’ the beaches,” a process whereby municipalities buy sand or excavate it from their region next placing it in eroded zones along the coastline. Despite this effort, “nearly half the state’s 825 miles of beaches are now considered ‘critically eroded.’” With fixed urban environments along the world’s coastlines, this is presenting an issue of supply. It also has operational impacts. “Dredging and mining sand offshore causes environmental damage to the ocean floor, 59 as does repairing the beach itself.” An interviewee is quoted, “You basically kill a beach when you dump a bunch of sand on top of it,” said Matthew Schwartz, an environmentalist and executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association.

Some municipalities are looking for sources inland, rather than off the coast. In Surfside, Florida, they are purchasing sand from Lake Okeechobee. Purchasing sand, and the processes and permits required to implement projects, are expensive. Over the last three years, sand nourishment projects have been reported to have increased 30% as supplies dwindle.

As this problem and approach continue, a discrepancy is developing related to access. Will only wealthier communities be able to afford protection? Will there be fair access, and distribution, of sand? The article suggests that this will become a legal issue.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL POLICY

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SOURCE: Plan Hillsborough. (web, accessed May 14, 2020). Comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County Florida. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/hillsborough-county- comprehensive-plan/

Summary A Comprehensive Plan includes an extensive public outreach and coordination effort with local and state agencies to identify major issues facing the community, as well as establish goals, objectives and policies to be adopted by a municipality. This policy document provides a mechanism for coordinating an approach to making decisions regarding land use and the location of development, the extension of urban services, and the placement of community facilities. It is up to the municipality to define major objectives and themes.

The Plan is composed of Elements that contain Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) organized by topics. Each Element’s support document contains the data and analysis used in developing the GOPs. The Plan also contains a map series that generally describes existing or future conditions related to the Plan's Elements.” (Broward County Government, 2018)

Required Elements: Future Land Use Housing Sanitary / Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Management Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Coastal Management Conservation 60

Intergovernmental Coordination Capital Improvements Transportation

Optional Elements Public School Facilities Public School Concurrency Historical Recreation and Open Space Economic Development Economically Disadvantaged Groups Livable Communities Public Safety

“The 2011 Community Planning Act made the previously required Public School Facilities Element and Public- School Concurrency an optional element. A Recreation and Open Space Element was a required element but now is considered an optional element, specifically with regards to concurrency for recreation and open space facilities. Other optional elements that some counties have adopted include economic development elements, historical elements and public safety elements.” (Arrant, p. 127-128)

The Coastal Management Element is of interest for this research due to the requirements outlined in the Florida Statues regarding flood risk from storm surge and sea level rise. It is suggested that the Perils of Flood required information be located within the Redevelopment Component within the Coastal Management Element.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SOURCE: The Florida Legislature. (2019). The 2019 Florida Statutes: 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html

Summary The government identifies through s.380.24 that a coastal management element is required within the comprehensive plan. It is meant to set forth the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies that shall guide the local government’s decisions and program implementation with respect to the following objectives:

1. Maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone environment. 2. Preserve the continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life. 3. Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources. 4. Avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources. 5. Use ecological planning principles and assumptions in the determination of the suitability of permitted development. 6. Limit public expenditures that subsidize development in coastal high-hazard areas. 7. Protect human life against the effects of natural disasters. 61

8. Direct the orderly development, maintenance, and use of ports identified in s. 403.021(9) to facilitate deep water commercial navigation and other related activities. 9. Preserve historic and archaeological resources, which include the sensitive adaptive use of these resources. 10. At the option of the local government, develop an adaptation action area designation for those low- lying coastal zones that are experiencing coastal flooding due to extreme high tides and storm surge and are vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea level. Local governments that adopt an adaptation action area may consider policies within the coastal management element to improve resilience to coastal flooding resulting from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and related impacts of sea-level rise. Criteria for the adaptation action area may include, but need not be limited to, areas for which the land elevations are below, at, or near mean higher high water, which have a hydrologic connection to coastal waters, or which are designated as evacuation zones for storm surge.

Other aspects of a coastal management element: 1. The Legislature recognized that there is interest in the resources of the coastal zone. In the event of a natural disaster, the state may provide financial assistance to reconstruct public facilities, which is why it encourages local governments to limit development in areas that may damage coastal resources or are subject to destruction.

2. Each coastal management element shall be based on studies, surveys and data, be consistent with coastal resource plans and adopted to general or special law and contain the following ‘Components’: a. Land use inventory map. b. An analysis of the impact of development and redevelopment proposed in the future land use plan with required infrastructure and the principles to control development. c. Analysis of the effects of drainage systems and the impact of pollution in estuarine waters, which should be used to maintain or upgrade water quality. d. A ‘Component’ which outlines principles for hazard mitigation and protection of human life against the effects of a natural disaster. The Division of Emergency Management shall manage and update the hurricane evacuation studies. e. A ‘Component’ which outlines principles for protecting and restoring beach and dune systems f. A ‘Redevelopment Component’ that outlines the principles that must be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development. This is where the elements of the Perils of Flood are required. g. A ‘Shoreline Use Component’ that identifies public access and addresses the need for water- related facilities h. Designation of Coastal High-Hazard Areas and the criteria for mitigation for a comprehensive plan are defined in subsection 8. Application of mitigation and development policies and any rules are at the discretion of the local government. i. A ‘Component’ which outlines principles for providing that financial assurances are made that required public facilities will be in place to meet the demand imposed by the completed development or redevelopment. j. Identification of regulatory management techniques to mitigate the threat to human life and to control proposed development to protect the coastal environment and consider cumulative impacts. k. A ‘Component’ which includes the comprehensive master plan prepared by each deep-water port listed in s. 311.09 (1), addressing existing port facilities and expansions and applicable requirements.

3. Expansions to in-water harbor facilities of ports; port transportation facilities; port related industrial or commercial projects; may not be designated as developments of regional impact if they are consistent with comprehensive master plans.

4. Improvements and maintenance of federal and state highways that have been approved as part of a plan, shall be exempt from provision of s. 380.27

5. The dispute resolution process in s. 186.509 must be used for inconsistencies between port master plan and local comprehensive plan.

6. Ports and local governments in the coastal area which has spoil disposal responsibilities shall provide or identify disposal sites.

7. Establish a county-based process for identifying and prioritizing coastal properties so they may be acquired as part of the state’s land acquisition programs. Establish a criterion for coastal acquisitions recognizing pristine, significant or environmentally sensitive properties.

8. A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high- hazard provisions if: 1. The adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event; or 2. A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SOURCE: Hillsborough County. (2008). Stormwater management comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/STORMWATER_11_2012.pdf

Summary This document address issues related to storm water and its systems management and maintenance, addressing current and future needs, and alternatives in regards to storm water runoff management. It evaluates the system in terms of quantity, quality, management system maintenance, and the impact of storm water runoff. Deficiencies are identified through an inventory and analysis of the existing infrastructure using the Watershed Management Master Plan, future goals and objectives for improvement are listed with their respective policies.

In Unincorporated Hillsborough County Florida: (2008) Inventory and Analysis: Existing Levels of Service: Inventory - Drainage, flooding, water quality, natural system issues, and storm water effect on water supply. Level of service - Designated in terms of frequency and duration, a facility can accommodate without causing flood-level designations. This is done for each watershed by modeling their Hydraulic and Hydrologic characteristics for the mean annual for 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year storm events. 63

Flood Level Designation for Streets: Level A - No significant street flooding. All lanes are drivable Level B - Minor Street flooding. At least one lane is drivable (Flood level considered) Level C - Street flooding. Flooding depth is less than one foot Level D -No limitation flooding

Hillsborough County’s Drainage Basins: Major rivers and coastal drainage systems: . Hillsborough River Basin . Alafia River Basin . Little Manatee River Basin . McKay and Hillsborough Bay Coastal Area (which were further divided into 17 watershed areas)

Standards for Storm Water Management Facilities: These standards are based on expected facility performance. The level of protection for a facility is based on the frequency of occurrence of rainfall or storm event and the acceptable level of flooding.

Future Needs: . A storm water Management Capital Improvement Plan. . Update Watershed Management Master Plans. . Secondary System Improvement Fund for emergency conditions

Funding Mechanisms: . Stormwater Management Fee Program . Community Investment Tax

Goals Provide the residents of Hillsborough County with a managed system of storm water infrastructure which will minimize the occurrence of damage due to flooding, improve quality of surface water, reestablish and create wetland habitat, improve recharge of potable water supply, and provide opportunities for reuse and recreational benefits.

Objective 1: Levels of protection and service Objective 2: Storage and discharge of storm water conveyance, detention and retention systems Objective 3: Programs and projects to control flooding Objective 4: Management and maintenance Objective 5: Implement integrated water resource management program

SUMMARY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY Objective 1: Levels of Protection and Service: Policy 1.1: New developments should be designed so that runoff from the site is similar or better than predevelopment and shall meet water management and quality standards.

Policy 1.2: All nonresidential and nonagricultural development shall construct or contribute to a storm water management system. 64

Policy 1.3: Encourage and require measures to improve water quality discharges to water bodies.

Objective 2: Storage and Discharge of Storm Water Conveyance, Detention and Retention Systems: Policy 2.2: Established priority list for updating individual WMMP.

Policy 2.3 Continue to update WMMP to the levels of detail necessary.

Policy 2.4: New storm water management facility improvement projects to be incorporated in Capital Improvement Element.

Policy 2.5 Establish formal prioritization methodology.

Policy 2.6: Data collected and monitoring will be used to identify the need for upgrades, retrofits or maintenance of systems.

Policy 2.7: The use of non-structural Best Management Practices for solving storm water management problems will continue to be considered.

Policy 2.8 The potential for implementing regional or area-wide storm water management facilities will continue to be evaluated.

Policy 2.9: The use of storm water storage facilities will be preferred to alleviate flooding problems. All projects will be required to maximize improvements to habitat.

Policy 2.10: Stormwater data collection (Policy 2.6) will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of management and system performance.

Policy 2.11: The County will encourage the use of new, affordable technology as well as low impact development techniques.

Objective 3: Programs and Projects to Control Flooding: Policy 3.1: Stormwater management facility improvement projects will be completed by 2015.

Policy 3.2: Only improvements included in the Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Plan will be implemented unless otherwise necessary.

Policy 3.3: Development in 110-year floodplain shall be regulated. Flood volume compensation will be required for new developments.

Policy 3.4: The concept of establishing only one set of regulations to direct storm water management system design will continue to be pursued.

Policy 3.5: The County will establish and maintain informal communication with government agencies which have authority over storm water management practices.

Policy 3.6: Implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Policy 3.8: Pretreatment measures can be provided, wetlands will be used for storm water treatment when appropriate.

Policy 3.9: New facilities will not be permitted to discharge untreated runoff into the aquifer.

Objective 4: Management and Maintenance: Policy 4.1: A program of inspection of facilities will be implemented.

Policy 4.2: Continue implementation of inspection for illicit connections and illegal discharge

Policy 4.3 Annual updated repair and replacement list to be developed.

Policy 4.4: Maintenance Management System will be adjusted and expanded.

Policy 4.5: Maintenance work will continue to be conducted.

Policy 4.6: Stormwater treatment systems which have been accepted for maintenance will be maintained in a manner compliant to regulations.

Policy 4.7: Continuously update system inventory and GIS database.

Objective 5: Implement Integrated Water Resource Management Program: Policy 5.1: Technical design standards will be established.

Policy 5.2 Stormwater Levels of service for watershed will continue to be identified and new capital projects will be identified and scheduled to achieve watershed levels of service.

Policy 5.3: Water quality and environmental conservation shall continue to be considered.

Policy 5.4 Programs and practices in compliance with NPDES and use of Low Impact Development shall be established.

Policy 5.5: Program and schedule of integrated capital projects shall be incorporated in Capital Improvement Programs.

THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SOURCE: Hillsborough County. (2008). Comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County Florida - Coastal management element. Retrieved form http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/COASTAL-MANAGEMENT-with-3rd-cycle-2012-amendments.pdf

Summary “The purpose of this Coastal Management Element is to provide a plan and policy direction for development activities in the coastal planning area. This plan and policy direction include restrictions on development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, protection of human life, and limitations on public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disaster. The objectives of this 66 element are to ensure that development in the coastal area does not prohibit public accessibility to the coast, that human life is not endangered, that adequate public hurricane shelter space is available to coastal inhabitants, that levels of service on coastal evacuation routes do not deteriorate, such that safe and timely evacuation is adversely impacted, that water-dependent and water-related land uses are given priority, that public expenditures do not encourage growth in coastal high hazard areas, and that public decisions will include consideration of coastal hazards in each land use and public infrastructure decision-making process.”

Objectives: Hillsborough County Objective 2: No net loss of wetland acreage and increase in restored tidal wetland: No net loss of wetland acreage. The county shall continue to measure annual increase in restored tidal wetland acreage through continued restoration of degraded natural wetlands until all economically and environmentally feasible tidal wetland restoration is accomplished.

Objective 5: Stabilize man-made beaches: Stabilize man-made beaches prone to erosion problems, and only support development of man-made estuarine beaches in environmentally-acceptable locations.

Objective 6: Limit residential populations within coastal high hazard area: Residential populations within coastal high hazard areas shall be limited to areas planned to accommodate such development. Development must meet storm velocity standards, and provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability.

Objective 9: Protect and preserve historic resources: Once a site has been excavated, development may proceed without preserving the site.

Objective 10: Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in coastal high hazard area to: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; flood proofing existing potable water and sanitary sewerage facilities; the development or improvement of public roads and bridges that are on the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long‐Range Transportation Plan or that serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the county; reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of existing public facilities or infrastructure; a public facility of overriding public interest as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; the retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or port and port‐related facilities.

Objective 13: Establish standard level of service in public facilities elements: This is provided within the Transportation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Capital Improvements Elements of the Comprehensive Plan

THE REDEVELOPMENT COMPONENT SOURCE: The Florida Legislature. (2019). The 2019 Florida Statutes: 163.3178 Coastal Management. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statut e&Search_String=163.3178&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3178

Summary The Redevelopment Component, within the Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan, outlines the principles that must be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise. This is where the requirements for the Perils of Flood Act reside.

FLORIDA SB 1094: “AN ACT RELATING TO THE PERIL OF FLOOD” SOURCES: Brandes, S. (2015). SB 1094. Florida, United States: Florida Senate. Retrieved from https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1094/BillText/Filed/PDF

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2017). Local Government Guide to Understanding the 2015 Florida Peril of Flood Act. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TBRPC-Peril-of-Flood-Report- June-2017.pdf

Summary On May 21, 2015, Governor Rick Scott signed into law Florida Senate Bill 1094: An Act Relating to the Peril of Flood. The law requires consideration of sea level rise and flood risk in portions of the Comprehensive Plan, such as in the Redevelopment Component in the Coastal Management Element. In addition to the following criteria, the bill creates requirements for flood insurance providers and requiring surveyors and mappers to submit elevation certificates to the Division of Emergency Management.

The Components that must be specified in the Coastal Management Element include a redevelopment component that addresses how to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise. This includes the following:

1. Reduce Flood risk (development and redevelopment strategies): Include development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that reduce the flood risk in coastal areas which results from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, storm water runoff, and the related impacts of sea-level rise.

2. Removal of Coastal Property from Flood Zone: Encourage the use of development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and solutions that will result in the removal of coastal real property from flood zone designations established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3. Reduce loss – Flood Insurance: Identify site development techniques and best practices that may reduce losses due to flooding and claims made under flood insurance policies issued in this state.

4. Construction requirements: Be consistent with the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and flood plain management regulations set forth in 44 C.F.R. part 60. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017- title44-vol1/xml/CFR-2017-title44-vol1-part60.xml)

5. Coastal Construction Control Lines: Require that any construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control lines established pursuant to s. 161.053 be consistent with chapter 161(Regulations for coastal construction and excavation).

6. Community Rating System (NFIP): Encourage local governments to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to achieve flood insurance premium discounts for their residents.

Applicant Examples The following provides examples from submitted comprehensive plans (location in parentheses) to meet the criteria established by the Perils of Flood Act.

Criteria 1: Reduce Flood risk (development and redevelopment strategies):

. Identify locations vulnerable to impacts of sea level rise. (Clearwater Coastal Management Policy E.2.5) . Maintain shoreline protection and erosion control. (Jacksonville Coastal Management Policy 7.3.4) . Create resilience to coastal and inland flooding, salt water intrusion. (Sarasota Environmental Protection Policy 7.1) . Reduction of permissible permanent density. (Treasure Island Coastal Management Policy 3.3.2) . Initiate public information and outreach. (Clearwater Coastal Management Policy E.2.3)

Criteria 2: Removal of Coastal Properties:

. Control development within the coastal high hazard area. (Broward County Climate Change Policy 19.7.6) . Eliminate unsafe development. (St. Petersburg Coastal Management Policy CM.12.3) . Maintain allowable permanent population density. (Treasure Island Coastal Management Policy 2.2.1) . Limit or restrict development in floodplain areas. (Broward County Climate Change Policy 9.12.04)

Criteria 3: Reduce Loss – Flood Insurance:

. Encourage Low Impact Development (Clearwater Conservation Policy 2.1.10) . Apply principles, strategies, and engineering solutions to reduce flood risk in coastal areas. (Broward County Land Use Policy 8.08.02(b)) . Utilize vegetation and natural features to minimize surface runoff and reduce flood risks. (Treasure Island Policy 1.4.3) . Open space preservation. (Madeira Beach Land Use Policy 1.16.1) . Setbacks and buffers (Broward County Climate Change Policy 9.03.14) . Green water management systems. (Clearwater Coastal management Policy E2.1.4)

Criteria 4: Construction requirements:

. Establish minimum of first floor elevation for habitable space in residential and commercial buildings. (Miami Beach Land Use Policy 9.1) . Pilings, not fill, shall be used to elevate structures. (Madeira Beach Coastal Management Policy 1.10.7 . The construction of new artificial shoreline hardening structures shall be prohibited. (Sarasota Environmental Protection Policy 3.15)

Criteria 5: Coastal Construction Control Lines: 69

. Preserve and protect the beaches and coastal barrier dunes adjacent to such beaches. (Treasure Island Policy 1.9.3) . Maintain existing Recreation/Open Space Future Land Use categories within the Coastal Storm Area. (Clearwater Coastal Management Policy E.3.2.3) . Regulate development densities along the coast. (Clearwater Coastal Management Policy E1.1.1) . Maintenance of existing beach-dune vegetation. (Broward County Climate Change Policy 19.3.11)

Criteria 6: Community Rating System – NFIP: . Public information and outreach to residents and businesses about the risks and costs involved in owning or leasing a structure in flood vulnerable locations. (Clearwater Coastal Management Policy E.2.3) . The City shall continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program and Community Rating System in order to achieve higher flood insurance premium discounts. (St. Petersburg Coastal Management Policy CM11.9) . The City will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and will make all reasonable efforts to maintain a Community Rating System score of 6 or higher. (Jacksonville Coastal Management Policy 11.3.6)

Case Studies Tampa: In January 2017 the City of Tampa submitted 19 amendments to the comprehensive plan to meet the requirements of the Perils of Flood Act. Those amendments addressed all 6 criteria including proposals for policies to be considered for future developments. The City of Tampa focused on meeting the basic requirements and did not expand beyond them. The DEO passed the comprehensive plan with no challenge.

Clearwater: The City of Clearwater took initiative with their comprehensive plan, going beyond the basic requirements. In addition to meeting all the criteria for the Perils of Flood Act, Clearwater has committed to identifying vulnerabilities by the year 2020, and have included detailed proposals addressing landscape, future land-use elements and city-wide plans. Within the landscape portion, they included policies that minimize the disturbance of natural shorelines while also focusing on maintaining existing shoreline protection that was previously built. The amendments were approved with no challenges.

St. Petersburg: The City of St. Petersburg initiated changes in the comprehensive plan to reduce flood risk actively enforcing standards from the Florida Building Code for future developments. They focused on reducing or eliminating land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the community including repetitive loss and properties that do not comply with FEMA flood elevation standards. The plans and related amendments were approved by the DEO and adopted by the City of St. Petersburg on December 17, 2015.

Treasure Island: After experiencing large amounts of damage due to hurricanes and storm surge flooding, the municipality of Treasure Island took initiative to ensure that future development would become resilient and sustainable. The city developed policies that addressed repetitive damage for property, inter-agency hazard mitigation and sponsored awareness seminars for hurricanes. They also included policies that specifically address infrastructure and explored the potential to remove, relocate or modify infrastructure that is damaged by natural disasters. In addition, they included policies that influence landscape, future land-use, and pollution concerns such as participating with Pinellas County to ensure hazardous waste is handled, getting involved with Pinellas County Pollution Prevention Program and new educational programs for residents on waste disposal. It is important to note that there is no single document that contains the complete comprehensive plan, rather a collection of original documents and amendments are available to analyze which were used for this summary. The plan was approved by the DEO. 70

Madeira Beach: The municipality of Madeira Beach submitted policies that focused on the reduction of flood risk to properties. They explored the classification of repetitive loss and the re-purposing of land as open public spaces for the community. They will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program to ensure insurance discounts for its residents. Future development will be consistent to Florida Building Code or more stringent requirements that are provided. Madeira Beach included future land use elements that went beyond the minimum requirements of the Perils of Flood Act such as a commitment to use the most current data when deciding future land-use, reduce the effects of automobile emissions by including small scale interventions such as vegetative buffer stripes between roads and development, offering alternate transportation methods, the consideration of sea level rise on potable water and waste water treatment facilities.

City of Miami Beach: The city of Miami Beach included within their comprehensive plan the identification of one or more areas that are susceptible to issue related to sea level rise. The standard that would be used for measuring and recording this data would be the same as the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Action Plan. The City also incorporated policies stating that stormwater storage and infiltration will become a focus in future developments in order to mitigate potential flooding from precipitation. In addition, they will also collaborate with regional partners to identify investments, infrastructure and assets that are at risk every five years to ensure that systems are up to date. Outside of the requirements, the city included policies that addressed landscape, future-land-use, city- wide plans and documents and intergovernmental coordination. The comprehensive plans and related amendments have been approved by the DEO.

City of Sarasota: Sarasota submitted amendments to their comprehensive plan in 2017, including changes to the Coastal Management section. The city met all the requirements put forward by the Perils of Flood Act and has since taken initiative to include better practices and more detailed policies for future development. The DEO marked the comprehensive plan as in compliance.

Broward County: Broward County is one of the most proactive counties in regards to understanding and implementing standards for future development that take into consideration the issues related to sea level rise and flooding. The overall comprehensive plan was submitted to the DEO in 2012 and has since included several amendments that relate specifically to the Perils of Flood Act established in 2015. The county introduced policies that establish the intent of reducing flood risk including re-development guidelines for repetitive loss areas such as encouraging development in non-risk areas, finding funding for property acquisition and processes to identify infrastructure and other assets affected by sea level rise and flooding such as infrastructure. Broward County addressed updating the requirements of the Florida Building Code in future developments. These include processes to constantly evaluate the current code and requirements to provide recommendations for improvement, minimum floor elevations in future developments, the management of coastal resources by providing buffers between developments and road construction. The county also addressed issues of landscape, future land-use, city-wide plans, intergovernmental coordination and emergency management. These includes participating in the Vital Signs monitoring networks, assess the vulnerabilities of specific species, habitats and ecosystems and promoting species diversity in landscape developments. According to the DEO Broward County is currently designated as in compliance.

Duval County/City of Jacksonville: Duval County and the City of Jacksonville submitted to the DEO for review in 2017. They included policies committing to further utilize programs such as FMAP (Flood Mitigation Assistance Program), RCL (Repetitive Flood Claims) and SRL (Severe Repetitive Loss) in future development. The municipality also created a policy to help develop and support public and private projects and programs to retrofit, relocate or acquire properties 71 susceptible to repetitive flooding. Within the administration they also designated a Floodplain Administrator to enforce the provisions established in the city’s floodplain management ordinance. The comprehensive plan and related amendments were found to be in compliance with Florida law and was officially adopted by the county and city on November 28, 2017.

Hernando County: Hernando County submitted their comprehensive plans and related amendments to the DEO in 2018. They received comments regarding certain policies that did not meet the requirements and quickly provided the edits and corresponding amendments to the State. Some of the comments were: . The proposed strategies in the Element do not identify development and redevelopment principles, strategies and engineering solutions that reduce risk in coastal areas which result from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff and sea level rise, and lacks supporting data and analysis. . Proposed strategies do not identify specific site development techniques and best practices that may reduce the losses due to flooding and claims under flood insurance policies issued in Florida, and lacks supporting data and analysis. . The statute requires to “be consistent, or more stringent than, the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and applicable flood plain management regulations” the proposed strategy only takes it into account. The statute also requires municipalities to “encourage local governments to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System by FEMA”. The proposed amendments do not address the CRS.

The county met all the requirements and the comprehensive plan was found to be in compliance according to the DEO revision process. The approved plan was adopted on September 25, 2018.

Figure 17: Peril of Flood Act Graphic

SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT (SWIM) PROGRAM (1987) SOURCE: Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2018). About SWIM. Retrieved from, https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/swim

Summary In 1987, the Florida Legislature created the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act, administered through the Natural Systems & Restoration Bureau, to protect, restore and maintain Florida's highly threatened surface water bodies. “Under this act, the state's five water management districts identify a list of priority water bodies within their authority and implement plans to improve them and the list is updated periodically to reflect changes in the health of individual water bodies.” Since 1987, SWIM has completed 350 water quality and natural system restoration projects (215,000 acres of watershed and 13,000 acres if freshwater, estuarine, and upland habitat).

Priority Water Bodies: . Tampa Bay . Rainbow River . Crystal River/Kings Bay . Lake Panasoffkee . Charlotte Harbor . Lake Tarpon . Lake Thonotosassa . Winter Haven Chain of Lakes . Sarasota Bay . Weeki Wachee River . Chassahowitzka River . Homosassa River

ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM (ELAPP) SOURCE: Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020a). ELAPP. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/recreation-and-culture/conservation/elapp

Summary Managed by Conservation & Environmental Lands Management, the Jan K. Platt Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP), is an established voluntary citizen-based program for “the process and funding for identifying, acquiring, preserving and protecting endangered, environmentally-sensitive and significant lands in Hillsborough County.” ELAPP is not a regulatory program, however, land is identified for the program because of their environmental significance. The ELAPP currently manages over 61,000 acres of environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat.

Responsibilities: . Prescribed burning . Invasive species control . Wildlife inventory 74

. Trail maintenance . Feral animal control . Habitat improvements for endangered and threatened species of plants and animals

Timeline 1987 The Board of County Commissioners approved an Environmentally-Sensitive Lands Ordinance, which provided $21 million over a four-year period to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands

1990 County voters approved the issuance of up to $100 million in bonds over a 20- year period to acquire additional lands

2008 Voters approved the issuance of up to $200 million in bonds

REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN, TAMPA BAY PLANNING REGION (2015) SOURCE: Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2015). 2015 Regional Water Supply Plan. Retrieved from https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/resources/plans-reports/rwsp

Summary The Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) is an assessment of projected water demands in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and includes potential sources of water to meet those demands for the period from 2010 to 2035. It contains guiding principles and strategies to meet the water supply demand. The purpose of the RWSP is to provide a framework for future water management decisions in the district. It shows that water supply demands for all sectors can be met through 2035 and shows how natural systems can be restored using a combination of alternative water sources, fresh groundwater, and water conservation measures.

REFERENCES

Arrant, T. (accessed June 19, 2019) Chapter 11: Planning and Growth Management. Retrieved from https://factor.fl-counties.com/themes/bootstrap_subtheme/sitefinity/documents/growth-management- chapter.pdf

Brandes, S. (2015). SB 1094. Perils of Flood. Florida, United States: Florida Senate. Retrieved from https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1094/BillText/Filed/PDF

City of Boston. (2017). Imagine Boston 2030. Retrieved from https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/imce- uploads/2018-06/imagine20boston202030_pages2.pdf

City of Copenhagen. (2018). The city of Copenhagen government 2018 – 2021. Retrieved from https://international.kk.dk/artikel/city-copenhagen-government

City of Copenhagen. (2011). Copenhagen climate adaptation plan. Retrieved from https://international.kk.dk/artikel/climate-adaptation

Congressional Research Service. (2019). Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf

DeSantis Staff. (September 27, 2019). Governor Ron DeSantis announces Florida has approved more than $100 million in mitigation grants for Hurricane Irma. Retrieved from https://www.flgov.com/2019/09/27/governor-ron-desantis-announces-florida-has-approved-more-than- 100-million-in-mitigation-grants-for-hurricane-irma/

FEMA. (2019). Flood Zones. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones

FEMA. (2018). Florida Top 50 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Policy Count Communities and Community Rating System (CRS) Participation. Retrieved from https://crsresources.org/files/100/maps/states/florida_crs_map_october_2018.pdf FEMA FMA. (2019). Fact sheet: FY 2019 flood mitigation assistance (FMA) grant program. Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. (web, accessed April 21, 2020) Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media- library-data/1578520288733-d372d995bdbb6aea6c88ed39636138fb/FMAFactSheetFY19_1.8.20.pdf

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019) Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/coastal-construction-control-line

Florida Legislature. (2012). The 2012 Florida statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0161/0161ContentsIndex.html

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Beaches Funding Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Beaches funding documents. Retrieved https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program/content/beaches-funding-documents

Florida Division of Emergency Management. (web, accessed Sept. 06, 2019) About the division. Retrieved at https://www.floridadisaster.org

Florida Housing. (2017). Overview of the Florida building code. Retrieved from http://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/aboutflorida/august2017/august2017/tab4.pdf 76

Florida Legislature. (2000). The 2000 Florida statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0259/Sec105.htm&St atuteYear=2000

Georgetown Climate Center. (2015). Florida SB 1094: An act relating to the peril of flood. Retrieved from https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/florida-sb-1094-e-an-act-relating-to-the-peril-of- flood-e.html

Hillsborough County. (2008). Comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County Florida - Coastal management element. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/COASTAL-MANAGEMENT-with-3rd-cycle-2012-amendments.pdf

Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020a). ELAPP. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/recreation-and-culture/conservation/elapp

Hillsborough County. (2008). Stormwater management comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/STORMWATER_11_2012.pdf

HUD CDBG. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Community development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment

HUD FR-6109-N-02J. (2019). Allocations, common application, waivers, and alternative requirements for community block grand mitigation grantees. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Retrieved from the web, accessed April 20, 2020 from https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FR-6109-N-02-CDBG- Mitigation-Notice.pdf

International Code Council. (2017). 2017 Florida building code. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FBC2017

International Code Council. (2017). Florida building code: Residential.

International Code Council. (2017). Florida building code: Test protocols for high velocity hurricane zones.

Lee, I. (2018, July 12). Broward sea-level-rise efforts bring resiliency success stories. South Florida Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-op-viewpoint-sea-level-rise-broward-teamwork- 20180712-story.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA CRG]. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). NOAA coastal resilience grants program. Office for Coastal Management. Retrieved from https://coast.noaa.gov/resilience-grant/

Ramboll. (2013). Copenhagen Cloudburst Plans. Retrieved from https://acwi.gov/climate_wkg/minutes/Copenhagen_Cloudburst_Ramboll_April_20_2016%20(4).pdf

Ruppert, T. & Deady, E. (2017) Climate change impacts on law and policy in Florida. Florida's Climate: Changes, Variations, & Impacts. Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_libsubv1_scholarship_submission_1515444138_4fbf0e2e

Slomp, R. (2012). Flood risk and water management in the Netherlands: A 2012 update. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:7d27240f-1169- 4536-b204-fc821345669b#

Smelik, F. (2008). West8, Mosaics. Princeton Architectural Press.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2015). 2015 Regional water supply plan. Retrieved from https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/resources/plans-reports/rwsp 77

Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2018). About SWIMM. Retrieved from, https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/swim

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay region. Pinellas Park: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Retrieved form https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the- tampa-bay-region

The Florida Legislature. (2019). The 2019 Florida Statutes: 163.3177 Coastal Management. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html

The Florida Legislature. (2019). The 2019 Florida Statutes: 163.3178 Coastal Management. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Displa y_Statute&Search_String=163.3178&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3178.html

Tisma, A., & Meijer, J. (2018). Lessons learned from spatial planning in the Netherlands: In support of integrated landscape initiatives, globally. Retrieved from https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL%20- %20Lessons%20learned%20from%20spatial%20planning%20in%20NL%20-%2020181108%20-%203279.pdf

Toughen Florida's Building Codes. (2018, October 19). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-toughen-floridas-building-code-20181019/

University of South Florida. (2004). Tampa Shoreline Restoration Initiative. Retrieved from https://waterinstitute.usf.edu/upload/documents/final_lowres.pdf

Viflucci, A. (2018, October 16). Florida's building code is tough but Michael was tougher. Miami Herald. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article219862625.html

HAZARD PLANNING AND FEDERAL FUNDS

SUMMARY

A disaster management framework in the United States is instituted from the federal level down to the local. This involves a series of organizations that distribute funds based on various criteria and situations. Two of the main agencies involved are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Assistance can be given prior to disasters, for mitigation or adaptation, but are especially engaged during post-disaster and recovery periods.

The Stafford Act, as described in the following text, enacts funding during declarations of emergency or disaster and sets the conditions for obtaining assistance. Many FEMA grants are dependent on these declarations, and on the Stafford Act for its criteria in the distribution of funds. Conditions for the Act include a local hazard and mitigation plan, typically accomplished as a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) in Florida. An LMS is also required to be eligible for federal hazard mitigation grants and is used within FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Generally, FEMA and HUD are responsible for the following grants:

FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program (PA): “To support communities’ recovery from major disasters by providing them with grant assistance for debris removal, life-saving emergency protective measures, and restoring public infrastructure.” (FEMA PA, 2020)

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): “To help communities implement hazard mitigation measures following a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration... HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.” (FEMA HMGP, 2020)

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA): “The goal of to reduce or eliminate flood risk of severe repetitive and repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).” (FEMA FMA, 2020)

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM): This grant is designed “to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on federal funding in future disasters. This program awards planning and project grants and provides opportunities for raising public awareness about reducing future losses before disaster strikes.” (FEMA PDM, 2020)

HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): This grant “encourages systematic and sustained action to … address needs such as infrastructure, economic development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner assistance, etc.” (HUD CDBG, 2020) This program supports multiple areas of community development. This is an annual recurring fund. Related to flooding, there is also (from HUD):

CDBG Disaster Recovery Program (-DR): This flexible grant provides help for “cities, counties, and states [to] recover from Presidentially-declared disasters. The grants focus on low-income areas.” (HUD CDBG, 2020)

CDGB Mitigation (-MIT) funds: Similar to the FEMA HMGP grant program, the CDBG-MIT grant “provides funds to grantees recovering from qualifying 2015, 2016, and 2017 disasters… to carry out strategic and high-impact activities to mitigate disaster risks and reduce future losses.” (HUD FR-6109-N-02, 2019) These funds are to be used prior to disaster, however, in order to mitigate risk through planning or projects. Similar to the HMBP grants, grantees are required to have a hazard mitigation plan in place and follow their mitigation strategies. 80

Home Investments Partnership Program (HOME): “HOME is a HUD-administered federal program that provides funding for local communities to provide affordable housing for low- and very low-income residents. HOME funds can provide construction or acquisition/rehabilitation subsidies for affordable housing developers, purchase assistance and gap financing for homebuyers, rehabilitation assistance for homeowners, and tenant-based rental assistance.” (Florida Housing Coalition, 2018a)

Additional programs include:

The State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program

The State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program is funded outside of FEMA or HUD, by state housing trust funds. This money is collected at the state and sometimes jurisdictional level to “support the preservation and production of affordable housing and increase opportunities for families and individuals to access decent affordable homes.” (Housing Trust Fund Project, 2020) SHIP money provides funds to local governments “as an incentive to create partnerships that produce and preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing. The program was designed to serve very low, low and moderate income families.” (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2020) SHIP funds are different than CDBG grants, but are distributed to CDBG entitled communities based on allocation of dollars from HUD. “SHIP dollars may be used to fund emergency repairs, new construction, rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost assistance, impact fees, construction and gap financing, mortgage buy-downs, acquisition of property for affordable housing, matching dollars for federal housing grants and programs, and homeownership counseling. SHIP funds may be used to assist units that meet the standards of chapter 553.” (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2020)

Florida Division of Emergency Management Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program: This is a “specialized, state-funded mitigation program aimed at minimizing damages caused by hurricanes.” The grant has an annual budget of $7 million. Funding is directed toward retrofits made to residential, commercial and mobile home properties, the promotion of public education and information, and research activities.” (Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2020)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Resilience Grants Program: This grant program provides funds for multiple stages of project design and implementation, for “projects that are helping coastal communities and ecosystems prepare for and recover from extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions.” (NOAA CRG, 2020)

Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration Program: This grant can be awarded to institutions of higher education, non-profits, commercial organizations, US territories and state, local and tribal governments to protect and restore habitat, rebuilding and protecting of fisheries, and conservation of resources.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Resilient Communities Grants: These grants enhance community capacity to plan and implement resiliency projects and improve the protections afforded by natural ecosystems by investing in green infrastructure and other measures.

National Coastal Resilience Fund: This grant is awarded to projects that create and restore natural systems to protect coastal communities from erosion, sea level rise, storms, etc. Specifically, it focuses on community capacity building and planning, project site assessment and preliminary design, project final design and permitting, and restoration and monitoring.

Other granting agencies and funding programs are listed in the ‘Grants and Funding’ chapter of the Mitigation Handbook.

FEMA SPONSORED GRANT PROGRAMS

SOURCES: FEMA (2020). Hazard mitigation plan status. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation- plan-status

FEMA PA (2020). Public assistance: Local, state, tribal, and private non-profit. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit

FEMA (2018). Public assistance program and policy guide (FP 104-009-2). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1525468328389- 4a038bbef9081cd7dfe7538e7751aa9c/PAPPG_3.1_508_FINAL_5-4-2018.pdf

Multiple FEMA sponsored programs can deliver funds to mitigate risk; before, during and in recovery phases of a disaster. Whereas the Public Assistance (PA) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are used to help recovery, post-disaster, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) are used to prevent future damages. The PA, HMGP and PDM are enabled by the Stafford Act, The FMA by the National Flood Insurance Act, which is also associated with the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act sets the criteria for federal hazard mitigation and assistance programs, and contains its own criteria for compliance. It also outlines the process of receiving and delegating funds.

Figure 18: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs

In order to execute the grants, states and municipalities are required to have FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans, i.e. the Local Mitigation Strategy. A hazard mitigation plan reviews the current and possible risks and the community capabilities for a geographic area. It then assigns long-term mitigation strategies to address vulnerabilities. Developed with community stakeholders and public input, State, Tribal, and local governments use these plans to help prevent repeated damage.

All 50 states have FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans, and many local governments and tribal governments have approved local mitigation plans. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the nation's population lives in communities with current mitigation plans. As of February 2020, Florida earned FEMA approval for an enhanced state mitigation plan. If it’s been FEMA approved, any form of a hazard mitigation plan is 82 acceptable. (Typically, it should cover the topic of reducing natural hazard risk and must be updated every five years)

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PA) GRANT PROGRAM SOURCE: FEMA (2018). Public assistance program and policy guide (FP 104-009-2). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1525468328389- 4a038bbef9081cd7dfe7538e7751aa9c/PAPPG_3.1_508_FINAL_5-4-2018.pdf

Summary “The purpose of this program is to support communities’ recovery from major disasters by providing them with grant assistance for debris removal, life-saving emergency protective measures, and restoring public infrastructure”

. The PA grant follows the grants management life cycle, a common process for FEMA grants (see General Grant Information for FEMA-sponsored Grant Programs) . Needs a Presidential declaration of an emergency or disaster for the area

Eligibility Components Applicant: Must be a state, territory, tribe, local government, or private nonprofit organization.

Facility: Must be a building, public works, system, equipment, or natural feature.

Work (emergency or permanent): Must be required as a result of the declared incident, located within the designated disaster area, and be the legal responsibility of the Applicant.

Cost: The funding tied directly to eligible work; includes labor, equipment, materials, contract work, and administrative costs.

Figure 19: Eligibility Components

Types of Work Emergency Work (addresses an immediate threat) A: Debris Removal B: Emergency Protective Measures

Permanent Work (Restoration of) C: Roads, bridges 83

D: Water control facilities E: Buildings/equipment F: Utilities G: Parks, rec, and other facilities Emergency work must be completed within six months, and permanent work within 18 months. Emergency work does not require a mitigation plan, but anything within the permanent work category requires a mitigation plan from the state/tribal applicant.

. This plan needs to be approved by FEMA before FEMA will provide PA funding . The plan must include details on how they plan to reduce risk from natural disasters and it has to be updated every five years

Stafford Act Section 406 Mitigation Funds This program falls under 406 mitigation funds, and as such mitigation projects (permanent work) have additional requirements:

. Mitigation must be cost effective. This means that they either proving it does not exceed eligible repair cost by 15%, if it is listed in Appendix J and does not exceed 100% of repair cost, or has been demonstrated by the applicant to be effective through a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). . Facilities are considered repairable if the cost to repair does not exceed the cost to rebuild by 50% . Permanent work that is completed must be insured as part of the reward requirements and in-line with codes for pre-disaster use or in-line with FEMA minimum code requirements

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) SOURCE: FEMA (2019). Hazard mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard- mitigation-grant-program

Summary “The purpose of this program is to enact mitigation measures that reduce risk of loss of life and property from future disasters”

 This program requires a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration in the area  HMGP is authorized by Stafford Act Section 404

In 2019 Florida Governor Ron Desantis announced approval of more than $100,000,000 in mitigation grants through the HMGP program. (DeSantis Staff, 2019)

FEMA approved almost $3,400,000 for Florida, for Hurricane Irma related mitigation measures for 2020. This amount is in addition to $3,000,000 the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) was already awarded for these purposes. Individual institutions are also eligible for funding. For instance, FEMA awarded Florida International University more than $2.7 million to protect a building against wind damage caused by severe storms.

Eligibility Components Applicant: states, federally-recognized tribes, or territories. Individuals, businesses and private non-profits cannot apply directly to the state for assistance; however, they can apply with a local government sponsoring them 84

Work: From a selection of state and local hazard mitigation projects

Examples of fundable projects:

. Acquisition and Structure Demolition/Relocation – The community purchases and permanently removes, with FEMA funding, a flood-prone property from the individual. . Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures – The home is protected with barriers to prevent floodwater from entering. . Elevation – The home is raised so that potential floodwaters may flow underneath the home. . Hazard Mitigation Plan – HMGP funding can also be used for mitigation planning activities. FEMA requires state, tribal, and local governments to develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for HMA mitigation projects. Visit FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement page for more information. . Mitigating Flood and Drought Conditions – Aquifer storage and recovery, floodplain and stream restoration, flood diversion and storage, or green infrastructure methods may support communities in reducing the risks associated with the impacts of flood and drought conditions. . Mitigation Reconstruction – The existing home is demolished and a new (similar in size) elevated home is constructed. . Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings – Enhancements are made to a home to make it more resistant to floods and earthquakes. . Residential and Community Safe Rooms – A safe room is constructed inside a home or in a nearby community location close to the home to provide safety from strong winds, such as those experienced during a tornado. . Wildfire Mitigation – Fire-resistant materials are used on the exterior of the home and trees or brush are cleared to remove flammable materials from around the home. . Wind Retrofit – Enhancements are made to strengthen the roof, walls, doors, and windows and minimize damage caused by high winds.

Cost: FEMA will provide up to 75% of the funds for the mitigation projects. Projects must conform with the state/local mitigation plan, benefit the area, conform with environmental regulations, solve a problem, be technically feasible, meet all codes and standards, be cost-effective ($1 spent for $1 of benefit), and consider a range of alternatives.

Requirements Grants require that the applicant have a mitigation plan at the time of the Presidential major disaster declaration and at the time of obligation of HMGP grant funds.

Preliminary disaster assessments are also required as part of the process.

FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE (FMA) GRANT PROGRAM SOURCE: FEMA FMA (2020). Flood mitigation assistance grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program

Summary The Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to reduce or eliminate flood risk of severe repetitive and repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the NFIP. FEMA requires state, tribal and local governments to develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance.

In 2019, $210,000,000 was set aside for the program to assist eligible applicants. Of that, $70 million is available for community flood mitigation projects and FMA advanced assistance. 85

Advanced Assistance Grants: “…to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop viable community flood mitigation projects.” (FEMA FMA, 2019)

Community Flood Mitigation Projects: “The remaining set aside will fund projects for proven techniques that integrate cost effective natural floodplain restoration solutions and improvements to NFIP-insured properties that benefit communities with high participation and favorable standing in the NFIP.” (FEMA FMA, 2019)

Eligibility Components and the Application Process Applicant: Sub applicants submit mitigation planning and project sub applications to their state during the open application cycle. After reviewing, the States, territories, or federally-recognized tribal governments prioritize and forward the applications to their FEMA regional office.

Work: Planning sub applications submitted for considerations for FMA funding must only be used to support the flood hazard portion of State, tribal, or local mitigation plans.

Cost: Funds are only available to support communities participating in the NFIP.

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM) GRANT PROGRAM SOURCE: FEMA (2019). Pre-disaster mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/pre- disaster-mitigation-grant-program

Summary This grant is superseded by the newly created “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) program. However, the following information is useful in understanding FEMA’s historic programs.

“The goal [of the PDM] is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on federal funding in future disasters.” This program requires that state, territories, and local governments have to develop and adopt a hazard mitigation plan to receive PDM funding. There are funds set aside, through this grant program, for resilient infrastructure projects. These projects have a larger federal cost-share cap at $10 million and are community based.

In 2019, $250,000,000 was available for funding.

. The program prioritizes awarding program and planning grants that achieve this goal as well as any that educate the public about reducing future losses. . This program is authorized by Stafford Act Section 203. . Planning grants do not require a mitigation plan, but project grants require one of the applicant and sub-applicant at the time of the application deadline and at the time of obligation of the PDM award. . “Project sub-applications submitted for consideration for PDM funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan along with the local or tribal hazard mitigation plan for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.” . Does not require a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

Eligibility Components Applicant: States, U.S. territories, federally-recognized tribes and local governments. Local governments are eligible sub-applicants and can sponsor applications on behalf of homeowners to submit to the applicant. 86

Work: Planning sub applications submitted for considerations for FMA funding must only be used to support the flood hazard portion of State, tribal, or local mitigation plans.

Eligible projects include (for example):

. Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition or Relocation . Structure Elevation . Mitigation Reconstruction . Dry Floodproofing . Generators . Localized/Non-localized Flood Control Projects . Structural Retrofitting and Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities . Construction of safe rooms . Wind Retrofitting for Family Residences . Infrastructure Retrofit . Soil Stabilization . Wildfire Mitigation . Resilient Infrastructure . Advance Assistance . Hazard Mitigation Planning

Cost: Funds are only available to support communities participating in the NFIP.

Application Process Sub-applicants (local governments) submit their planning and project proposals to the State. The State government then chooses their proposals to prioritize and include in a PDM grant application to FEMA. Once FEMA decides which projects are the most effective use of the funds, they award them to state, territory, and federally-recognized tribal applicants, who in-turn provide sub-awards to local government sub-applicants. Local homeowners can work with a sub-applicant to apply. (View graphic also featured in the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program)

Projects submitted for consideration for FMA funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal hazard mitigation plan along with the local or tribal hazard mitigation for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.

BUILDING RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES (BRIC) PROGRAM SOURCE: FEMA BRIC. (2020). Building resilient infrastructure and communities (BRIC). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/bric

Summary Initiated in 2020, FEMA’s vision for BRIC is “to reduce costs and loss of life from natural disasters by building a national culture of preparedness through encouraging investments to protect our communities and infrastructure and strengthening national mitigation capabilities to foster resilience.” It “aims to categorically shift the federal focus away from reactive disaster spending and toward research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience.”

This program is currently in development with rollout and training schedule for the spring of 2020 and the first notice of funding opportunity in the summer or fall of that year. 87

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) SPONSORED GRANT PROGRAMS

SOURCES: Florida Housing Coalition. (2018) Florida disaster management guide for housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Disaster- Management-Guide-for-Housing-06.24.2018-WEB.pdf

Florida Housing Coalition. (2018a) Affordable housing resource guide. Retrieved from https://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Affordable-Housing-Resource-Guide-2018-12- FINAL.pdf

Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). State housing initiatives partnership (SHIP). Special programs. Retrieved from https://www.floridahousing.org/programs/special-programs/ship---state- housing-initiatives-partnership-program

HUD Exchange. (web, accessed April 21, 2020). CDBG: Community development block grant programs. Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/

Summary The National Disaster Recovery Framework guides disaster management in the United States. FEMA is at the top of this framework and contains its own set of grants and funding programs. While FEMA provides housing repair and temporary lodging, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers the Community Development Block Grant: Disaster Recovery program (CDBG-DR), as well as other CDBG grants, Housing Choice Vouchers, SHIP and HOME funds. (Florida Housing Coalition, 2018)

CDBG Grants “The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program provides annual grants on a formula basis to states, cities, and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. “ (HUD Exchange, 2020) These funds are administered to improve local communities; to identify activities that may address needs such as infrastructure, economic development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner assistance, etc.

Project Selection (main focus: maximize project benefits)

The CDBG program identifies publicly-owned facilities and infrastructure such as:

. Playgrounds . Buildings owned by non-profits that are open to the general public . Streets and sidewalks . Water and sewage improvements . Utility lines . Flood and drainage systems . Tree planting . Art installations . Decorative street lighting and benches and planters

Ineligible activities include:

. Maintenance and repairs of publicly owned streets, parks and other facilities. Improvements with a useful life of less than five to eight years are considered repairs, and not new construction. 88

Consult with the HUD field representative or State program staff to ensure project’s eligibility. The following are eligible activities:

. Acquisitions . Constructions . Reconstruction . Rehabilitation . Installation of public facilities and improvements . Public facilities includes: . Centers for seniors . Youth and child care centers . Community centers . Homeless shelters . Housing for people with special needs . Libraries . Health clinics . Neighborhood fire stations . Parks and recreational facilities

Once the activity is determined to be eligible, it will need to confirm how it meets one of the three national objectives:

1. Benefit low- and moderate- income persons. 2. Prevention or elimination of slums and blight. 3. Addressing an urgent need that immediately threatens the health and welfare of the community and for which other financial resources are not available.

Throughout the project selection process, grantees should:

. Look for projects that can leverage funding. . Create partnerships that contribute resources. . Explore governmental, private, and philanthropic funding.

Potential public funding sources include:

. Local and regional governments . State programs . Federal communications commission’s lifeline program . Department of agriculture, department of commerce, department of transportation, department of labor, EPA, and FEMA.

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) recipients also have the ability to leverage their annual grant allocation to access low-cost, flexible financing for economic development, housing, public facility, and infrastructure projects through the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Loans can either finance specific projects or launch loan funds to finance multiple projects over several years. It is often used to catalyze private economic activity in underserved areas in cities and counties across the nation or to fill a financing gap in an important community project.

CDBG Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Grants

Differently, for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR), “HUD provides flexible grants to help cities, counties, and States recover from presidentially declared disasters, especially in low-income areas, subject to availability of supplemental appropriations.” (HUD Exchange, 2020)

CDBG Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) Grants 89

HUD also allocated funds through its Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funds to areas recovering from qualifying 2015, 2016 and 2017 disasters.

This mitigation program is to be used in areas impacted by recent disasters to carry out strategic and high- impact activities to mitigate disaster risks and reduce future losses. The program defines mitigation as activities which increase resilience to disasters and reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of loss of life, injury, damage to and loss of property, suffering and hardship by lessening the impact of future disasters.

Grantees must submit a CDBG-MIT Action Plan prior to expending CDBG-MIT funds. The action plan must include a risk based Mitigation Needs Assessment that identifies and analyzes all significant current and future disaster risks to provide a substantive basis for the activities proposed. The Mitigation Needs Assessment requires grantees to collaborate with a variety of stakeholders who currently administer the FEMA HMGP funds. This collaboration is essential as it helps ensure the goals of CDBG-MIT funding.

Grantees are requires to use the most recent risk assessment from the state, local or Indian tribal governments Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMP). The HMP is used as a starting point for outlining current risks within the HUD- identified “most impacted and distressed” areas.

Rebuild Florida

There are other grants offered through HUD and CDGB programs, to fund community improvement projects for communities impacted by Hurricane Irma. For example, the Rebuild Florida Infrastructure Repair Program and the recently announced Rebuild Florida Critical Facility Hardening Program have offered many millions of dollars to develop and implement projects.

Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) “HOME funds can be used for property acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of housing to be owner- occupied. Funds may be provided to developers to subsidize construction or acquisition/rehabilitation, allowing the homes to be sold at a lower price. Rehabilitation assistance can also be provided directly to eligible homeowners.” (Florida Housing Coalition, 2018a)

“HOME may also be used to provide down payment and closing cost assistance to homebuyers, as well as gap financing to reduce monthly mortgage payments. Assistance is provided in the form of grants, low-interest loans, deferred-payment loans, loan guarantees, and interest buydowns. Long-term affordability is achieved by the use of either a recapture mechanism or a resale requirement recorded as a deed restriction or covenant.” (Florida Housing Coalition, 2018a)

LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY (LMS)

SOURCES: Florida Division of Emergency Management (June 7, 2019). Local mitigation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.floridadisaster.org/dem/mitigation/local-mitigation-strategy/

Hillsborough County. (2015). Hillsborough County local mitigation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management/local-mitigation- strategy

Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020). Emergency management. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management

Summary A Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) is a hazard mitigation plan developed by each state, and then by each county and the jurisdictions within the county. The LMS is designed to assess risks and vulnerabilities, identify actions to reduce physical and financial losses from those hazards identified, and establish a coordinated process to implement the plan using a wide range of public and private investments to support both structural and non- structural mitigation strategies. Furthermore, this plan is designed to communicate these hazards to residents and business owners.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act establishes the requirement of the LMS. In order to receive federal funding, criteria must be met within the plan, with revisions made every 5 years. Updates need to reflect any changes in priorities, the progress in local mitigation efforts and recent development. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, an amendment to the Stafford Act, established a new set of criteria that municipalities must meet in their plan to receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While developing the LMS, jurisdictions identify and prioritize hazards, communicate these hazards to the public through a process of plan development, develop approaches toward mitigating risks, and develop a list of specific projects to be funded by federal funding programs. By adopting this plan, states and counties can receive non-emergency disaster assistance, to fund projects that reduce risks.

The plan is submitted to the Florida Department of Emergency Management for approval. Throughout the process of creating/updating the LMS, a “Working Group” is established, that is composed of representatives from all jurisdictions in the county to include local community agencies, businesses, academia, emergency management staff, and other stakeholders interested in hazard risk reduction measures. This group ushers the document through the process, often guided by local staff and technical consultants.

The Hillsborough County LMS identifies 28 hazards. This includes (pertaining to flood):

. Coastal or riverine erosion . Hurricanes and tropical storms . Thunderstorms . Flooding . Sea level rise . Tsunamis . Water contamination . Dam/levee failures

The LMS highlights critical facilities that need to be taken into consideration when mitigating risks from flooding. The Hillsborough County LMS includes: 91

. Airports . Communications . Federal and State . Fire and Rescue Facilities . Hospital and Clinic . Law Enforcement . Local Government Facilities . Nursing Homes, Hospice . Schools . Water Management

Understanding high risk areas across all jurisdictions is depicted through a series of maps. Maps included in the Hillsborough County LMS that are important for understanding risks related to flooding, storm surge and sea level rise may include:

. Hazardous Risk Materials Boundaries . Dams and Levee . Repetitive Flood loss density . Karst Geology: Karst is a topography formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Characterized by underground drainage systems, sinkholes, and caves. . Muck Soils . National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) . Railroad with 1-mile buffer . Riverine and Coastal Erosion . Shipping Channel with 2-mile buffer . Storm Surge . Storm Surge Chemical . Truck routes with 1-mile buffer . Dangerous animals Define dangerous animals . Evacuation . Populations with high social vulnerability

Sections within the Hillsborough County LMS The LMS has multiple sections. They can be adapted at will by the municipality, as long as all of the criteria from the DMA is met. However, typical sections include:

Section I, Introduction This section outlines the categories of vulnerabilities to be found within the county, and general approaches to mitigation along with the overall planning process. It also incorporates the county’s history, as it pertains to the LMS, and goals that have been determined.

Section II, Profile Analysis This section includes a breakdown by natural features and topography. It may include:

. A Natural Hazards list, which includes Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, storm surge, lightning, high winds, sinkholes, wildfires, and drought. . Technological Hazards, including electrical failures, sewer failures, radiologic, cyber incidents, chemical exposures. 92

. Major rivers (the Hillsborough, the Alafia, the Little Manatee) . Demographic charts, showing racial composition, age, income, and poverty status, house owned or rented, types of housing units, and year built . A census study

Section III, Hazard Analysis This is one of the more critical components of the LMS. It identifies the specific hazards that affect the county and ranks them in importance. Each hazard is first identified as either a natural or technological hazard and may include the following sections:

. Description/Background . Geographic areas affected . Historical occurrences . Probability . Impact analysis and summary . Severity of Events/Consequences . Mitigation strategies . Potential effects of climate change

Section IV, Assessing Vulnerability and Risk Each hazard is mapped with an analysis performed. In 2015, the hazard risk analysis for Hillsborough County used a dual methodology approach; a risk analysis performed using data obtained from the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser and one performed using the FEMA risk analysis tool, HAZUS.

Maps:

Figure 21: 2015 LMS Aged 65 and Over Population Density Map

The Hazard Analysis conducted through the LMS is used as a basis for the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP) and other documents that address hazards.

Section V, Local Mitigation Strategy Blueprint This section identifies objectives and “guiding principles” that are used to develop the overall strategy for mitigation measures, and to evaluate initiatives for implementation. This is important for funding allocation and the selection process for mitigation projects.

Section VI, Implementation of Mitigation Measures This section outlines several mitigation strategies that can be pursued to address the identified risks to real property and structures.

Evaluation of existing programs and policies - Governmental requirements and guidelines relating to disaster preparedness are described in this section, with information regarding a municipality’s participation or congruence with those documents.

Potential mitigation strategies – Examples include: . Assessments have tools and techniques to reduce the threat of damage and disasters . Canals and Waterways . Federal channels cleared by Port Authority and Coast Guard . Local channels cleared by Public Works . Controlled burns . Debris movement and management . Development management . Education and coordination . Emergency services and emergency management enhancements . Flood control . Flood prevention . Flood reduction . Attention to hazardous materials . Improved technology . Mechanical maintenance . Power and back-up power . Property protection . Public information . Recovery/damage assessment . Sheltering and housing . Structural projects/hardening . Transportation systems . Wind protection

Evaluation Criteria: Projects are prioritized using specified criteria, including potential evaluation of: . Cost-benefit . Technically feasible . Environmentally sound

Other Related Documents or Programs Building and Construction Code - “The Building and Construction Code is used in permitting construction. Factors considered that are related to hazard mitigation include enforcement of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)”.

Capital Improvements Element - “The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is the fiscal guidance and implementation document for the Comprehensive Plan. It is to “…consider the need for and location of public facilities…” (Section 163.3177(3), Florida Statutes). The CIE identifies public facilities that will be required during the six fiscal years following the adoption of the new plan and are to be updated annually thereafter. The CIE must include the location and cost of the facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be used to fund the facilities.

Capital Improvement Program - “As part of the County’s budget process and as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board adopts a five-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The program identifies a five-year window in which projects are fiscally programmed to occur. The CIP is updated on an annual basis and is readopted to reflect changes in the community”. Coastal Management Element - “Policies of the Coastal Management and Port Element (CMPE) require protection of tidal and coastal plains from negative physical and hydrological alterations. These protection measures (limits) are the establishment of construction standards, maintaining natural conditions, dune and beach stabilization, tidal and floodplain management, limit/mitigate new development, limitations to utilities support equipment , limit the use of new septic systems, monitoring land-use changes to compatible designations, acquire or obtain in another fashion, open space/recreational areas where appropriate, enter into intergovernmental agreements for area servicing, post disaster redevelopment – mitigation techniques for new development, limit new publicly funded infrastructure, limit new ROW/road dedication unless identified as a needed facility, limiting development in high hazard areas to ensure evacuation clearance times can be maintained, requirement for shelters in manufactured home parks, and limitation of no new hazardous waste management sites within the coastal high hazard area”.

Community Development/ Redevelopment Program - “The principal component of The Community Development/ Redevelopment Program is to assist low-income groups in the purchase of homes. Additionally, there is a part of the program that assists with the repair of existing homes”.

Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) - “The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) provides the county leaders with a set of uniform policies and procedures for the effective coordination of actions necessary to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate natural or man-made disasters”.

Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element - “The Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element requires that the county restrict encroachment into the 100-year floodplain, minimize wetland disturbance to maintain natural retention functions, establishing setbacks adjacent to wetlands and water bodies, and protection of aquifer high- recharge areas that are susceptible to contamination”.

County Comprehensive Plan - “The County Comprehensive Plan includes the county’s adopted growth- management program, and guides the county’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Principal elements of the plan that affect hazard mitigation are the Future Land Use Element, the Conservation Element, and the Coastal Management Element. These elements are developed in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.

Environmental Land Acquisition Program - “The Environmental Land Acquisition Program has been established to pursue the acquisition of conservation areas”. 95

Floodplain Management Plan - The purpose of the program is to address localized flooding connected with weather systems that are smaller than a hurricane. Additionally, the program provides for the review of requests for state/federal assistance for concurrence with Local Mitigation objectives. This Plan is required to maintain the current county status associated with the Community Rating System (CRS) and is required to move to the next level in the CRS program that will save county residents an additional five percent on flood insurance rates.

The Floodplain Management Plan is a component of the federally approved all-hazards document. It is a component of the LMS and is required for the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. It is comprised of floodplain-management activities intended to reduce the vulnerability to hazards (including flooding), and create a forward vision in building disaster resiliency. It assesses hazards and problems and then also sets goals and an action plans in place for implementation and evaluation.

Future Land Use Element - “The Future Land Use Element requires that the county maintain compatibility between land uses, control land-use intensity and density, and monitor levels of service standards associated with concurrency management (including drainage)”.

Land Development Code - “The Land Development Code (LDC) has established standards, regulations, and procedures for review and approval of all proposed development of property in unincorporated Hillsborough County. The Code provides a development review process that is comprehensive, consistent, and efficient in the implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future of Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan. Further, it identifies areas for review, which include consideration given to mitigating hazards, related review areas include: coastal high-hazard areas, setbacks from wetlands and water bodies, wellhead protection areas, flood- damage control, subdivision of land, site design/plan, transfer of development rights design standards, establishing a base-flood elevation in which to build from, and site-specific standards to mitigate flooding hazards”.

National Flood Insurance Program/Community Rating System - “The County participates in the National Flood Insurance program. This program is based upon an agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Federal Government. The agreement states if a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management plan (the County does this through a section of the Land-Development Code) to reduce future flooding risks to new construction in “Special Flood Hazard Areas, the Federal Government will make available to the community flood insurance as a financial protection against flood losses”.

Stormwater Policy/NPDES - “The Stormwater Policy is a national program that was instigated to monitor “non- point” source stormwater runoff”.

Sustainable Communities Agreement - According to The Hillsborough County Local Mitigation Strategy, “The Sustainable Communities Agreement program arose from the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable Florida. That Commission established a strong partnership between state and local agencies that resulted in several positive recommendations to improve the quality of life in Florida. The City of Tampa and Hillsborough County were selected to enter a joint process in having Hillsborough County become a sustainable community. With respect to hazard mitigation, one component of this program will identify, when complete, pre and post-disaster development/redevelopment projects for the City/County”.

Strategic Regional Policy Plan (Plan), Emergency Preparedness - “The Emergency Preparedness Section of the Plan was developed to assist in coordinating efforts to ready communities for natural or man-made disaster occurrences. The plan does identify coordinating processes (as well as programs and techniques) to be used by 96 the various local governments within the region with respect catastrophic event preparation, evacuation, recovery, and mitigation”.

THREAT AND HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT (THIRA)

SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security. (2018, May 31). Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/threat-and-hazard-identification-and-risk-assessment

Summary The THIRA is a three-step process that helps communities answer the following questions: . What threats and hazards can affect a community? . If they occurred, what impacts would those threats and hazards have on our community? . Based on those impacts, what capabilities should our community have to assess those risks?

The outputs from this process provide a foundation to determine the community’s capability gaps as part of the Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR).

Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR): The SPR is a self-assessment of a jurisdiction’s current capability levels identified in the THIRA. It helps jurisdictions identify preparedness capability gaps and sustain requirements. This information is used to make decisions to build and sustain capabilities, deliver, and validate capabilities. In 2018 FEMA worked to develop an updated capability assessment methodology. Jurisdictions set targets for the 32 core capabilities defined in the National Preparedness Goal.

National Preparedness Goal: The National Preparedness Goal defines what it means for the whole community to be prepared for all types of disasters and emergencies. In addition to stating the goal, the National Preparedness Goal describes 32 activities, called core capabilities, which are organized into five areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery. “A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.”

Mission Areas (Prevention, National Core Capabilities Protection, Preparedness Goal (32 activities) Mitigation, Response, Recovery

Figure 22: National Preparedness Goal 97

Figure 23: Core Capabilities, Organized by Mission Area COMPREHENSIVE PREPAREDNESS GUIDE 201, THIRD EDITION This document is issued by FEMA and provides guidance for conducting a THIRA and SPR. It presents the basic steps for a THIRA process for identifying community-specific threats and hazards and setting targets for each core capability identified, and provides examples of how to develop a THIRA.

The National Preparedness System: Communities assess, build, sustain, and deliver the core capabilities through an organized process called the National Preparedness System

1. Identifying and Assessing Risk: Identify threats and hazards of concern and describe their impacts. In the THIRA, communities identify risks with the potential to most challenge their capabilities and expose areas in which the community is not as capable as it aims to be. 2. Estimating Capability Requirements: Develop capability targets, assess current capability, and identify capability gaps. This involves determining the specific level of capability that best addresses a community’s risks 3. Building and Sustaining Capabilities: Prioritize investments in areas that address identifies capability gaps and sustainment needs 4. Planning to Deliver Capabilities: develop and update plans based on capability targets and gaps 5. Validating Capabilities: Use capability targets when assessing performance in real-world incidents and update the THIRA/SPR

Community-Wide Involvement: Government agencies should not be the only group involved in preparedness efforts and in developing a comprehensive and accurate THIRA/SPR. 98

Figure 24: Communities use the THIRA/SPR to Answer Five Key Questions

Figure 25: There are Three Steps in the THIRA Process

THE THIRA PROCESS 1. Identify Threats and Hazards of Concern: Develop a list of threats and hazards that could affect the community. communities consider only those that challenge the community’s ability to deliver at least one core capability more than any other threat or hazard. Sources of threat and hazard information: must be multiple, combining public and private sector as well as the community.

Categories of Threats and Hazards: . Natural . Technological 99

. Human-caused

Factors for selecting threats and hazards: . The likelihood of it affecting the community . The challenge presented by the impacts of that threat or hazards, should it occur

2. Give Threats and Hazards Context: Describe the threats and hazards identified in Step 1, showing how they may affect the community and create challenges in performing the core capabilities. . Context description . Estimate impacts

3. Establish Capability Targets: Using the impacts described in Step 2, determine the level of capability that the community plans to achieve over time to manage the threats and hazards it faces. To develop capability targets, communities consider what is required to address the impacts of their threats and hazards. . Impacts . Objectives . Timeframe metrics: Timeframe metrics describe the timeframe or level of effort needed to successfully deliver core capabilities

Figure 26: Examples of Standardized Target Language

THE SPR PROCESS The SPR is an annual three-step self-assessment of a community’s capability levels based on the capability targets identified in the THIRA. It helps answer the questions: . What are our current capability levels and how have our capabilities changed over the last year? . What gaps exist between the capabilities we want to achieve and the capabilities we currently have? . What do we need to do to close the capability gaps or sustain the capabilities? . What impact did different funding sources—including grants—have on building or sustaining the capabilities assessed by the capability targets over the last year?

100

Figure 27: The SPR Process Consists of Three Steps, building off the Capability Targets Developed in the THIRA

1. Assess Capabilities: identify the community’s current capability and how that capability changed over the last year . Quantitively Assess Capabilities . Describe current capabilities and capability changes: identify the POETE areas—planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises . Provide context on current capability estimations o Describe confidence in accuracy of the quantitative assessment o Identify sources of information o Provide context to better understand the quantitative current capability assessment

2. Identify Capability Gaps and Intended Approaches to Address Them: Determine the causes of the capability gap, then, describe the actions and investments needed to close the capability gap or sustain the capability. . Identify and describe capability gaps o Priority for Achieving capability target: priority rating (high, medium, low) o Capability gap selection and description: For each capability target’s capability gap, communities identify the POETE areas in which they have a shortfall . Describe the approaches to address gaps and sustainment needs

3. Describe the Impacts of Funding Sources: Identify how relevant funding sources, including but not limited to grant programs and the community’s own resources, helped to build or sustain the capabilities assessed by the capability targets and describe how those capabilities were used in a real-world incident(s) over the past year. . Assess the degree to which specific funding sources had a role in building and sustaining the capability assessed by the target. . Qualitatively assess how your community used capabilities built and sustained with funding in a real- world incident over the past year.

101

Figure 28: The Calculation for Identifying an Example Capability Gap

Figure 29: An Example Capability Gap Identification for an Example Mass Care Services Capability Target

Conclusion “This document provides a common and consistent approach for communities to support the first two components of the National Preparedness System: 1) Identifying and Assessing Risk; and 2) Estimating Capability 102

Requirements, as implemented through the THIRA/SPR.” Achieving the Goal requires participation at all levels of the community. Through the THIRA/SPR process, communities are better able to educate individuals, families, businesses, organizations, community leaders, and senior officials about the risks they face and their roles in and contributions to prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery efforts.

POST-DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDRP) SOURCE: Hillsborough County. (2010). Hillsborough county post-disaster redevelopment plan. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management/post-disaster- redevelopment-plan

Summary “The PDRP is a requirement for all Florida Coastal Counties. It identifies policies, strategies, roles and responsibilities that will guide decisions that affect long-term recovery and redevelopment of the community after a disaster. It emphasizes hazard mitigation and community improvement. It addresses resumption and redevelopment of the economy, housing reparation and reconstruction, infrastructure mitigation, among others for any disaster that requires long-term redevelopment. This document includes vulnerabilities and current plans and programs as well as private and public organizations and their involvement.”

Benefits of a PDRP: . Faster and more efficient recovery . Opportunity for greater resiliency . Local control over recovery

Disaster Phases: . Pre-Disaster: Mitigation and emergency management preparedness . Emergency Response . Short-term recovery . Long-term recovery and redevelopment

Interactions with Other Plans Aim to be Consistent: Local comprehensive plans, the LMS, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and other relevant plans or codes are all related.

Approaches to Plan Development: . Stand-Alone PDRP Integrated with other Local Plans . Adopt a Post-Disaster Redevelopment Ordinance . Integrate Post-Disaster Redevelopment Issues into the Comprehensive Plan . Integrate Post-Disaster Redevelopment Issues into the LMS . Expand the Recovery Annex of the CEMP to Address Post-Disaster Redevelopment Issues

Recovery topics . Business resumption and economic redevelopment . Environmental restoration . Financial considerations . Housing repair and reconstruction 103

. Infrastructure restoration and mitigation . Short-term recovery actions that affect long-term redevelopment . Sustainable land use

Hillsborough County was one of five in Florida to participate in a pilot program to institute the PDRP initiative. In 2010, their first plan was approved. These plans now serve as a model for the rest of the state.

Significant Sections of PDRP in Hillsborough County Section 3: Infrastructure and Facilities - Provides an overview of government and institutional structures, ports, and utilities most vulnerable to major disasters in Hillsborough County.

Section 4: Health and Social Services - Discusses the populations most vulnerable to health-related and socioeconomic issues following a disaster including elderly, youth, disabled, minority, special needs, and homeless populations.

Section 5: Housing Recovery - Assesses the current vulnerability of housing stock to enable Hillsborough County to plan for temporary housing needs, prepare to assist residents with post-disaster repairs and rebuilding, and make policy decisions that will result in the redevelopment of a more resilient and sustainable community.

Section 6: Economic Redevelopment - Discusses the county’s economic vulnerability in terms of the current economic conditions and ways in which a disaster may impact unemployment, tourism, agribusiness, and other industries important to the county.

Section 7: Land Use - Assesses the vulnerability of existing and future land uses to storm surge, flooding, wildfire, and sinkholes.

Section 8: Environmental Restoration - Provides an overview of vulnerable ecosystems throughout Hillsborough County and how ecosystems are at risk to natural hazards and/or chemical contamination following a disaster.

Section 9: Public Outreach - Discusses vulnerability in terms of displaced populations, language barriers, and other special needs groups and how to best.

104

ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ACT (1988)

SOURCE: Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (Accessed Feb. 03, 2020) Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency- Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/Robert-T--Stafford-Disaster-Relief-and-Emergency-Assistance- Act-Fact-Sheet/

FEMA. (2016). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1519395888776- af5f95a1a9237302af7e3fd5b0d07d71/StaffordAct.pdf

Summary The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act is a United States federal law, in which congress authorizes Federal assistance to state and local governments in response to an emergency or major disaster. Before requesting federal assistance, the affected state’s governor must execute the state’s emergency response plan during the emergency or major disaster event. The governor will then certify in writing the state’s inability to handle the magnitude of the event, therefore needing supplemental federal assistance to save lives or prevent further damage.

Types of Events Covered:

Congress defines an applicable disaster as “any natural catastrophe” including hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, flood or explosion in any part of the United States, which is of sufficient severity to warrant assistance under the act to alleviate damage, loss or hardship caused by the disaster. Congress defines an emergency as “any occasion or instance, in the determination of the president, for which assistance is needed to supplement state and local capabilities to save lives, protect property, public health and safety”.

Title II: Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation Assistance

The Act gives authorization to the President to establish a program of disaster preparedness. Financial support is given by the President to the states through the National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund.

Title III: Major Disaster and Emergency Assistance Administration

Mitigation plan requirements are set forth in Title III. A state’s plan should identify the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of areas in the State, support development of local mitigation plans, provide for technical assistance to local and tribal governments for mitigation planning, and identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the state will support. This is known at the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), which is accomplished both at the state level and for each county, in cooperation with each municipality.

Title IV: Major Disaster Assistance Programs

The Stafford Act authorizes three types of assistance: individual assistance, hazard mitigation assistance and public assistance. Assistance is given in the form of direct federal aid such as, services, grants, and technical support, or as reimbursement for services.

Individual assistance provides immediate financial assistance to affected individuals for temporary housing units, renting alternate housing and repair or replacement of owner-occupied housing. 105

Hazard mitigation assistance provides grants to governments affected only by major disasters; emergencies not included. The grants provide assistance to implement long-term hazard mitigation after major disaster declaration.

Public assistance provides aid to eligible applicants who seek assistance with eligible costs for eligible work performed at eligible facilities. Eligible applicants include state and local governments, tribes, and private nonprofit entities providing services of a governmental nature. Eligible facilities include public buildings, schools, hospitals, outpatient care centers, custodial care facilities and all structures or equipment owned by eligible applicants.

Title V: Emergency Assistance Programs

To request presidential declaration of an emergency, the governor of a state must first execute the state’s emergency plan, and include the types and amount of federal aid requested for assistance. This can only happen after the governor deems the emergency to be beyond the capabilities of the state. Upon receiving this information, the President will decide if the event qualifies as an emergency. Additionally, if the President determines the event to be an emergency, the President has the ability to declare it an emergency without the request of a governor.

Title VI: Emergency Preparedness

A state’s emergency preparedness plan must be in effect in all political subdivisions of the state. The plan should also clearly state the share of financial responsibility between the state and the federal government.

106

REFERENCES

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (web, accessed February 03, 2020) Emergency authority and immunity toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health- Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/Robert-T--Stafford-Disaster-Relief-and- Emergency-Assistance-Act-Fact-Sheet/

Department of Homeland Security. (2018, May 31). Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/threat-and-hazard-identification-and-risk assessment

FEMA. (2016). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1519395888776- af5f95a1a9237302af7e3fd5b0d07d71/StaffordAct.pdf

FEMA (2020). Hazard mitigation plan status. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-plan- status

FEMA PA (2020). Public assistance: Local, state, tribal, and private non-profit. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit

FEMA (2019). Hazard mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant- program

FEMA FMA (2020). Flood mitigation assistance grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood- mitigation-assistance-grant-program

FEMA (2019). Pre-disaster mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster- mitigation-grant-program

FEMA BRIC. (2020). Building resilient infrastructure and communities (BRIC). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/bric

Florida Division of Emergency Management (June 7, 2019). Local mitigation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.floridadisaster.org/dem/mitigation/local-mitigation-strategy/

Florida Housing Coalition. (2018) Florida disaster management guide for housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Disaster- Management-Guide-for-Housing-06.24.2018-WEB.pdf

Florida Housing Coalition. (2018a) Affordable housing resource guide. Retrieved from https://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Affordable-Housing-Resource-Guide-2018-12- FINAL.pdf

Hillsborough County. (2010). Hillsborough county post-disaster redevelopment plan. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management/post-disaster- redevelopment-plan 107

Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020). Emergency management. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management

HUD Exchange. (web, accessed April 21, 2020). CDBG: Community development block grant programs. Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/

108

REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT VULNERABILITIES

109

SUMMARY

The following research represents a comprehensive inventory of vulnerability assessments that have been accomplished in the region. From these documents, an aggregated list of vulnerable urban elements was put into a list titled the ‘Matrix of Vulnerabilities’ (found in the appendix). Typically, assessments focused on elements of the built environment, mostly pertaining to property loss and infrastructure, with the exception of the 2015 Hillsborough County Local Mitigation Strategy that included some aspects of human health. Some delve into loss and migration of population (with respect to jobs), but typically the studies are focused on economic repercussions within the built environment.

After accumulating the list of potential vulnerabilities, elements were categorized into groups, as seen on the following page.

110

Figure 30: Built Environment Categories 111

BILLION-DOLLAR WEATHER AND CLIMATE DISASTERS (2004 - 2019) SOURCES: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (2019). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2019). Hurricane Costs. Retrieved from: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html

Summary The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) keeps a list of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters from 1980 through current year and provides statistics, summaries and links to reports of each event. Below is the list of hurricanes over the past 15 years in order of most costly (Consumer Price Index adjusted). From 1986 to 2015, NOAA accounts for $515.4 billion in insured losses. In that time, Florida leads all other states with $68.6 billion in losses.

Hurricanes over the past 15 years:

Hurricane Cost (CPI) # of deaths Hurricane Katrina (2005, CAT 3) $166.3 Billion 1,833 deaths Hurricane Harvey (2017, CAT 4 $128.8 Billion 89 deaths Hurricane Maria (2017, CAT 4) $92.7 Billion 2,981 deaths Hurricane Sandy (2012, CAT 3) $72.8 Billion 159 deaths Hurricane Irma (2017, CAT 4) $51.5 Billion 97 deaths Hurricane Ike (2008, CAT 2) $36.0 Billion 112 deaths Hurricane Ivan (2004, CAT 3) $28.1 Billion 57 deaths Hurricane Wilma (2005, Cat 3) $25.3 Billion 35 deaths Hurricane Michael (2018, CAT 5) $ 25.2 Billion 49 deaths Hurricane Rita – (2005, CAT 3) $24.6 Billion 119 deaths Hurricane Florence (2018, CAT 1) $24.2 Billion 53 deaths Hurricane Charley (2004, CAT 4) $21.9 Billion 35 deaths Hurricane Irene (2011, CAT 1) $15.5 Billion 45 deaths Hurricane Frances (2004, Cat 2) $13.4 Billion 48 deaths Hurricane Matthew (2017, CAT 1) $10.7 Billion 49 deaths Hurricane Jeanne (2004, Cat 3) $10.3 Billion 28 deaths Hurricane Gustav (2008, Cat 2) $7.2 Billion 53 deaths Hurricane Dennis (2005, CAT 3) $3.3 Billion 15 deaths Hurricane Isaac (2012, CAT 1) $3.1 Billion 9 deaths Hurricane Dolly (2008, CAT 2) $1.5 Billion 3 deaths

The $300 Billion Dollar Year: 2017 was the costliest hurricane season with 16-billion-dollar hurricanes and $306.2 in cumulative costs nationally. This broke the previous cost record of $214.8 billion in 2005. These post-disaster costs are used to a community back to ‘normalcy’, and does not include proactive strategies or new project implementation.

112

RECOMMENDED PROJECTION OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2019) SOURCES: Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel. (2019). Recommended projection of sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from https://www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2019/TBEP_05_19_CSAP_SLR_Recommendation.pdf

Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel. (2015). Recommended projection of sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/SLR_Recommendation_OBRC_10-9-15.pdf

Summary The Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) encourages local governments and other agencies to use multiple scenarios and to consider a variety of contextual factors, such as the expected lifespan of the project, project cost, and criticality of function, when developing adaptation strategies. Updated from the 2015 report, this report assesses the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) and recently published literature to observe changes in sea levels to produce updated SLR projections for Tampa Bay region through 2100. In comparison to the sea level of ‘time zero’, the year 2000 (for this projection only), the Tampa Bay region will experience a 1 - 2.5 feet of SLR by 2050 and 2 - 8.5 feet by the year 2100.

A number of recent reports have identified the Tampa Bay region as one of the most vulnerable coastal metropolitan areas thought the world due to SLR and flooding. It is predicted that the Tampa Bay region will experience the following substantial economic impacts, if adaption strategies are not put into place: . Flooding of public infrastructure and private property . Shoreline and beach erosion . Impacts to the operation of coastal drainage systems . Threats to drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities and distribution infrastructure . Shifts in wetlands and other tidal habitats, resulting in the loss of ecosystem services

2019 SLR Projections:

Figure 31: Sea Level Change Relative to the year 2000 for St. Petersburg, Florida in feet above Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) 113

2015 SLR Projections:

Figure 32: Relative Sea Level Change Scenarios for St. Petersburg, Florida in Feet Above Local Mean Sea Level

Recommendations This report “establishes the foundation for a coordinated approach to address the effects of a changing climate, which advances the objectives of the newly-established Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition. Local governments and other agencies planning for SLR in the Tampa Bay region should incorporate the following key findings of this CSAP recommendation: “ . Data measured at the St. Petersburg tide gauge shows that water levels in Tampa Bay have already increased approximately 7.8 inches since 1946. . Projections of SLR should be consistent with present and future National Climate Assessment estimates and methods. Entities involved in the planning for SLR should use the NOAA High projection for planning purposes (see figure 32). . Projections of SLR should be regionally corrected using St. Petersburg tide gauge data. . Adaptation planning should employ a scenario-based approach that, at minimum, considers location, time horizon, and risk tolerance as well as a variety of factors including: o Project life span o Project cost o Criticality of function

Adaption Planning Example “For example, decision makers may decide to plan for less SLR (using the NOAA Intermediate Low) when implementing projects with greater risk tolerance such as infrastructure projects with a relatively short life cycle or those with high adaptive capacity (e.g. a waterfront park or parking lot), while they may choose to plan for more extreme SLR (using NOAA High scenario) in situations where there is little tolerance for risk (e.g. new 114 infrastructure with a long anticipated life cycle such as a power plant) (NOAA 2012). The level of adaptation planning necessary will be up to the planning entity and based on the acceptable level of risk and vulnerability.” (see figure 33)

Figure 33: “Conceptual diagram demonstrating how to apply SLR scenarios to risk-based decision making.”

Figure 34: “1946-2018 Monthly Mean Sea Level Trend in St. Petersburg, FL, NOAA Tide Gauge #8726520”

115

Figure 35: “Graphic Relative Sea Level Change (RSLC) Scenarios for St. Petersburg, Florida, as calculated using the regionally corrected NOAA 2017 curves.”

Terms Datum - The base elevation used as a reference from which to calculate heights or depths; the point in time at which the sea level is defined to be zero.

Mean Lower Low Water - The average of the lower low water height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.

Mean Sea Level - The arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. Shorter series are specified in the name; e.g. monthly mean sea level and yearly mean sea level. Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) is the arithmetic mean of hourly heights at the specific tide station at which it was observed and should not be confused with any other vertical datum, including LMSL at other tide stations.

National Tidal Datum Epoch - The specific 19-year period adopted by the National Ocean Service as the official time segment over which tide observations are taken and reduced to obtain mean values for tidal datums. It is necessary for standardization because of periodic and apparent secular trends in sea level. The present NTDE spans 1983 through 2001 and is referred to as the mid-point or 1992. The NTDE is actively considered for revision every 20-25 years.

Rate of change - How rapidly sea level is changing (increasing or decreasing) at time zero.

Projection - The numerical value of sea level change between time zero and some point in the future.

Relative Sea Level Change - The variance in the height of the water as measured in reference to a specific, stable vertical point on land (known as a benchmark) due to changes in local conditions (e.g. subsidence or vertical uplift).

Scenario - The quadratic function that shows possible sea levels at any point along the curve, between time zero and some point in the future. 116

SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA (2017) SOURCE: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. (2017). Sea level rise vulnerability assessment for the City of Tampa. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sea- Level-Rise-Vulnerability-Assessment-for-the-City-of-Tampa-rev5.pdf

Summary NOAA provides four global scenarios to gauge potential impacts to an area. The Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP), convened in 2015, studied these scenarios and concluded that the Tampa Bay region might experience sea level rise between 0.5 to 2.5 feet by 2050. Risk areas were located by calculating the projected sea level rise. The purpose of this assessment is to identify how sea-level rise will impact the City of Tampa by utilizing the NOAA projections to pinpoint potential areas at risk, as well as population, facilities, and infrastructure that might be affected by sea level rise.”

Methodology: The Planning Commission staff, with the assistance of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), used the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sea Level Change Curve calculator with the NOAA projections and St Petersburg Tidal Gauge, to generate sea level rise projections at the local level through year 2040. “This year was chosen due to the planning horizon of the Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan.” The results showed a 2040 projected sea level rise at an additional 5 to 19 inches.

TAMPA’S MOST AFFECTED AREAS Properties in these areas may experience impacts due to sea level rise, including limited flooding of docks and property boundaries along some waterways. Some structural flooding is possible. 1. Tampa Bay 2. McKay Bay and Tampa Bay Bypass Canal 3. Hillsborough River

Southwest Tampa - Near MacDill Air Force Base may be impacted.

Old Tampa Bay in West Tampa - Properties at the south corner of South Westshore Boulevard and Commerce Street and areas north and south of Cypress Point Park near SR 60, including beaches along the Courtney Campbell Causeway may be impacted.

East of McKay Bay Nature Park – Areas following the Palm River and south along McKay Bay Trail to Business US41 are at risk.

Hillsborough River - May experience impacts on the east and/or west side of the river, beginning at Channelside and continuing past Rowlett Park Drive to the dam. Only two structures along the Hillsborough River were identified within the projected vulnerability area citywide. The area beyond the dam will not experience any impacts from sea level rise within this assessment’s time horizon.

PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY THE FOUR SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS Land Use Categories: 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial 117

4. Public/ institution 5. Public Utility 6. Right-of-Way 7. Schools 8. Vacant

Impact of NOAA Scenarios on Property: The taxable value of these parcels, total amount of affected acreage and percentage of acreage affected were calculated.

0.41 ft. Low – Impact of 4 to 5-inch Sea Level Rise

Figure 36: 0.41 ft. Low – Impact of 4 to 5-inch Sea Level Rise

0.62ft Intermediate Low – Impact of 7-inch Sea Level Rise

Figure 37: 0.62ft Intermediate Low – Impact of 7-inch Sea Level Rise

1.07ft Intermediate High – Impact of 12 to 13inch Sea Level Rise

Figure 38: 1.07ft Intermediate High – Impact of 12 to 13inch Sea Level Rise

118

1.59 High – Impact of 19-inch rise in Sea Level Rise

Figure 39: 1.59 High – Impact of 19-inch rise in Sea Level Rise

POPULATIONS AFFECTED Population: 4.68% of the total city population will be affected by at least one of the Sea Level Rise scenarios, including 15,300- 15,700 people that live in one of the 118 census blocks that may be affected.

Demographic Breakdown of At-Risk Populations: 1. 75% White 2. 14% Black 3. 21% Hispanic

FACILITIES AFFECTED No Major Effect (Public Utilities Not Included): . None of the city’s facilities lie within the boundaries of the NOAA sea level rise projections. Facility types include public schools and universities, libraries, fire stations, post offices, judicial centers and others. Facilities such as hospitals and parks are displayed separately. . Tampa General Hospital and 30 parks near water bodies may be affected by a maximum sea level rise increase of 1.59ft.

INFRASTRUCTURE AFFECTED Roads: . Portions of 83 different roadways are potentially impacted by a high sea level rise of 1.59ft. o 31 are classified as local roads, including Airport access and Campbell Causeway Access Roads.

Critical Facilities: . The David L. Tippin Water Treatment Facility and the Howard F. Curren Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant will not be impacted. . McKay Bay Refuse-To-Energy Facility will not be directly impacted but the McKay Bay Preserve adjacent to the facility is located within an at-risk area.

Basins: Potential impacts to the at-risk storm basins are expected to be along the coastal bay and riverbank areas . 287 basins (Low) . 278 basins (Intermediate Low) 119

. 289 basins (Intermediate High) . 310 basins (High)

Culverts: 25

Network Structures: 21 to 29 of the Headwall and Mitered End type network structures off Old Tampa Bay, McKay Bay, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and along the Hillsborough River are at-risk.

Open Drains: 80 drains. Redline Properties: (parcels flagged for drainage issues) Four properties that are prone to flooding lie within the sea level rise scenarios near MacDill Air Force Base.

Conclusion: . Projected property impacts through 2040 are mostly limited to open spaces and docks. . Only two structures identified on the Hillsborough River are within the vulnerability area. . At least 80% of affected properties are publicly owned. . Tampa General Hospital and several parks are at risk. . Critical facilities are not located within at-risk areas. . Segments of 31 local roads are at-risk. . Several storm water basins and some storm water facilities are within the at-risk areas.

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2017) SOURCE: TBRPC / One Bay. (2017). The cost of doing nothing. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/2017-The_Cost_of_Doing_Nothing_Final.pdf

Summary The Cost of Doing Nothing assesses economic impacts anticipated in the Tampa Bay region if nothing is done to mitigate the impacts of Sea Level Rise on the Tampa Bay area, with a 2.95-foot rise by 2060 predicted by the NOAA High sea level rise projections. Potential impacts of year-round flooding on the regional economy bear a cumulative cost of $162 billion to the region’s Gross Regional Product. The study evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of sea level rise on the regional economy through a series of computer simulations using REMI PI+ and considered three different aspects of economy: loss of inundated properties and subsequent taxes, loss of non- tourism related jobs, and loss of tourism jobs.

Negative outcomes of sea level rise: . Changes in the cost of homeowner insurance . Physical damage to utility and transportation infrastructure . Worsened nuisance flooding . Increased threat from polluted storm water runoff into Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

120

Quantifying sea level rise impacts:

Figure 40: Quantifying Sea Level Rise Impacts:

Assessing the cost of inundated land in the Tampa Bay area: 1. Property value and tax revenue loss: impact of the economy from economic losses stemming from submerged property. . 31,800 parcels lose all economic value . The effects will be gradual until higher levels inundate coastal lands . In the simulation, land costs for residential and commercial uses increases by the same percentage of the acreage lost. o Example: If 8% of the land is submerged, there would be an 8% increase in housing and land costs. Increasing costs would lead to out-migration, increased job-loss, and loss of personal income and Gross Regional Product. Government spending would be reduced by the amount of taxes of the owners of affected properties. . Cumulative loss of $5.4 billion through 2060 . 12,000 jobs are lost from the region . 40,000 people leave (from loss of land and taxes paid on it)

Figure 41: Land Use Values

Figure 42: Property and Tax Revenue Loss

2. Direct Job Loss: 121

Defining the combined effects of direct and indirect job loss to sea level rise in the rest of the economy. . 17,184 jobs currently exist on the properties anticipated to be submerged by 2060. If job density and distribution persist, all of these would be removed from the economy. . Jobs are shown by Industry and does not account for jobs lost due to decreased tourism spending

Figure 43: Direct Job Loss by Industry

Figure 44: Direct Job Loss by County

3. Tourism Loss: Loss of Tourism Spending on The Economy: . Visitors spent $12 billion per year between 2013 and 2015. . The loss of tourism spending was modeled by the estimated number of hotels employed in inundated areas, scaled over 40 years.

Figure 45: Tourism Loss

122

Composite Simulation:

Figure 46: Simulations by County

Figure 47: Simulation Comparisons on Personal Income in 2060

Figure 58: Simulations by County

The cost of doing nothing over forty years: . $161 Billion of lost Gross Regional Product in 2015 dollars . The region’s gross product is reduced by less than three percent

123

Figure 49: Impact of Composite Simulation per Category

Need for future analysis: . Understand extreme weather events’ impact on storm drainage and emergency management facilities. . Identify periodic loss of access through submerged roads, and its effect on business. . Analyze how skyrocketing flood insurance costs shape the housing market. . Identify the cost to offset sea level rise through technological means or capital investment.

124

Figure 50: Inundated Areas

125

HILLSBOROUGH MPO TRANSPORTATION VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT (2014) SOURCE: Plan Hillsborough. (2014). Hillsborough MPO transportation vulnerability assessment pilot project. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/hillsborough-transportation-vulnerability-assessment-pilot- project/

Summary “This study is one of 19 Pilots across the country conducted under the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) second-round climate change vulnerability assessment program, and was funded in part through a FHWA grant.” It is a pilot project assessing the resiliency Hillsborough County’s transportation system to sea level rise, storm surge and inland flooding, with the objective to find cost effective strategies to mitigate and manage risks. There were three phases: (1) inventory multimodal transportation, determination of critical assets and potential future inundation scenarios; (2) Estimate loss in regional mobility associated with disruptions in those facilities; and (3) Estimate general economic losses.

Objective: Phase 1 - identification of five to ten critical and vulnerable transportation facilities for further study a) Countywide Inventory of transportation assets b) Determination of critical assets c) Possible scenarios d) Assessment to identify existing or planned transportation assets potentially at-risk from sea level rise, Storm Surge and Inland Flooding Phase 2 - Validation of critical links and use MPO travel demand model to estimate the loss in regional capacity associated with disruption of those facilities Phase 3 - Estimation of economic loss associated with disruption of critical links using REMI, and recommendations

Assessment Asset Inventory - Organized into a transportation database that served as data repository, and inventory management and mapping tool.

Asset Criticality - “A criticality screening process was performed to focus analytical resources on transportation assets based on their relative regional significance. This analysis involved the identification of critical areas and activity centers (destinations) as well as the transportation facilities providing access to those destinations.” . Memorial Highway . Courtney Campbell Causeway . Gandy Boulevard . Selmon Expressway (Gandy Blvd/Dale Mabry Hwy ramps) . South 20th/22nd Street . I-75 Bridge over Alafia River

Vulnerability Screening - The vulnerability screening for each asset considered the three primary assessment elements of exposure, sensitivity and adaptation capacity.

126

Figure 51: Climate Stressors for Assessment

Figure 52: Assets Screening Process

127

Impact Assessment: Illustrative impacts to regional mobility caused by projected inundation, disruptions on a typical day

Impact to Regional Economy: For each potentially vulnerable asset, hours of travel time delay, vehicle miles traveled, and lost trip outputs from the TBRPM were input into REMI, to estimate the state and regional economic impacts of flooding-related disruption.

For each asset, the REMI model provided estimated losses to the Hillsborough County economy in terms of projected reductions in Gross Regional Product (GRP), income, and labor hours over a five-day (business week) period.

Figure 53: REMI Analysis, Estimated Weekly Economic Losses

128

PHYSICAL ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

Figure 54: Representative Adaptation Strategy Menu

Strategy Costs: Approximations were made using generic costs for applicable risk management strategies.

Figure 55: Representative Unit Costs

Strategy Efficacy: Strategy Efficacy is based on expected duration of disruption and resulting economic losses. 1. The anticipated net benefit range of adaptation, which is calculated by subtracting the expected cost of the strategy package from both the lower and higher avoided loss estimates.

2. “Tipping point,” the number of hours, days, or weeks of avoided loss required to achieve cost neutrality-to break even. 129

Findings A detailed analysis of each asset is provided. “By 2040, the study’s primary horizon year, the contribution of sea level rise to inundation was not significant in relation to surge depths or tidal phase. . Base Case: Assuming no additional risk mitigation investments, an estimated $266 million in direct, transportation-related economic losses occur. . Medium Investment Scenario (adapting Interstates only): Losses are reduced to an estimated $153 million, avoiding $112 million in losses for a $31 million investment package (not including a construction cost contingency). . High Investment Scenario (adapting Interstates and arterials): Losses are reduced to an estimated $119 million, avoiding $147 million in losses for a $112 million investment package (again, not including a cost contingency).

Figure 56: Estimated Net Benefit (Avoided Losses)

Memorial Highway: “The analysis of strategy effectiveness yields an anticipated net benefit range of between $2.1 and $8.4 million for impacts associated with a Category 1 storm surge, and between $11.6 and $21.0 million for a Category 3 event. The tipping point is about 1.3 days (the most favorable of all the assets analyzed), meaning that a reduction of 1.3 days or more of disruption will justify the $4.2 million marginal cost of this investment.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o “When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of Memorial Highway are disabled, alternative trip routings add almost 220,000 vehicle miles traveled to auto trips and nearly 7,500 miles to truck trips, daily. These less efficient trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in over 473,000 additional hours of auto delay, and over 37,000 hours of truck delay.” . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $15.78 million in Gross Regional Product, $8.02 million in income, and over 222,000 in work hours”

130

Courtney Campbell Causeway: “The analysis of strategy effectiveness yields an anticipated net benefit range of between -$4.1 and -$3.3 million for impacts associated with a Category 1 storm surge, and between -$2.9 and -$1.1 million for a Category 3 event meaning that the proposed adaptation package is not cost effective under any scenario. The tipping point is about 13 days, meaning that a reduction of 13 days or more of disruption will justify the $4.8 million marginal cost of this investment.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o “When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of the Causeway are disabled, alternative trip routings add almost 162,000 vehicle miles traveled to auto trips and over 12,300 miles to truck trips, daily. These less efficient trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in nearly 35,000 additional hours of auto delay, and over 3,000 hours of truck delay. Almost 38,000 auto trips and 1,300 truck trips cannot be loaded to the network (because the trip origin or destination is not accessible) and are therefore tallied as “lost trips.” . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $1.875 million in Gross Regional Product, $1.13 million in income, and over 41,600 in work hours.”

Gandy Boulevard: “The analysis of strategy effectiveness yields an anticipated net benefit range of between -$1.3 and -$0.7 million for impacts associated with a Category 1 storm surge, and between $1.2 and $3.6 million for a Category 3 event. The tipping point is about 6.3 days (the second most favorable of all the assets analyzed), meaning that a reduction of 6.3 days or more of disruption will justify the $1.9 million marginal cost of this investment.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o “When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of Memorial Highway are disabled, alternative trip routings add almost 200,000 vehicle miles traveled to auto trips and just over 10,000 miles to truck trips, daily. These less efficient trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in almost 41,000 additional hours of auto delay, and nearly 3,000 hours of truck delay.” . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $1.75 million in Gross Regional Product, $1.13 million in income, and over 37,000 in work hours”

Selmon Expressway Ramps: “The analysis of strategy effectiveness yields an anticipated net benefit range of between -$1.4 and -$1.3 million for impacts associated with a Category 3 storm surge. The tipping point is about 21 days (the least favorable of all the assets analyzed), meaning that a reduction of 21 days or more of disruption will justify the $1.5 million marginal cost of this investment.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o “When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of Memorial Highway are disabled, alternative trip routings add over 100,000 vehicle miles traveled to auto trips and negligible number of miles to truck trips, daily. These less efficient trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in about 13,000 additional hours of auto delay, and a negligible amount of truck delay.” . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $0.5 million in Gross Regional Product, $0.25 million in income, and over 8,000 in work hours.”

131

South 20th/22nd Street: “The analysis of strategy effectiveness yields an anticipated net benefit range of between -$2.7 and -$2.4 million for impacts associated with a Category 1 storm surge, and between -$1.6 and -$0.5 million for a Category 3 event. The tipping point is about 10.8 days, meaning that a reduction of 10.8 days or more of disruption will justify the $2.9 million marginal cost of this investment.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o “When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of S 20th/22nd Street are disabled, alternative trip routings add almost 184,000 vehicle miles traveled to auto trips and nearly 17,880 miles to truck trips, daily. These less efficient trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in nearly 40,000 additional hours of auto delay, and over 3,000 hours of truck delay. About 2,600 auto trips and a negligible number of truck trips cannot be loaded to the network (because the trip origin or destination is not accessible) and are therefore tallied as “lost trips.” . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $1.36 million in Gross Regional Product, $0.84 million in income, and nearly 25,000 in work hours”

I-75 Bridge Over Alafia River: “The I-75 Bridge over Alafia River is not considered vulnerable to any of the flooding scenarios assessed, by 2040. However, based on the magnitude of potential impacts to regional mobility and the economy, it is an asset of significant importance for Hillsborough County and the broader region.” . Impacts to Regional Mobility o ‘When the TBRPM links corresponding with the assessed segment of I-75 are disabled, alternative trip routings remove over 394,000 vehicle miles traveled from auto trips and over 1,100 miles from truck trips (not a significant number for a model of this scale), daily. This is likely because trips are assigned the shortest travel path based on time (rather than distance), and therefore rerouting Hillsborough County MPO Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Pilot Project 92 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. from the Interstate (a high speed facility) to surface streets might reduce distances while significantly increasing travel times These trips occur in more congested conditions, resulting in nearly 430,000 additional hours of auto delay, and over 35,000 hours of truck delay. “ . Impacts to the Regional Economy (1-week disruption for a CAT 1 storm surge) o “Weekly losses of $10.2 million in Gross Regional Product, $6.34 million in income, and over 187,000 in work hours”

PROJECT PHOENIX: TAMPA BAY DISASTER RESILIENCY STUDY (2011) SOURCE: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2011). 2011 disaster resiliency study. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TB_DisasterResiliencyStudy2011.pdf

Summary The Tampa Bay Disaster Resiliency Study (TBDRS) is an economic study which analyzes the impacts and effects of a natural disaster in the Tampa Bay region. In 2010, a worst-case scenario, category 5 hurricane, was used as a planning exercise called Project Phoenix to provide the scalability and transferability to any hazard. The TBDRS analyzed direct impacts and estimated indirect induced impacts. The main components are economic losses associated with losing employment, economic gains associated with reconstruction, cleaning, and government spending.

132

Figure 57: Scenario Inputs

Findings . “Job loss is significant to the region and without government assistance and reconstruction the region never fully recovers. Additionally, employment losses drive a loss in production and wages.” . “If more effort is spent on the prevention or reduction in damage before the storm hits, the employment should be more resilient.” . “If some disaster funds or initial tax revenues can be invested in the region to create more permanent jobs in the future, the economy could actually be in a better position in the long run.” . The construction industry automatically benefits from the employees returning to work, even without the positive impacts modeled. . The Administrative and Waste services, which covers a number of occupations including all temporary employment, shows the most employment decrease. This is expected since it is the region’s largest employer. . The net employment impact shown in figure 57, incorporates the Positive and Negative impacts with the biggest benefactors being government employment and construction. . “The population and labor force are less elastic than the employment and typically has a slight lag effect, often due to the reluctance of someone to permanently move themselves and their family to a new place.” . “With the swings in employment, it is important to look at how the local economy handles the changes. The net impacts are shown figure 60, demonstrating how long it takes for the economy to rebound even with the surge in activity. The Output never reaches its pre-event forecast until year 6, meaning the region lost an enormous amount of Output over the first 6 years of the recovery.”

133

Figure 58: Effects on employment

Figure 59: Net impact of several economic indicators 134

Figure 60: Industry impact from employment losses

Figure 61: Industry impact from net employment

135

Resiliency Strategies The importance of preparedness planning and mitigation is critical to the ultimate recovery of a region after a disaster. The main goal of hazard mitigation planning is to create a safer community while minimizing the loss from potential hazards. FEMA has estimated that for every $1 spent in mitigating, it saves $4 in the future.

“Creating strategies and plans to facilitate the return of employees to work as quickly as possible should be a major goal of preparedness and recovery. Planning for every possible scenario would be nearly impossible; instead, the focus on returning employees to work should be primary economic objectives. Additional objectives revolve around targeting which businesses will need the most help and identifying how to help the business plan.”

Strategies: . Hazards and Resiliency Planning (LMS, COOPS, PDRP, etc.) . Structure Hardening . Business continuity plans . Infrastructure improvements . Funding identification

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A HURRICANE EVENT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (2009) SOURCE: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2009). Economic analysis of a hurricane event In Hillsborough County, Florida. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/library/hillsborough/media- center/documents/emergency-management/21--pdrp-economic-analysis-of-a-hurricane.pdf

Summary As a sub-grantee to the County’s Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council conducted an Economic Analysis of a Hurricane Event in Hillsborough County, Florida. The report should be used more as a tool rather than a definitive assessment and presents the results of an economic impact analysis of simulated catastrophic events (category three and five hurricane) in Hillsborough County. For each of the events, two scenarios were modeled and analyzed. One scenario assumes normal recovery. The second scenario assumes accelerated recovery rates that are approximately thirty-three percent faster than the normal recovery rates.

Findings . Employment losses from a hurricane can have a severely negative impact on employment if mitigation measures are not implemented. It can take four to eight years for the economy to recover without outside stimulus. . Mitigation planning and implementation measures as well as post-disaster preparedness can significantly reduce the negative consequences of a disaster. . The jobs created by rebuilding efforts can significantly improve the employment. . The added impact from federal and state aid makes the difference in the rate and quality of the recovery. 136

Figure 62: Geographic study areas

Category 3 Hurricane Scenario Results

Employment Impacts: . “First year job loss attributed to employment losses from business and structure damages is estimated at 131 thousand jobs without reconstruction or government spending. . Without any external stimulus these jobs do not return to the pre-event level until year 5 and achieves the pre-event forecast level in year 8. Construction and spending create 125 thousand jobs in year 1. . Spending is the same in both recovery scenarios therefore the results are the same. . Net impact from employment losses and spending gains are 2 thousand jobs in year 1 under normal recovery rates and 43 thousand under accelerated recovery. . Net impacts to employment remain above pre-event forecast levels for three years and drops below the forecast leveling off in years 4 to 7 before returning to baseline forecast in year 8.”

137

Figure 63: Employment impacts from a hurricane 3

Gross Regional Product (GRP) Impacts: . “Gross Regional Product lost attributed to employment losses from business damages is estimated at $9 billion or fifteen percent without reconstruction or government spending and returns to pre-event levels in year 4 and achieves the pre-event forecast level in year 8. . Construction and spending create around $6 billion in GRP in year 1 and tapers to $2.4 billion in year 4. . Spending is the same in both recovery scenarios therefore the GRP results are the same. . Net impact from employment losses and spending gains is negative in year 1 and above the pre-event levels in years two and beyond; however, the GRP doesn’t return to the pre-event forecast levels until year 8.”

Figure 64: Gross regional product impacts from a hurricane 3

Population Impacts: . “Population lost from employment losses from damages is estimated to peak at 61 thousand persons in year 5 without reconstruction or government spending. With an accelerated recovery, the peak population loss is reduced to 40 thousand. . Construction and spending create an additional 43 thousand in peak population in year 4. 138

. Net impact of population changes from employment losses and spending gains as compared to the pre- event forecast is a loss of 28 thousand persons in year 7 under normal recovery and reduced to loss of 7 thousand under an accelerated recovery. . Net population remains above pre-event levels in all years.”

Figure 65: Population impacts from a hurricane 3

Fiscal Impacts: . “County Revenues lost from employment losses from damages is estimated at $550 million in year 1 and recovers to pre-event levels by year 4 and forecast levels in year 8. . Construction and spending create around $380 million in revenue year 1 above the forecast remains above forecast levels until year 5. . Spending is the same in both recovery scenarios so the revenue increase results are the same for normal and accelerated recovery. . Net impact on revenues is about even to slightly negative in year 1. In year 2 and beyond, revenue is negative in relation to the forecast but above pre-event levels for the normal recovery scenario. The accelerated scenario provides a better revenue projection for years 2 through 4.”

Figure 66: County fiscal revenue impacts from a hurricane 3

139

SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2006) SOURCE: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the-tampa-bay-region

Summary “High population growth rates of coastal and riverine areas make it vital that land-use planners begin to prepare for the rise of sea levels in these areas. The coastline and areas along our rivers are in many cases highly developed with residential, commercial, and recreational uses. With continuing population growth in Florida, coastal and riverine areas will continue to develop. This includes the almost 25,000 km (15,534 miles) of Florida’s coast located below 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) in elevation. Hillsborough County has the fourth largest population in the State, ranks first in population in the region and has the largest land area with 1,051 square miles.”

“The Florida studies are part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) national effort to encourage the long-range thinking necessary to plan for sea level rise and its potential impacts. With this project, the USEPA hopes to ensure the long-term survival of coastal wetlands and to diminish losses to life and property from coastal hazards, such as erosion and inundation. This project seeks to accomplish this goal by creating maps that visualize the anticipated response of local governments to sea level rise, based on current land use designations and future planning policies.”

Approach: Based on research estimates of sea level rise in the next 200 years, a five-foot contour line was determined to be the mean sea level shore line for mapping purposes. Determination of future land use was used for protection scenarios to define anticipated response.

Mapping procedure: 1. Topographic study area - This study considers all land below the 10-foot (NGVD) contour and the all land within 1000 feet of the shore. The land between five and ten feet is already below the base flood elevation for a 100-year storm, and will experience greater flooding as sea level rises. 2. Elevation polygons from the Southwest Florida Water Management District along with LIDAR derived GRID elevations. 3. Protection Scenarios - areas expected to be protected or not protected from erosion and inundation . Protection almost certain . Protection reasonably likely . Protection Unlikely . No Protection 4. Wetland Mapping - identifying tidal and non-tidal wetlands

MAPPING ANALYSIS Hillsborough County: “The areas of Hillsborough County included in the study area for this project are generally already developed or have been identified as locations for development in the near future. Some exceptions to this are in areas in the southern portion of the county which are currently held as conservation lands. The City of Tampa is the only incorporated city within the identified study area. Majority of land in the study area of Hillsborough County has been given a protection scenario of “almost certain” and most of the land is designated for future land use of residential or industrial. There is also approximately 9% of the dry land that has been given a “protection unlikely” scenario and the majority of this land falls either in the conservation/environmental or the public/semi-public future land use category.” 140

Figure 67: Future Land Use breakdown of acreage in the region subject to sea level rise

Figure 68: Acreage by Likelihood of Shore Protection

Figure 69: Percentage of Dry Land by Likelihood of Shore Protection

141

LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION III SOURCE: Hillsborough County. (2015). Hillsborough County local mitigation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management/local-mitigation- strategy

Summary The worst-case scenario for Hillsborough County is a Category 5 Hurricane heading northeast at less than 15 miles per hour that makes landfall at high tide near Madeira Beach in Pinellas County. A potential 28-foot storm surge in the Back-Bay areas would inundate the County several miles inland while the winds would destroy thousands of homes and cause damage to thousands more.

Based on the National Climate Assessment (NCA) report from 2013, the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites since 1992, has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century. Sea level is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet in this century. A wider range of scenarios, ranging from 8 inches to 6.6 feet of rise by 2100.

Standards: To enable coordinated planning and policy efforts, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel has developed recommendations for local governments with projections of scientific data through 2100. They have determined a sea level rise between 6 inches to 2.5 feet in 2050.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STORM SURGE CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION STUDY (2012) SOURCES: HSA Engineers & Scientists. (2012). Hillsborough County storm surge chemical contamination study. Retrieved from https://hsweng.com/wp-content/uploads/Artcile-Pages-from-October-2018-Edition.pdf

Mosaic Company. (2017). Defining Gypstack. Retrieved from http://www.mosaicco.com/florida/new_wales_water_loss_incident_resources.htm

Tampa Electric Company. (2018). Big Bend Power Station North and South Economizer Ash Ponds Closure Plan. Retrieved from https://www.tampaelectric.com/files/environment/teco-big-bend-economizer-ash-closure- plan.pdf

Summary In 2012, Hillsborough County contracted HAS Engineers & Scientists Consultants to conduct a storm-surge chemical contamination study (CCS) in conjunction with an update to the Hillsborough County Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP). HSA identified inundation zones, cataloged existing hazardous materials in Critical Facilities in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties and evaluated the dangers to human health and the natural environment from chemical/hazardous material contamination during a major storm surge event.

Terms Acute Exposure - One or more doses of short duration spanning less than or equal to 24 hours, and is likely to cause health risk.

142

Chronic Exposure - Continuous exposure over an extended period or a significant fraction of an individual’s lifetime.

Critical Facility - In this study, represents the facilities currently and potentially holding hazardous materials

Objectives 1. Investigate and identify the inundation areas under Category 3 through 5 storm surges. 2. Inventory and catalog existing and potential facilities holding (i.e., using or storing) hazardous materials within the areas controlled by Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties; and 3. Evaluate and identify dangers to human health and the natural environment from the potential chemical and hazardous material contamination occurring from a major storm surge event.

Models Used Cylindrical Water Column Model (CWCM) - Non-petroleum releases were modeled using a Cylindrical Water Column Model (CWCM), which assumes the chemicals/hazardous materials released are thoroughly diluted within the water column. It does not account for any additional chemical interactions occurring within the water column. The eventual fate of the water in the CWCM depends upon the physiochemical properties of the contaminant(s) and the extent of the storm-surge/inundation.

General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME) - Utilized for predicting the fate and transport of fuel oil and petroleum released during the storm-surge event.

Chemical Hydrodynamic Dilution Model (CHDM) - Simulates the travel of chemical contaminants during hurricanes.

Findings From their report: “Studies have shown that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, storm surge was responsible for the majority of petroleum releases, and the failure of storage tanks was the most common mechanism of release. Potential sources of contaminants following storm surge and flooding include: chemicals leaching from industrial facilities; sewage leaking from the wastewater collection system; septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants; gasoline leaking from submerged vehicles and fuel stations; businesses and submerged homes; and decaying vegetation and other organic debris. Inundation of historically contaminated soils and redistribution of historically contaminated aquatic sediments also raised concerns for potential adverse effects on human health and the ecosystem.”

In addition: . 510 critical facility sites were identified in Hillsborough County with 133 (26%) within storm surge Cat 5 boundaries. o 28 were identified as having one or more hazardous materials stored onsite at an amount that could cause potential human health and environmental concern through either surface water or soil contamination. Such materials include acids, ammonia, chlorine, petroleum fuels/oils, metals, phosphorus, organic pesticides and insecticides, and other toxic chemicals. . Majority of petroleum releases caused by storm surge . Most common mechanism of release is failure of storage tanks. “Flooding caused tanks to dislodge from their foundations and move” . Contaminants of major concern included heavy metals, pesticides, volatile and semi volatile organic pollutants, and microorganism . Acute risk occurs through air and water during storm surge 143

. Acute and/or chronic risk occurs from impacted waters, soils, and/or buildings

Figure 70: Behavior of Chemical Release in Water

Analysis According to the text, “Inundation boundary maps under a Category 3 to 5 storm surge were generated using the Hillsborough County GIS database […] Among the 65 Critical Facilities located in the storm surge category in Hillsborough County, 110 chemical inventory records were held in the facilities, with the majority as acids with inventory record (i.e., 56 sulfuric acid, 5 nitric acid, and 2 hydrofluoric acid), followed by ammonia (8), fuel/oils (8), chlorine (7), lead (7), and some organic and inorganic compounds”. 144

Figure 71: Flow Chart for Chemical Contamination Analysis

Critical Facilities: The following table (Table 2) lists the number of critical facilities that located are in a Category 5 Storm Surge Zone. These facilities are also show in map below (Map 1). In Hillsborough County, there are 65 critical facilities located in a Category 5 zone.

16 were identified as “having one or more hazardous materials on site that could cause potential chronic health and environmental concern through either surface water, ground water as a source of drinking water, or soil contamination as the direct exposure to residential people”.

Figure 72: Critical Facilities Located in Category 5 Storm Surge Zone

145

Figure 73: Critical Facilities Located in Storm Surge Zones Map 146

Figure 74: Critical Facilities at Hillsborough County with Chemical Contamination Concern 147

Six sites “may cause acute exposure risk due to the potential residuals of pure of concentrated hazardous materials”. These are listed in Map 3 below. Toxic Organic Materials, particularly pesticides and insecticides, (at sites #194 and #362) may cause acute toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial species. Table 3 (below) lists these hazardous chemicals and their respective threat to species.

Figure 75: Acute Toxicity Analysis to Aquatic and Terrestrial Organisms

Other Potential Concerns: . Rail car facilities . Gypsum stacks and leaching tests – locations not available . Lead paint in old buildings . Toxic organic compounds and heavy materials – impacts to water bodies and buildings . Graveyards and floating caskets- release of chemicals into the soil such as arsenic, mercury, formaldehyde, varnishes, sealers, preservatives, lead, zinc, copper, and steel. There is also the concern that historical infectious bacterial and viral diseases could be spread (although not likely) . Most contaminants were caused by the redistribution of existing contamination instead of new hazardous material releases. . Hazardous waste facilities, superfund sites, brownfield sites, solid waste facilities, storage tanks, stores and disposers of hazardous waste.

148

Figure 76: Critical Facilities at Hillsborough County with Potential Acute Concern 149

REVIEW OF HURRICANE CASE STUDIES: LESSONS LEARNED KATRINA, RITA, IKE Chemical Release Scenarios: . Storm surge was responsible for most of petroleum releases, while failure of storage tanks was the most common mechanism of release. . Flooding caused tanks to dislodge from their foundations. . Most hazardous material releases from offshore industry came from platforms.

Contaminant Transport, Fate, and Potential Impact: . If removal of floodwaters does not occur immediately, sediment deposition can occur creating inconsistent distribution of each hazard. . Contaminants can settle into the sediment (such as heavy metals, pesticides, and petroleum organic compounds) causing long term health effects. . Contaminants of major concern are heavy metals, pesticides, volatile and semi-voltine organic pollutants (petroleum components), and microorganism (bacteria, pathogen and mold).

Heavy Metals: . In some samples, lead and arsenic exceeded drinking water standards

Microorganisms: . Surface waters contained high concentrations of bacterial indicators (enterococci, fecal coliforms, and E. Coli) . “Elevated metal presence was exacerbated by high bacterial counts in floodwaters and homes. Bacterial exposure to toxic metals accelerates development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which could pose public health concerns”. . Mold . “Overall data suggest that what distinguishes Hurricane Katrina floodwater is the large volume and long retention time, and the human exposure to these pollutants that accompanied the flood, rather than very elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants. The contaminants left in the soil, sediment, and homes after the floodwaters receded could pose long-term chronic adverse effect on human health”.

GENERAL BEHAVIOR OF CHEMICALS RELEASED IN WATER It is important to note that, “The hazardous chemicals may react with water or other chemicals when mixed due to incompatibility. For example, concentrated sulfuric acid may release large amounts of heat, resulting in extremely vigorous boiling when mixed with water”. 1. Evaporate rapidly 2. Float on surface water 3. Completely dissolve 4. Sink to the bottom.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CRITICAL FACILITIES Major toxic presence in the county (in decreasing order): 1. Acids- 56 Sulfuric, 5 nitric acid, 2 hydrofluoric acid 2. Ammonia- 8 3. Fuel/ Oils- 8 4. Chlorine- 7 5. Lead- 7 6. Organic and Inorganic compounds- some

150

Acids: Five critical facility sites in Hillsborough County “have acids onsite at an amount that could cause a significant pH drop in the surface waters. The presence of additional chemicals such as chlorine, can potentiate the effects of acid and lower the pH further. The significant pH drop could cause localized corrosion or ecosystem concern, but this impact should be short-term”.

Chlorine: The pH of seawater/surge water can be significantly decreased with the presence of chlorine.

Metals: Lead is the only metal to worry about it the region. “Four critical facility sites are identified as having lead onsite at an amount that could cause lead concentrations in surface water, and exceeding the fresh surface water criteria”.

Phosphorus: “One critical facility is identified as having amorphous phosphorus held onsite at an amount that could cause phosphorus concentrations in water, exceeding the health-based groundwater criteria.” Phosphate ore is dissolved in sulfuric acid to release phosphogypsum. Phosphogypsum, a mildly radioactive waste product, is stored in environmentally unstable ‘gypsum’ stacks. The stacks contain uranium and its decay product, radium sulfate. Gypsum stack locations and outcome of leaching studies have not been included in the CCS. Data from Mosaic is unavailable; however, this does not mean they are immune to the effects of storm-surge events or inundation. Earthen dikes and stack walls can fail and release radioactive water into surge-water and soil.

Figure 78: Major Components of a Gypsum Stack

Toxic Organics: “Three critical facility sites are identified as having pesticides (i.e., aldicarb, endosulfan, fenamiphos, and dimethoate) and other organic compounds (i.e., 40 phenol, and hydroquinone) held onsite at an amount that could cause human health environmental concerns through surface water and the contaminated soils”.

151

Ammonia: Four critical facility sites are identified as having ammonia held onsite at an amount that which could cause ammonia concentrations in surface water, and exceeding the fresh surface water and or groundwater criteria”. When it spills instantaneously, ammonia floats on the water surface, then rapidly dissolves within the water body into ammonium (NH4OH) or evaporates into the atmosphere as gaseous ammonia (NH3).

Fuel oil/diesel: There were four Critical Facilities holding diesel fuel oil, one holding gasoline and one holding motor oil. Modeling revealed that heavier fuels may cause tar ball formation while lighter oils are more likely to undergo evaporation.

Coal ash: Coal combustion residuals (CCR), more commonly referred to as coal ash, are created when coal is burned in coal-fired power plants. Coal ash includes a number of by-products such as Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, Boiler Slag, and Flue Gas Desulfurization Material. Coal sludge impoundments, or “ponds,” store liquid coal waste known as sludge or slurry. This sludge contains coal and an assortment of heavy metals. The EPA proposed modification to CCR impoundment construction regulations to enhance slope wall protection. These enhancements are designed to prevent groundwater contamination, surface erosion, wave action, and adverse effects of rapid drawdown. Tampa Electric Company (TECO) has CCR surface impoundments in Hillsborough County with a footprint of approximately 21 acres. Surge water inundation can weaken impoundment walls, triggering the release of billions of gallons of liquid coal waste potentially contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic chemicals. The contaminants foul groundwater, surface water, sediment and soil long after surge water recedes. Remediation is a complex and imperfect process that cannot fully restore the damaged ecosystem.

Figure 79: Modified from the Big Bend Power Station North and South Economizer Ash Ponds Closure Ponds.

152

SCENARIOS USED FOR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION

SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA (2017) SLR Year: 2040 (to coincide with Imagine 2040: Tampa Comprehensive Plan) SLR Intensity: Used four projections according to the NOAA standard, including . Low . Intermediate Low . Intermediate High . High Hurricane Intensity: N/A Model: . Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) basin layer. . Project is Sea Level Rise only . It does not include hurricanes.

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2017) Year: 2060 SLR Intensity: 2’ (Generalizing NOAA projections) Hurricane Intensity: N/A Model: . Base model unknown . Economic Impact Model RMI PI+ . Project is Sea Level Rise only. It does not include hurricanes

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MPO: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTATION PILOT PROJECT (2014) Year: 2040 (Long Range Transportation Plan horizon year) and 2060 (the Florida Transportation Plan horizon year) SLR Intensity: . High (source unknown) . Low (or Intermediate as defined by USACE)

*More emphasis on the High Scenario with Category 3 Storm Surge at LMS Working Group meeting December 2013 Hurricane Intensity: Category 1 and 3 Model: 153

. Florida Digital Elevation Model, obtained from GeoPlan Sea Level Scenario Sketch Planning Tool, funded by FDOT Office of Planning, Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) basin layer from Travel Demand Models, Regional Economic Models (REMPI). . Project is Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge. Also includes Inland Flooding. . The approach to assessing future vulnerabilities to inland flooding leveraged official 100-year (one percent annual chance) floodplain maps. Given projections for more frequent and intense extreme rainfall events coupled with forecasts for increasing urbanization (exacerbating runoff), events that exceed the current 100-year floodplain will occur.

Figure 80: Sea Level Rise Scenarios

TAMPA BAY DISASTER RESILIENCY STUDY: PROJECT PHOENIX (2011) SLR Year: N/A SLR Intensity: N/A Hurricane Intensity: Category 5 Hurricane Model: HAZUS MS, the risk assessment tool from FEMA

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A HURRICANE EVENT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (2009) SLR Year: N/A SLR Intensity: N/A Hurricane Intensity: Category 3 and 5 Model: . Data from the Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS) model was used to estimate structural damage and employment loss. Hurricane damage estimates were the derived by using a combination of MEMPHIS hazard risk assessment study along with the risk levels by geographic location. Surge, winds, and flooding were not recomputed. . For each of the events, two scenarios were modeled and analyzed: o Normal recovery o Accelerated recovery rates that are approximately thirty-three percent faster

154

SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (2006) Year: N/A SLR Intensity: All land within 1,000 feet of the coast and below 10’ elevation Hurricane Intensity: N/A Model: LIDAR grid elevations and elevation polygons from SWFWMD Mapping Procedures: 1. Created an Elevation polygon layer that only contained land with elevation 10 feet or below. 2. Unioned Land Use Land Cover (LULC) with Elevation to create 3. Selected all features with Elevation = 5 or 10 4. Add to selection all within 1000 feet of the shoreline. 5. Exported the selected features (study_area02) 6. Clipped Future Land Use (FLU) with study_area02 to create: study area_FLU 7. Unioned study_area02 with study_area_FLU to create: study_area03_final 8. Created an “Acres” and “Sea Rise” field in study_area03_final to calculate area and protection levels. 9. Applied the statewide approach by assigning the appropriate protection scenarios in the “Sea Rise” field for the features in study_area03_final. 10. Analyzed the protection scenarios for Hillsborough County

155

REFERENCES

BRPC / One Bay. (2017). The cost of doing nothing. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/2017-The_Cost_of_Doing_Nothing_Final.pdf

Hillsborough County Planning Commission. (2017). Sea level rise vulnerability assessment for the City of Tampa. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sea-Level-Rise- Vulnerability-Assessment-for-the-City-of-Tampa-rev5.pdf

HSA Engineers & Scientists. (2012). Hillsborough County storm surge chemical contamination study. Retrieved from https://hsweng.com/wp-content/uploads/Artcile-Pages-from-October-2018-Edition.pdf

Kosco, J., & Williams, C. (2014). County of Hillsborough final summary of green infrastructure inconsistencies and barriers in codes and guidance with action items. Retrieved from https://tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2014/TBEP_08_14_Final_Technical_Memo_HillsboroughCo_GI_Cod e_Barrier_Evaluation.pdf

Lausche, B. J. (2009). Policy tools for local adaptation to sea level rise. Marine Policy Institute at Mote Marine Laboratory. Retrieved from https://mote.org/media/uploads/files/Synopsis- Policy_Tools_for_Local_Adaptation_to_Sea_Level_Rise(fin).pdf

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (2019). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

Plan Hillsborough. (2014). Hillsborough MPO transportation vulnerability assessment pilot project. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/hillsborough-transportation-vulnerability-assessment-pilot-project/

Tampa Bay Climate Advisory Panel. (2015). Recommended projection of sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from http://www.stpete.org/sustainability/docs/Recommended%20Projection%20of%20Sea%20Level%20Rise %20in%20the%20Tampa%20Bay%20Region.pdf

Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel. (2019). Recommended projection of sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from https://www.tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2019/TBEP_05_19_CSAP_SLR_Recommendation.pdf

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the-tampa-bay-region

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2009). Economic analysis of a hurricane event In Hillsborough County, Florida. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/library/hillsborough/media- center/documents/emergency-management/21--pdrp-economic-analysis-of-a-hurricane.pdf

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2011). 2011 disaster resiliency study. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TB_DisasterResiliencyStudy2011.pdf

156

POPULATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH VULNERABILITIES

157

SUMMARY

The Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], created by CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP), is a tool that assists public health officials in mapping communities that need the most support in relation to natural disasters and hazardous events (Flanagan, Gregory, Hallisey, Heitgerd, & Lewis, 2011). It is comprised of fifteen social factors. (Flanagan et al., 2011). The SVI includes four categories with several variables related to vulnerability, and the of “Health” was added to account for vulnerabilities found in the research. Peer-reviewed journal articles, government websites, expert review, and news articles were employed in that respective order to compile a comprehensive list of their barriers to success in recovering from a natural disaster that would be different for their able-bodied and financially stable population counterparts. From these sources, a list of 48 vulnerable populations was created (see below).

•Below •Women •Limited •Mobile •Pregnant Poverty •Single-Parent English Homes Women •Unemployed •LGBTQ+ Proficiency •People in •Breastfeeding [LEP] •No High •Veterans Nursing Women •Undocument Homes School •Pet Owners •Mental illness Diploma ed Residents •Children in •Tourists •HIV/AIDS •Homeless •Ethnic Foster Care •Chronic

•New Health Minorities •Crowded Residents Health Issues •Refugees Housing •Working in •Diabetes •Immigrants •Group Flood-Specific •Hospice Quarters Occupations •People with •Dialysis Low Literacy •Multi-Unit •People •Oxygen Levels Structures whose Dependent •Living Near a Livlihoods •Dementia Depend on Hazardous sites •Food SocioEconomic Status Status SocioEconomic the Coast Insecure •Lack of •Age 17 or •People who Younger Vehicle Access are Household Household Composition •Over 65 Hospitalized •People with Well Systems •Physical

Housing Housing Transportation and Disability •Incarcerated •Mental Minority Status and Language Status Minority •Renters Disability •Homes •Deaf/Blind without Flood Insurance

Figure 81: List of vulnerable populations broken down into five categories, Adapted by the Social Vulnerability Index [SVI] (CDC, 2019)

158

VULNERABLE POPULATION GROUP SUMMARIES

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS [SES] When looking at socioeconomic status [SES] among vulnerable populations, the primary issue is the lack of access to resources. There are four populations that make up the category of socioeconomic status: those who live below poverty, are unemployed, have no high school diploma, and those who are currently experiencing homelessness. To determine the types of resources that are lacking, it is important to know the definition of SES. According to the American Psychological Association [APA] (2019), socioeconomic status is the “social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation.” Our team reviewed population characteristics related to education, income, and occupation that would deem a group of people vulnerable to flooding and hurricane events. As was mentioned above, these populations all share the obstacle of possessing too few resources to properly prepare and recovering from a flood or hurricane event. For many, that includes a lack of financial resources. These groups almost always also live below the poverty line and experience greater difficulty in preparing for an event as they are not usually able to take time off work to evacuate in the appropriate amount of time or prepare items needed during a hurricane or flood (Dash, 2010; SAMHSA, 2017). The APA also states that when examining SES, inequities in access to resources will be revealed along with issues of power and control (APA, 2019). Households who identify with any of these populations will face increased barriers when trying to prepare, evacuate, and recover from a natural disaster.

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND DISABILITY The next category, derived from the Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], refers to the social factors that relate to household composition. Obstacles these populations face revolve around the social characteristics discussed below. Populations in this category include: Women, Single Parents, LGBTQ+, Veterans, children (17 or younger), those over age 65, those who live in mobile homes, tourists, new residents, those who work in flood-specific occupations, and those whose livelihoods depend on the coasts. Many identify with more than one population. All share similar barriers to preparing, evacuating, and recovering from a flood or hurricane related event. Issues include fear of stigma, which is discussed in the section ‘Major Considerations’, physical barriers or other limitations that help cope with major life disruption such as hurricanes or flooding. Below are specific examples of a few obstacles some vulnerable populations face in the wake of flood or hurricane.

Women: Studies have shown that women’s vulnerability to disasters is shaped by gender roles, power and privilege, low wages, and secondary responsibilities (child care) (Enarson & Morrow, 1998). Women typically carry more responsibility when it comes to household decisions, and this is no different during emergencies, for mothers and wives carry the majority of the household responsibility for preparedness actions, evacuation decisions, and sheltering (Peek & Fothergill, 2008). As the primary caretakers, children require additional stockpiled resources in times of disaster such as diapers, formula, and baby food (Peek, 2013) (Tobin-Gurley & Enarson, 2013).

LGBTQ+: Different obstacles exist for the LGBTQ+ population. Many face more intense stigma and fear of going to shelters because there are people in the world who blame the LGBTQ+ population for the actual occurrence of weather events (Pasha-Robinson, 2017). In addition, many of the LGBTQ+ population are using hormone therapy, and 159 medication availability becomes a huge issue during storms (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2013). Medications can be disrupted or ruined by flood-related events through pharmacies having to shut down, medications becoming compromised by unclean floodwaters, left behind when evacuating, and running out of a prescription during the event before pharmacies re-open (American Red Cross, 2019). Veterans: Veterans already experience comorbidities with mental health and disability from the nature of their jobs as soldiers (Trivedi et al., 2015). During an emergency like a hurricane or flood, this is only exacerbated, and researchers have observed higher rates of PTSD after these events (Constans, et al., 2012).

Age Cohorts: Two populations related to different age cohorts. Age cohort was included because those under the age of 17 and over the age of 65 face increased risk on top of the risks mentioned above that would prevent them from recovering from a flood or hurricane event with success. They are also dependent on others many times for their care, and therefore, increased attention should be paid to these population groups.

Age 17 or less: School disruption is a huge issue for children (Age 17 or less) (Kousky, 2016). After a flood or hurricane, schools can be damaged and/or experience delays in re-opening because they were used as evacuation shelters (Kousky, 2016; Peek & Fothergill, 2008). This can lead to lower academic performance that is persistent as it can take at least three to four years to stabilize education after an emergency (Kousky, 2016). In addition to school, children can also experience heightened stress, fear, anxiety, inability to cope, and exaggerated response which can all manifest as developmental regression, withdrawal, clinginess, tantrums, enuresis, or somatic complaints, among other symptoms (Needle & Wright, 2015).

Over 65: Florida is home to the largest percentage of people over the age of 65 in the entire country. Lack of electricity from a flood or hurricane event greatly increases their risk of heat stress and heat stroke, which is worsened by asthma, lung infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CDC, 2017). The elderly are also at higher risk of experiencing other negative effects from hurricanes, as their mobility is decreased and it becomes harder for them to evacuate (Peek, 2010). Like those with HIV/AIDS among other populations, older persons are more susceptible to foodborne illness because they typically have lowered immune systems, which can sometimes be caused by medications that need to be taken (United States Federal Drug Administration, 2011). Many people age 65+ have hearing impairments which might make it difficult to hear and comprehend warnings they receive (Gruber, Rhoades, & Horton, 2013). Like many other groups, older persons typically require more medications, which can go bad without refrigeration, or can be compromised when exposed to unclean floodwaters (United States Federal Drug Administration, 2017).

MINORITY STATUS AND LANGUAGE The third category from the SVI factors is Minority Status and Language. People listed in this grouping all share the obstacle of communication that could prevent them from preparing for and recovering from a hurricane and flood event. This is portrayed through cultural and ethnic differences, as well as issues with literacy. Minority Status and Language is made up of the following populations: those with Limited English Proficiency [LEP], documentation status, ethnic minorities, refugees/immigrants, and people with low literacy levels. Most people who belong to these populations have a language barrier.

160

Language Barriers: Those with language barriers may have less access to warning information or experience more difficulties navigating recovery programs (Blazer & Murphy, 2008). Because of this, many will approach their preparedness to flooding and hurricane events in different ways than someone who speaks English as their first language or who was born in the United States. For example, Latino homeowners prefer to utilize friends and family as sources of disaster preparation information (Peguero, 2006).

Immigrants and Refugees: Meeting the needs of people in this category requires more creativity among county and city officials. Collaborating with community-based organizations is often in the best position to meet the specific needs of immigrants and refugees.

Undocumented Residents: Stigma may also exist for many minority groups such as undocumented residents. They receive mixed messages from government officials on the complicated rules about immigrant eligibility for public benefits, and they live in a generalized climate of fear due to harsh enforcement policies at the federal and state levels (GCIR, n.d.). All these combined make it very difficult for low- income immigrant hurricane survivors to obtain relief assistance from private and government relief agencies. Refugees also face these issues, even as legal residents, such as not understanding their rights in an emergency situation like a flood or hurricane (The UN Refugee Agency, 2007).

People with Low Literacy Levels: Other issues with language and communication occur among those who have lived in the United States all their lives. More than 20% of the U.S. population struggles with literacy, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] found that 50 percent of U.S. adults cannot read a book written at an eighth-grade level (OECD, 2012). People with low literacy levels face increased barriers in filling out and reading forms related to warnings and government issues (Associated Press, 2008). The lack of plain language in published information about evacuation and preparation exacerbates this disparity (Rowel, Sheikhattari, Barber, & Evans- Holland, 2010. OECD even found that the odds for reporting fair or poor health were four times greater for those with low literacy rates (OECD, 2012). This reveals a comorbidity with low literacy rates and health, which can further aggravate problems experienced during hurricane and flood events.

HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION The fourth category is Housing and Transportation, also adapted from the Social Vulnerability Index [SVI]. This category differs from Household Composition, for this section refers to the barriers created from the built environment rather than social factors. The populations included in Housing and Transportation include people who live in nursing homes or assisted living, children in foster care, crowded housings, repetitive loss homes, living near a superfund site, lack of vehicle access, people with well-systems, those who are incarcerated, renters, and those who live in homes without flood insurance. This category had the least research associated with flood and hurricane events. Nevertheless, people who belong to these populations still face similar barriers when it comes to preparing, evacuating, and recovering from natural disasters.

People in Nursing Homes: For example, in Florida, there are 4,403 nursing homes, or 10.8% that exist within a flood hazard zone, which represents 162,114 beds at greater risk to flooding (Florida Health Finder, n.d.). In Hillsborough County, there are 29 nursing homes and 263 assisted living facilities (Florida Health Finder, n.d.). How many of those exist within a flood zone? 161

Children in Foster Care: Children in foster care are also at higher risks of experiencing more negative effects from emergencies. Child maltreatment risk and reports increase following a disaster for children living in foster care (Florida Department of Children and Families, 2018). So, while someone might be worried about buying enough water to weather a storm, a child in foster care might be spending their time fearing what will happen to them physically or emotionally by their abusers.

Homes without Flood Insurance: Those who live in homes without flood insurance can experience anxiety or simply lack of a safety net in case there is a disaster (Leavenworth & Bland, 2018).

Prisoners: Prisoners face more obstacles to recovery, as their survival depends entirely on the institution they are incarcerated within. Prisoners add another complex layer to an already vulnerable population as they need to have constant monitoring, making evacuation and transfer of these individuals more difficult (Bohatch, 2018; Dolnick, 2012; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017).

HEALTH This next category – Health - was not a category in the SVI, but was identified as an issue that is exacerbated in times of emergencies; and emergencies themselves have huge impacts on survivor’s long-term health. The populations found in this category are pregnant women, breastfeeding women, those with mental illness, those who live with HIV/AIDS, those with chronic health issues like diabetes, those who are in hospice, those who are oxygen dependent, those who have dementia, the food insecure, people who are hospitalized, those with a physical disability, those with a mental disability, and those who are deaf and/or blind.

Pregnant Women: Women who are pregnant face serious risks during a hurricane or flood event such as an increased risk of preterm birth and not having postnatal formula for newborn babies (Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, 2010). Increased stress from these events can cause infants to have intrauterine growth restriction, low birth weight, a small head circumference, and even increase the risk of fetal death (Badakhah, Harville, & Banerjee, 2010; Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, 2010).

Women with Infants: Women with infants need to have support for breastfeeding if water sources are compromised, as the use of formula requires clean water source (United States Breastfeeding Committee, n.d.).

People with Mental Illness: Anyone’s mental health can be hampered by a flood or hurricane, but those with mental illness immediately face increased risks of being triggered, as any change in environment can trigger negative responses of mental illness (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.). In addition, coping mechanisms and the ability to recover may be more difficult to achieve (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.).

People with HIV/AIDS: People with HIV/AIDS have immune systems that are suppressed, and therefore, proper nutrition must be maintained even during times of disaster or consequences could be fatal (Anthonj, Nkongolo, Schmitz, Hango, 162

& Kistemann, 2015). Because of their compromised immune systems, they are more susceptible to infections in worsened air and water quality conditions (Anthonj et al., 2015). Lacerations received from any debris or broken structures during or after an event can create the ability to spread the virus as well (Anthonj et al., 2015).

People with Chronic Health Issues: Those with chronic health issues also face increased risk of disaster in a disaster. Confusion before and after natural disasters increases the danger for those with known cardiovascular issues, like diabetes, high blood pressure and smoking. Risks are also related to a lack of medications, the stress of being in a natural catastrophe, and a lack of access to medical care (Mask, 2018).

People with Asthma: For those with chronic conditions like asthma, damp buildings and furnishings promote the growth of bacteria, dust mites, cockroaches and mold, which can aggravate asthma and allergies and may cause the development of wheezing, coughs, and other allergic diseases (American Lung Association, 2018).

People who are Differently Abled: Those who are differently abled, or have a disability, highlight the underlying notion of why vulnerable populations need to be targeted. Vulnerable populations are harder to reach and experience worse results from emergencies like floods or hurricanes. Whether it be from needing wheelchair accessibility, to having a caretaker, or having access to medications, needing dialysis (requires electricity), or possessing the need to be communicated with in ways other than verbal speaking, people with disabilities are simply harder to reach and care for during an emergency (National Council on Disability, 2006; U.S. Department of Justice, 2012). However, this does not mean that vulnerable people deserve any lowered standards than the standards of care that can be provided to those who are able-bodied.

MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS

THE SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX [SVI] BACKGROUND SOURCE: Flanagan, B., Gregory, E. Hallisey, E., Heitgerd, J., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), 1-22. doi:10.2202/1547- 7355.1792

Summary The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) houses the Social Vulnerability Index [SVI]. It is an evidence-based and factual mapping of vulnerable populations. The SVI’s goal is to assist public health officials in mapping communities that need the most support in relation to natural disasters and hazardous events. The SVI is comprised of fifteen social factors that are listed below. These factors are visualized through maps that reveal four quartiles of vulnerability from lowest to highest. Below is also a map of Hillsborough County with the social vulnerability index overlaid.

GRASP is housed in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. In addition to the social vulnerability index, the CDC is a great resource for up to date information on vulnerable populations and emergencies. On their website, they have several factsheets published for both community members and health care workers to help better prepare themselves for natural disasters, chemical emergencies, radiation emergencies, bioterrorism, and disease outbreaks. In the Information for Specific Groups section, they provide monitoring, tools, and assessments for different populations including older adults, expectant and new parents, evacuees, children, 163 people with chronic illnesses, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, and tribal communities. The CDC is an incredibly reliable source with an ever-expanding knowledge for vulnerable populations.

Figure 82: CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index

Theme Social Factor

SES Below Poverty Unemployed Income No High School Diploma Household Composition and Disability Aged 65 or Older Aged 17 or Younger Civilian with a Disability Single-Parent Households

Minority Status & Language Minority Speak English “Less than Well” 164

Housing & Transportation Multi-Unit Structures Mobile Homes Crowding No Vehicle Group Quarters

Figure 83: Social Factors per Theme

DEVELOPING AN IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF ELDERLY ADULT’S VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE SOURCE: Rhoades, J., Gruber, J., & Horton, B. (2018). Developing an in-depth understanding of elderly adult’s vulnerability to climate change. The Gerontologist, 58(3), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw167

Summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] states that some groups are more vulnerable to climate change and will carry most of the burdens it brings. They also define vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.

Researchers employed a case study methodology utilizing a community-based action approach among elderly participants in Bridgeport, CT. A Likert scale survey ranking concern among 31 factors was created by participants who attended two vulnerability assessment meetings. Next, the survey was delivered in English and Spanish throughout Bridgeport.

Findings Participants reported effects from flooding including physical ailments and difficulty in the recovery process. Participants also noted the dangers of the electricity going out due to flooding and how it could prevent elders from running life-saving medical equipment, air conditioning, and refrigeration of food. A lack of electricity could cause medicines that require refrigeration, such as insulin, to spoil. The elderly could also become trapped inside their homes if the electricity goes out and they rely on an elevator or chairlift. There is also increased difficulty for elders after a storm in terms of leaving the house and managing debris on the road. The effects of flooding could also make it difficult for caregivers to reach their clients. In addition, damage to their houses could create unsafe living environments through mold and sewage contamination causing more negative health effects.

Participants identified personal characteristics as well as contextual factors that affect elders’ vulnerability to climate change.

Personal Characteristics That Increase Sensitivity to Climate Change: . Chronic health conditions - asthma, diabetes, lung infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . Living with a disability (i.e. traveling to a cooling center for someone confined in a wheelchair is incredibly difficult) . Alzheimer’s and other cognitive impairments o Makes it difficult to understand warnings, take steps to protect themselves, and navigate the recovery process . Hearing loss o Makes it difficult to hear warnings . Living alone- less likely to receive important warnings regarding climate-related stressors. 165

o Worsens if the elderly person has a limited understanding of communication technology o Lack social support networks needed to respond in an emergency . Living on a fixed income - not able to get necessary materials before, or pay to fix damages that occur from flooding.

Contextual Factors That Better or Worsen Adaptive Capacity: . Adequacy of transportation resources . Effectiveness of public warning mechanisms . Availability of resources to promote safe shelter . Adequacy of resources to aid in coping and recovery

Seniors who are more isolated on a more fixed income are at much higher risk than those with more social connections and financial resources. Even slight flooding could overwhelm adaptive capacity of seniors to successfully respond to flooding events.

SEXUALITY AND NATURAL DISASTER: CHALLENGES OF LGBT COMMUNITIES FACING HURRICANE KATRINA SOURCE: Haskell, B. (2014). Sexuality and natural disaster: Challenges of LGBT communities facing Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2513650

Summary Hurricane Katrina already revealed a pre-existing socio-ecological disaster in New Orleans. While sexuality exists as an intersection between race, income, and gender, there were many obstacles that the LGBT faced after Hurricane Katrina that were unique to the other population subsets. Historically, LGBT communities have been blamed for natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina took place days before the 2005 Southern Decadence- a festival that attracts the queer community. Because of this timing, much blame was given to the LGBT community. This created an extra obstacle to recovering for this community. This paper offers recommendations to include gender identity and sexual orientation sensitivity trainings required for FEMA staff. Further research is suggested to understand underground support systems that LGBT communities must help in times of need. LGBT individuals should also be placed at the decision-making table to ensure their needs are met appropriately. Objective: To examine the experience of LGBT communities within the heteronormative disaster relief system during Hurricane Katrina.

Additional Barriers: . No public or private employment discrimination protection based on sexual orientation in the three states hit the hardest by the hurricane- Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. . Gays already face a wage discrimination gap, increasing financial hardship. . Hurricane negatively impacted the gay tourist industry- a large portion of New Orleans’s queer culture. . In 2005, marriage was still only recognized between a man and a woman, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) allowed states like Louisiana to bar recognition of marriage if gained in a state that allowed same- sex marriages. Rights to a family home are only defined by marital status, so all lesbian and gay relationships were not recognized. If one partner with property rights was hurt or killed during the hurricane, the surviving partner now had no rights to the property. The same went for wills. 166

. This also occurred when partners of gay and lesbian relationships were not allowed to see their loved ones in the hospital because they were not married in the eyes of Louisiana law. . LGBT community at a higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS which carry their own set of barriers and vulnerabilities for this community in the aftermath of the hurricane. . Many faith-based organizations turned away LGBT community members when they sought help . Forced outings in shelter- many gay and lesbian people are not publicly “out,” but in practicing their family structure in a shelter, they were forced to be out.

NATURAL DISASTERS AND PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS SOURCE: Gomez, M. (2012). Natural disasters and people living with HIV and AIDS. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/blog/natural-disasters-and-people-living-with-hiv-and-aids-2

Effects of hurricanes on those living with HIV/aids: . Decreased air and water quality make people living with HIV/AIDS more susceptible to infections . Interruptions of treatment may occur if medicines run out, become lost, are ruined by floodwaters, or expire due to lack of electricity in the home . Access to care hampered due to damage to facility that works with those with HIV/AIDS . Disaster will interrupt mail which might interrupt revenue stream from Social Security or Medicare. . Co-occurrences with low-income individuals, compounding negative effects and adaptive capacity

THEY BLEW THE LEVEE: DISTRUST OF AUTHORITIES AMONG HURRICANE KATRINA EVACUEES SOURCE: Cordasco, K., Eisenman, D., Glik, D., Golden, J., & Asch, S. (2007) “They blew the levee”: Distrust of authorities among Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 277- 282. Retrieved form https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-07104-002 doi:10.1353/hpu.2007.0028

Summary Over 100,000 Louisianans did not evacuate despite receiving mandatory evacuation orders during Hurricane Katrina. Many factors played a role, including a general distrust in authorities. Minority groups and the government historically have a rocky relationship filled with mass amounts of civil rights abuses. Over 70% of New Orleans residents were of a racial minority prior to the hurricane. The levees that were broken disproportionately affected the poorer, blacker neighborhoods of the city. Perceived competency and equity were repeatedly mentioned as the foundation of the general distrust the community had and has for government officials. Many believed that their race affected their health and economic outcomes. This paper contains several quotes that discuss these issues faced by those who were directly affected by Hurricane Katrina. People are more likely to trust others that they view as invested in their welfare and concerned about their outcomes in life. To overcome these racial barriers, authorities must address distrust when crafting policy and outreach in regards to disaster preparedness and communications.

167

IMPACT OF A NATURAL DISASTER ON DIABETES SOURCE: Fonesca, V., Smith, H., Kuhadiya, N., Leger, S., Yau, L., Reynolds, K., John-Kalarickal, J. (2009). Impact of a natural disaster on diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32(9), 1632-1638. Retrieved from http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/32/9/1632.full.pdf

Summary This research examined the impact of Hurricane Katrina on health of individuals with diabetes. 1,795 subjects were observed before and after Hurricane Katrina. The study revealed that a major disaster had a significant effect on diabetes management and exacerbated already existing disparities among those living with diabetes. Economically, a lifetime cost of 504 million US dollars was accounted for the adult population affected due to the storm.

Findings include elevated blood pressure levels very shortly after the disaster that eventually declined in subsequent testing. This has been observed before in other short-term studies following hurricanes, but A1C levels were also tested in this study. A1C levels have many names, but can describe whether a person has prediabetes or diabetes, depending on the percentage of a person’s hemoglobin that is coated with sugar. The A1C levels are also a much more stable and reflect a longer time period that blood pressure. Long-term, the study saw an increase in the participants’ A1C levels.

Findings also concluded that there was a significant reduction in life expectancy and QALE in the participant population. This study was able to identify effects from a hurricane on those with a common chronic disease- diabetes.

THE IMPACT OF DISASTERS ON POPULATIONS WITH HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES SOURCE: Davis, J. R., Wilson, S., Brock-Martin, A., Glover, S., & Svendsen, E. R. (2010). The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 4(1), 30- 8. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/s1935789300002391

Summary A systematic literature review was performed using the following search terms: disaster, health disparities, health care disparities, medically underserved, and rural. Rural communities across the country experience more negative effects from disasters due to poor public health infrastructure. Medically underserved areas lack resources and access to health care, which is then exacerbated by a disaster. Left untreated, preexisting chronic health problems can quickly escalate to acute in the wake of a disaster and an overwhelmed public health infrastructure in these rural areas of medical underservice. Initial acute disorders might create a secondary surge in required medical care after an event. Secondary surge is defined as the sudden increase in the need for long- term health care services for incident chronic diseases following a disaster. No research on secondary surge after a disaster is currently in existence. Rural areas have been long documented to have higher mortality rates attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases, but the rural south faces increased threats due to the geographical risk for natural disasters in the area. This literature review reveals the lack of research when it comes to many vulnerable populations- and in this case- those who live in medically underserved areas.

168

THE IMPACT OF HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: A LOOK BACK AND REMAINING CHALLENGES SOURCE: National Council on Disability. (2006). The Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on People with Disabilities: A Look Back and Remaining Challenges. Washington D.C: National Council on Disability.

Summary This paper references the effects hurricanes have on those who are disabled. The issues relate to pre and post hurricane evacuations, communication to those with hearing and visual impairments, and among institutions that house those with disabilities. . During Hurricane Katrina and Rita, most evacuation buses did not have wheelchair lifts, making those who rely on wheelchairs unable to evacuate. . Necessary information regarding evacuation was not communicated effectively to people with visual and hearing disabilities. . Some of the most visible and alarming evacuation failures were the failures of some nursing homes to evacuate their residents, resulting in the deaths of at least 68 nursing home residents during Hurricane Katrina . Those with disabilities faced issues once inside the shelter- including not being able to access medical care, restrooms, and food and shuttle services at the evacuation centers. . There were not enough special needs shelters to properly house all who evacuated with disabilities. . Short-term FEMA housing was not ADA approved and not accessible by those with wheelchairs.

GRANTMAKERS CONCERNED WITH IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES SOURCE: Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees. (2017). The impact of natural disasters on immigrants and refugees in the United States: What funders need to know in the immediate term. Retrieved from https://www.gcir.org/sites/default/files/resources/GCIR-Impact-Natural-Disasters-on-Immigrants-Brief.pdf

Summary The Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees [GCIR] is a network comprised of local, state, and national funders who wish to address challenges facing immigrant, refugees, and their communities. They published “The impact of natural disasters on immigrants and refugees in the United States” which documents the specific issues these populations face. . 20% of Florida’s population is foreign-born o These include particularly vulnerable populations such as undocumented immigrants, DACA recipients, holders of Temporary Protected Status [TPS], temporary workers and farmworkers, refugees and asylum seekers o An estimated 150,000-200,000 migrant and farmworkers live in Florida . People of foreign-born status live with additional barriers such as immigration status and limited English proficiency . Harsh immigration enforcement policies as well as prevalent anti-immigrant sentiments create heightened fears and anxieties that prevent many of our foreign-born population from seeking the help they need.

169

Additional Barrier: The following are a list of additional barriers faced by immigrants and refugees in the wake of a hurricane or flooding event. . Barriers in accessing disaster relief and public benefits o Mixed messages from government officials combined with generalized fear of government officials makes it incredible difficult to obtain relief assistance from private and government relief agencies. . Complications for immigrants who lack or are unable to prove lawful status o Storms could cause many families to lose necessary documents that prove legal status o If many legal immigrants lose their job due to the hurricane, they risk falling out of status because their documents relied on them having a job . A hostile anti-immigrant climate o Laws that allow law enforcement officials to ask for documentation status to any person they believe could be an illegal immigrant is an example of how a hostile anti-immigrant climate can negatively affect those who are legal immigrants and refugees . Disruption of refugee integration services and re-traumatizing of refugees o Refugees may experience trauma if they need to be relocated due to damage done to their homes during a hurricane. This is called re-traumatization and has long-term physical and mental health impacts . Compromised local service infrastructure o Community-based organizations work a great deal with these populations. Hurricanes may disrupt their ability to work and will greatly impact refugees and immigrants. . Exploitation of immigrant workers o Low-wage immigrant workers face higher risk of exploitation and was documented in relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Wage and hour violations as well as health and safety issues for these populations will always be of great concern in companies that exploit them after disasters occur.

A SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT SOURCE: Flanagan, B., Gregory, E. Hallisey, E., Heitgerd, J., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1). Retrieved from https://svi.cdc.gov/Documents/Data/A%20Social%20Vulnerability%20Index%20for%20Disaster%20Management. pdf

Summary This article describes the development of the SVI including the 15 census variables at the census tract level. It documents that vulnerable populations with high social vulnerability are more likely to suffer more human and economic loss than others. They are also less likely to recover from disasters. It ends by exploring the impact Hurricane Katrina had on local populations using the SVI. Below is an example of a map they were able to make utilizing data on drowning’s and a factor of the SVI: over age of 65.

170

Figure 84: Katrina-Related Drowning Deaths and Social Vulnerability Index for the Elderly

SVI 2016 DOCUMENTATION SOURCE: Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry / Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. Social Vulnerability Index 2016 Database. (Accessed June 17, 2019). Retrieved from https://svi.cdc.gov/Documents/Data/2016_SVI_Data/SVI2016Documentation.pdf

Summary This summary data sheet is produced by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for the purposes of explaining the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) describes briefly: . What is Social Vulnerability? . What is the Social Vulnerability Index? . How can the SVI help communities be better prepared for hazardous events?

The document also describes the methodology and metadata for producing data from the CDC’s SVI tool. The following graphic is shown, describing the categories used for the SVI.

171

Figure 85: SVI Categories

172

REFERENCES

Abel, M. T., Suedel, B., Presley, S. M., et al (2010). Spatial distribution of lead concentrations in urban surface soils of New Orleans, Louisiana USA. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 32(5), 379–389. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/17512205/Spatial_distribution_of_lead_concentrations_in_urban_surface_so ils_of_New_Orleans_Louisiana_USA

Abramson, D., & Garfield, R. (2006). On the edge: Children and families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita face a looming medical and mental health crisis. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Retrieved from https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D88S4Z4B

Adger, W., Hughes, T., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 209(5737), 1036-1039. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a254/36c78ee383c458698ceca7116f8cb1d8520b.pdf doi:10.1126/science.1112122

Amadeo, K. (2018, July 04). Hurricane Katrina Facts, Damage, and Costs. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts-damage-and-economic-effects-3306023

Anthonj, C., Nkongolo, O. T., Schmitz, P., Hango, J. N., & Kistemann, T. (2015). The impact of flooding on people living with HIV: a case study from the Ohangwena Region, Namibia. Global health action, 8, 26441. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/gha.v8.26441?needAccess=true doi:10.3402/gha.v8.26441

Badakhsh, R., Harville, E., & Banerjee, B. (2010). The childbearing experience during a natural disaster. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing: JOGNN, 39(4), 489-97. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2010.01160.x

Badiaga, S., Raoult, D., & Brouqui, P. (2008). Preventing and controlling emerging and reemerging transmissible diseases in the homeless. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 14(9), 1353-1359. Retrieved from doi.org/10.3201/eid1409.082042

Bathi, J. R., & Das, H. S. (2016). Vulnerability of coastal communities from storm surge and flood disasters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), 239. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020239

Beaubien, J. (2018, September 24). Floodwaters from Florence Hit Elderly Hard. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/09/24/650957451/flood-waters-from-florence-hit-elderly-hard

Bethel, J. W., Burke, S. C., & Britt, A. F. (2013). Disparity in disaster preparedness between racial/ethnic groups. Disaster health, 1(2), 110-116. Retrieved form https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/dish.27085 doi:10.4161/dish.27085

Biswas A, Rahman A, Mashreky S, Rahman F, Dalal K. (2010). Unintentional injuries and parental violence against children during flood: A study in rural Bangladesh. Rural and Remote Health, 10, Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45612782/article_print_1199.pdf?response- content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DUnintentional_injuries_and_parental_viol.pdf&X-Amz- Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190807%2Fus-east- 1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190807T185919Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz- SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz- Signature=3bc1f687b186bda8858d97100d667b2493edd79434820338d7718b46da5ecb46

Blazer, J., & Murphy, M. (2008). Addressing the needs of immigrants and limited English proficient (LEP) communities in disaster planning and relief. Immigrants’ Rights Update, 22(8), 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse- resources/resources/NILC%20Immigrants%20and%20LEP%20Disaster%20Planning/ 173

Bohatch, E. (2018). SC officials won’t evacuate medium-security prison despite mandatory order. The State. Retrieved from https://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article218179005.html

Bowersox, Z. (2017). Natural disasters and human trafficking: Do disasters affect state anti-trafficking performance. International Migration, 56(1), 196-212. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imig.12374 doi:10.1111/imig.12374

Brandt, M., Brown, C., Burkhart, J., Cox-Ganser, J., Damon, S., Falk, H…. Weissman, D. (2006). Mold prevention strategies and possible health effects in the aftermath of hurricanes and major floods. In the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [MMWR]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5508a1.htm

Brunkard, J., Namulanda, G., & Ratard, R. (2013). Hurricane Katrina deaths, Louisiana, 2005. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 2(4), 215-223. Retrieved form https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health- preparedness/article/hurricane-katrina-deaths-louisiana-2005/8A4BA6D478C4EB4C3308D7DD48DEB9AB

Bullard, R. D. (2008). Differential vulnerabilities: Environmental and economic inequality and government response to unnatural disasters. Social Research, 75(3), 753-784. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/527610/pdf

Cahyanto, I., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2015). Communicating Hurricane Evacuation to Tourists: Gender, Past Experience with Hurricanes, and Place of Residence. Journal of Travel Research. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513517418

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Emergency preparedness & vulnerable populations: Planning for those most at risk. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/whatwedo/vulnerable.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Heat and older adults. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/older-adults-heat.html

Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry / Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. Social Vulnerability Index 2016 Database. (Accessed June 17, 2019). Retrieved from https://svi.cdc.gov/Documents/Data/2016_SVI_Data/SVI2016Documentation.pdf

Children's Bureau. (2016). Disaster planning for child welfare agencies. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/disasterplanning.pdf

Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. (2010). Preparing for disasters: Perspectives on women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 457. Retrieved from https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on- Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Preparing-for-Disasters-Perspectives-on-Women

Compton, J. (2017, September 6). Deadly hurricane exposes dangers of being LGBTQ and homeless. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/hurricane-harvey-exposes-dangers- being-lgbtq-homeless-n799126

Connecticut Developmental Disabilities Network. (2002). A guide for including people with disabilities in disaster preparedness planning. Retrieved from https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse- resources/resources/CDDH%20Disability%20Guidelines/

Constans, J., Vasterling, J., Deitch, E., Han, X., Tharp, A., Davis, T., Sullivan, G. (2012). Pre-Katrina mental illness, post disaster negative cognitions, and PTSD symptoms in male veterans following Hurricane Katrina. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(6), 568-577. Retrieved form https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-05371-001 doi:10.1037/a0027487 174

Cordasco, K., Eisenman, D., Glik, D., Golden, J., & Asch, S. (2007) “They blew the levee”: Distrust of authorities among Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 277- 282. Retrieved form https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-07104-002 doi:10.1353/hpu.2007.0028

Cutter, S., Mitchell, J., & Scott, M. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the American Geographers, 90(4), 713-737. Retrieved from http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/06upgrade/Social- KateG/Attachments%20Used/SpatialDimensionVulnerability.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/0004- 5608.00219

Dash N, McCoy BG, Herring A. Class. In: Phillips BD, Thomas DSK, Fothergill A, Blinn-Pike L, editors. Social vulnerability to disasters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010. pp. 75–100. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1201/b14854

Davis, J. R., Wilson, S., Brock-Martin, A., Glover, S., & Svendsen, E. R. (2010). The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 4(1), 30-8. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/s1935789300002391

Donner, W., & Rodríguez, H. (2008). Population composition, migration and inequality: The influence of demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. Social Forces, 87(2), 1089–1114. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0141

Dosa, D., Grossman, N., Wetle, T., & Mor, V. (2007). To evacuate or not to evacuate: Lessons learned from Louisiana nursing home administrators following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 8(3), 142-149. Retrieved from https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525- 8610(06)00584-6/abstract doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2006.11.004

Enarson. E., & Fordham, A. (2001). Lines that divide, ties that bind: Race, class, and gender in women’s flood recovery. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 43- 52. Retrieved from https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse-resources/resources/AJEM%20Flood%20women/

Enarson, E., & Morrow, B. H. (1998). Why Gender? Why Women? An introduction to women and disaster. In the Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes, ed. Elaine Enarson and Betty H. Morrow (Westport, CT: Praeger). Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30447066/Preface___EnarsonMorrowIntro.pdf?r esponse-content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Gendered_Terrain_of_Disaster_Through.pdf&X-Amz- Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190807%2Fus-east- 1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190807T191352Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz- SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz- Signature=b306158e190610fc9ff9f2d67e1b0a35978c4c22f701dd502827492c74221a58

Fay, L. (2018, January 02). Texas Schools Face Long Road to Recovery After Hurricane Harvey. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/texas-schools-face-long-road-to-recovery-after-hurricane-harvey/

FEMA, (2004). Questions and answers for undocumented immigrants regarding FEMA assistance. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2004/06/17/questions-and-answers-undocumented-immigrants- regarding-fema-assistance

Flock, E. (2017). Hurricane Irma leaves Florida trailer park residents with impossible choices. PBS News Hour. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ahead-irma-impossible-choices-orlando-trailer- park

Florida Department of Children and Families. (2018). Children in out-of-home care: Statewide. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/childwelfare/dashboard/c-in-ooh.shtml 175

Florida Health Finder. (n.d.). Facility/provider locator. Retrieved from http://www.floridahealthfinder.gov/facilitylocator/FacilitySearch.aspx

Fonesca, V., Smith, H., Kuhadiya, N., Leger, S., Yau, L., Reynolds, K., John-Kalarickal, J. (2009). Impact of a natural disaster on diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32(9), 1632-1638. Retrieved from http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/32/9/1632.full.pdf

Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2008). Displacement, gender, and the challenges of parenting after Hurricane Katrina. National Women’s Studies Association, 20(3), 69-105. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/~afotherg/NWSAarticle.pdf

Frankenberg, E., Sikoki, B., Sumantri, C., Suriastini, W., & Thomas, D. (2013). Education, vulnerability, and resilience after a natural disaster. Ecology and society: A journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability, 18(2), 16. Retrieved from doi:10.5751/ES-05377-180216

Frazier, T., Thompson, C., Dezzani, R., & Butsick, D. (2013). Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography, 42, 95-107. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004

Glassey S. (2018). Did Harvey Learn from Katrina? Initial Observations of the Response to Companion Animals during Hurricane Harvey. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI, 8(4), 47. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/4/47/htm doi:10.3390/ani8040047

Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees. (2017). The impact of natural disasters on immigrants and refugees in the United States: What funders need to know in the immediate term. Retrieved from https://www.gcir.org/sites/default/files/resources/GCIR-Impact-Natural-Disasters-on-Immigrants-Brief.pdf

Gomez, M. (2012). Natural disasters and people living with HIV and AIDS. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/blog/natural-disasters-and-people-living-with-hiv-and-aids-2

Government Accountability Office [GAO]. (2006). Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf Coast Hurricanes (Report No. 06-680R). Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06680r.pdf

Haskell, B. (2014). Sexuality and natural disaster: Challenges of LGBT communities facing Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2513650

Hikichi, H., Aida, J., Kondo, K., Tsuboya, T., Matsuyama, Y., Subramanian, S., Kawachi, I. (2016). Predictors of dementia in a natural disaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(45), E6911-E6918. doi:10.1073/pnas.1607793113

Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C., & Pal, R. (1999). Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) to summarize national environmental vulnerability proﬁles. SOPAC Technol. Rep. 275, 73. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lino_Briguglio/publication/267821112_Environmental_Vulnerability _Index_EVI_to_summarise_national_environmental_vulnerability_profiles/links/549d3d5f0cf2fedbc3104f77 /Environmental-Vulnerability-Index-EVI-to-summarise-national-environmental-vulnerability-profiles.pdf

Kousky, C. (2016). Impacts of Natural Disasters on Children. Future of Children, 73-92. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513517418

Leavenworth, S., & Bland, D. (2018, September 13). Got flood insurance? Thousands of homeowners in Hurricane Florence’s path do not. In Miami Herald. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en- us/weather/topstories/got-flood-insurance-thousands-of-homeowners-in-hurricane-florences-path-do- not/ar-BBNjA0r

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service [LIRS]. Disaster preparedness in migrant communities: A manual for first responders. Retrieved from https://www.lirs.org/assets/2474/disaster_preparedness_for_migrant_communities.pdf 176

Morrow, B. (2002). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00102

Murphy, J. A., Major. (2012, September 24). Two Case Studies on Jail Evacuations During a Natural Disaster: Iowa’s 2008 Flooding: Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.com/news/article/31330-two-case- studies-on-jail-evacuations-during-a-natural-disaster-iowa-s-2008-flooding-part-2

National Council on Disability. (2006). The Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on People with Disabilities: A Look Back and Remaining Challenges. Washington D.C: National Council on Disability. Retrieved from https://ncd.gov/publications/2006/Aug072006

National Health Care for The Homeless Council. (2016). Surviving severe weather: Tools to promote emergency preparedness for people experiencing homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse- resources/resources/Surviving%20Severe%20Weather%20Among%20Homeless%20Populations/

National LGBT Health Education Center. (n.d.) Emergency preparedness and lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender (LGBT) people: What health centers need to know. Retrieved from https://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Emergency-Preparedness-for-LGBT-People- Final.pdf

Needle, S., & Wright, J. (2015, November 01). Ensuring the Health of Children in Disasters. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/136/5/e1407

Onyenaka, B., & Jones, C. (2017). Why natural disasters hit vulnerable groups hardest, National league of cities. Retrieved from https://www.nlc.org/article/why-natural-disasters-hit-vulnerable-groups-hardest

Pasha-Robinson, L. (2017, September 6). Gay people to blame for Hurricane Harvey. Say evangelical Christian leaders. Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay- people-hurricane-harvey-blame-christian-leaders-texas-flooding-homosexuals-lgbt-a7933026.html

Peek, L., & Stough, L. (2010). Children with disabilities in the context of disaster: A social vulnerability perspective. Child Development, 81(4), 1260-1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01466.x

Peguero, A. A. (2006). Latino Disaster Vulnerability: The Dissemination of Hurricane Mitigation Information Among Florida’s Homeowners. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986305284012

Pyles, L., Kulkarni, S., & Lein, L. (2007). Food insecurity and economic survival strategies: The case of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Journal of Social Service Research, 34(3), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488370802086047

Rannard, G. (2018, September 13). Hurricane Florence: Prisons in hurricane's path not evacuated. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45509303

Rath, B., Donato, J., Duggan, A., Perrin, K., Bronfin, D. R., Ratard, R., VanDyke, R., & Magnus, M. (2007). Adverse health outcomes after Hurricane Katrina among children and adolescents with chronic conditions. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 18(2), 405-417. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 27, 2019, from Project MUSE database. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2007.0043

Rhoades, J., Gruber, J., & Horton, B. (2018). Developing an in-depth understanding of elderly adult’s vulnerability to climate change. The Gerontologist, 58(3), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw167

approach. Health Promotion Practice, 13(1), 124-132. Retrieved form https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910390312

Sanford, C., Jui, J., Miller, H., & Jobe, K. (2007). Medical treatment at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport after hurricane Katrina: The experience of disaster medical assistance teams WA-1 and OR-2. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 5(4), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2007.03.002

Save the Children. (n.d.). Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we- do/emergency-response/historical-emergencies/hurricane-florence

Stough, L. M., Villarreal, E., & Castillo, L. G. (2010). Disaster and social vulnerability: The case of undocumented Mexican migrant workers. In J. D. Rivera and D. S. Miller (Eds.), Minority resiliency and the legacy of disaster (pp. 297-315). New York: Edwin Mellen. Retrieved from https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/153543/Disaster%20and%20social%20vulnera bility-The%20case%20of%20undocumented%20Mexican%20migrant%20workers.pdf?sequence=1

Tobin, K., & Freeman, P. (2004). Emergency preparedness: A manual for homeless service providers. University of Massachusetts Boston. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umb.edu/csp_pubs/30/

Tobin-Gurley, J., & Enarson, E. (2013). “Gender.” Social Vulnerability to Disasters, 2nd Edition, edited by D. S. K. Thomas, B. D. Phillips, W. E. Lovekamp, and A. Fothergill, pp. 139-165. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). ADA checklist for emergency shelters. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap7shelterchk.htm

The UN Refugee Agency. (2007). The 10-point plan in action. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/the-10- point-plan-in-action.html

United States Breastfeeding Committee. (2011). Statement on infant/young child feeding in emergencies. Retrieved from http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/d/do/416

Waite, T., Chaintarli, K., Beck, C., Bone, A., Amlôt, R., Kovats, S., Oliver, I. (2017). The English national cohort study of flooding and health: cross-sectional analysis of mental health outcomes at year one. BMC Public Health, 17. Retrieved from https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016- 4000-2

Weems, C., Taylor, L., Cannon, M., Marino, R., Romano, D., Scott, B., . . . Triplett, V. (2010). Post-Traumatic Stress, Context, and the Lingering Effects of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster among Ethnic Minority Youth. J Abnorm Child Psychology, 49-56. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9352-y

Zoraster, R. M. (2010), Vulnerable populations: Hurricane Katrina as a case study. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 25(1):74–78. Retrieved from doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X00007718

178

ECOLOGIC VULNERABILITIES

179

SUMMARY

This research aims to identify how ecosystems are impacted by the influence of sea level rise and flooding, and to understand how impacts to one habitat zone may affect another. In order to approach the subject, environmental areas were categorized using common nomenclature from two popular texts about Florida ecology: The book Priceless Florida (Whitney, Means, & Rudloe, 2004) and The Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida (Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2010). This culminated in fourteen habitat zones under three general categories.

Interior Upland Rivers, Estuary Mesic Waters Coastal Springs, Seafloor Flatwood Streams

Oyster Beds

Pine Lakes and Flatwood & Ponds Dry Praire Mangroves

Swamps and Marshes HABITATS Interior Scrub Wetlands Beach, Dunes & Upland Hydric Wet Meadow Forests Hammock and Marsh

Tidal Flats

Coastal

Protection SERVICES

Nutrient Balance Environmental Regulation ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES ECOSYSTEM Wildlife Recreation Habitats Cultural & Economic Resource

Figure 86: Ecological Vulnerabilities Graphic

Six main ecosystem services, the landscape functions that could potentially be impacted by flooding, were taken from the Harte Institute in their presentation “Ecosystem Services Visualized”. (Plantier Santos, C., 2013) With those services in mind, the research settled on three stressors due to flooding: 1.) habitat loss or change, 2.) erosion, and 3.) hydrologic change. It is important to note that these functions are typical in natural processes. However, urban conditions can exacerbate potential issues or may prohibit a ‘natural’ response. Additionally, urban areas 180 may have developed dependencies on ecologic services, which are affected by a dynamic, changing ecological environment, or they may present issues of toxicity, disturbance or nutrient imbalance to the environment.

TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON STUDY SOURCE: Tampa Bay Estuary Program. (2016). Tampa Bay blue carbon assessment. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Tampa-Bay-Blue-Carbon-Assessment-Report- final_June2016.pdf

Summary This study highlights the substantial contribution that coastal wetlands provide to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing carbon as biomass in the soil.

Objectives: 1. “The past and potential future mitigation benefits of coastal habitat restoration and conservation in Tampa Bay.” 2. “Identify opportunities for enhanced ecosystem management for climate change benefits.”

Project Partners: . Restore America’s Estuaries . Environmental Science Associates . Tampa Bay Estuary Program . Tampa Bay Watch

Key Points . The Tampa Bay region particularly represents a subtropical low-lying shoreline, largely devoid of major terrestrial sediment input, which is a key component of coastal wetland resilience to sea-level rise. . Coastal habitats are highly productive and valuable ecosystem that contribute on important part of regional and global carbon cycle. . Tampa Bay Estuary Program has developed restoration and protection goals for critical habitats (e.g. wetlands, seagrass, mangroves, salt marsh and salt barren) found within the estuary. . Blue carbon stocks in Tampa Bay were found to be relatively insensitive to the loss of intertidal wetlands with greater levels of sea-level rise post-2050. . Maintaining water quality and creating space for wetland landward migration will be important to maintaining the extent of blue carbon ecosystems and carbon sequestration with sea-level rise

HABITATS

Seagrass Salt Mangrove Salt Coastal Tidal Flats Riverine Wetlands Meadows Marshes s Barrens Forest

181

Figure 87: Estuary Habitats Terms Blue Carbon - “Describes the carbon sequestration capabilities that marine systems provide”

Coastal Blue Carbon – “Recognizes that improved management of marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses can result in protection of vulnerable stocks of sequestered atmospheric carbon dioxide, now held in biomass and soils, and ongoing sequestration capacity.”

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) – A model developed by the EPA that Studies processes involved with coastal wetland migration and conversions with long-term sea-level rise.

The Tampa Bay Habitat Evolution Model (HEM) – created in response to the shortcomings of the SLAMM model, allows for more flexibility, identification of localized habitats, and allows for updates.

Deliverables After Assessment 1. “An updated Tampa Bay–wide spatial model of coastal wetland response to sea-level rise for Tampa Bay (Sheehan et al. 2016). . This model incorporates seagrass meadow migration, as well as intertidal marsh and mangrove response to sea-level rise. . Modeled projections forecast the extent of intertidal wetlands and seagrass meadows under low and high scenarios of sea-level rise under low and high accretion assumptions, recognizing sensitivity of intertidal wetlands to sediment supply. . Modeled scenarios enable the exploration of policy decisions to “hold the line” on all development and agriculture, or to promote a “soft retreat” alternative wherein some uplands can convert to tidal wetlands areas.”

2. “Tampa Bay specific quantification of carbon stocks in biomass and soils at 17 sites covering a range of habitats including mangroves (natural and restored), salt marshes, brackish marsh, and salt barrens (Moyer et al. 2016).”

3. “Tampa Bay specific quantification of mangrove and marsh soil building over the past century, including carbon stock change, derived by radiometric Pb210 dating (Gonneea 2016).”

4. “An investigation of a potential unrecognized inorganic carbon sequestration pathway for seagrass meadows (Tomasko et al. 2015).”

5. “An assessment of the role of seagrass meadows and hydro geomorphology in mitigating local ocean acidification (Tomasko et al. 2015).”

6. “Site prioritization for future intertidal wetland restoration using coastal blue carbon as an important decision criterion (Robison et al. 2016).”

182

Models Used 1. Habitat Acreages in Tampa Bay historically, currently, and in the future using the HEM model described below. 2. Consider how greenhouse gas fluxes have changed and will further change over time.

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM): The SLAMM Model has been used in the last two decades to “forecast changes in coastal wetland habitats in response to sea level rise […] (it) maps out how quantified linkages between habitat response and sea-level rise will drive habitat locations across a landscape, considering the effects of coastal elevations, sea level rise, accretion and erosion, and freshwater inflow. The model calculates habitat areas and maps habitat distribution over time based on inputs of existing vegetation, topography, accretion rates, and sea-level rise.”

The SLAMM model, however, is now considered to be negligent in identifying all processes involved in ecological habitats. It does not track high marsh and salt barrens, or the migration of brackish Juncus roemarianus marshes. Because of this, an accurate picture of the evolution of each of these habitats is not created.

The Tampa Bay Habitat Evolution Model (HEM): In response to the inadequacy of the SLAMM model, the Environmental Science Associates (ESA) developed the Tampa Bay Habitat Evolution Model (HEM). This model is more flexible in altering habitat categories, customizing habitat evolution tree- to focus on more localized topographies, and allows model updates.

Tampa Bay Historical Data: According to the document, “Historically, Tampa Bay tidal wetland habitats were composed of a mosaic of mangroves, salt marshes, and salt barrens. Since the nineteenth century, mangroves have become more dominant, although the extent of the change remains a question of interest (Raabe et al. 2012). However, significant progress toward achieving gains in salt marsh and salt barren habitats has been made since 1995 (Robison 2010). Additionally, seagrass restoration has been hugely successful in Tampa Bay with an increase of approximately 18,645 acres since 1982 as a result of improved wastewater and stormwater treatment as well as checks on dredging and filling activities (adapted from Robison 2010; Sherwood et al. 2015). […] Seagrass coverage increased more rapidly than mangrove coverage since the 1990s. Salt marsh acreage remained relatively steady from 1995 to 2007 (Table 1). Salt barren acreage has experienced a small increase, and is now roughly a third of the extent that was estimated in the 1950s.” (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2016) 183

Figure 88: Estimated Area of Tampa Bay Blue Carbon Habitats Over Time Carbon Habitats over Time TAMPA BAY PROCESSES, HABITATS, AND GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES Tides: “Salt marsh and intertidal habitats establish within zones corresponding to tidal inundation. Tides and tidal inundation within the Bay are therefore important processes affecting habitats within the Bay. The Tampa Bay tides are driven by ocean tides that propagate through the bay mouth and which affect tidal heights in the Bay relative to tidal heights in the ocean (e.g., through tidal muting or damping).”

Topography and Accretion: “The elevation of an area determines the frequency of tidal inundation and salinity, which then influences the type of vegetation that will establish. If the topography changes as a result of accretion (or restoration/grading), the habitat types can change in response […] Due to the flat topography of the Tampa Bay watershed, and corresponding low concentrations of suspended solids in tributary inflows, internal organic deposition tends to be the dominant accretion process in Tampa Bay”

Freshwater Inflow: “The influence of freshwater determines what type of vegetation can establish in that area. If the extent of freshwater influence increases, the extent of freshwater and brackish marsh habitats will increase. Conversely, if the area of freshwater influence is reduced, the extent of freshwater habitats will be reduced. The area or extent of freshwater influence can be inferred from the extent of existing freshwater habitats, correlated to freshwater inflows, and/or quantified through monitoring and modeling of freshwater inflows and salinity gradients.”

Habitats:

Sea Grass Meadows

Thalassia Testudinin (Turtle Grass) - “Turtle grass is the largest seagrass species, […] provide significant carbon storage and GHG sequestration potential previously recorded for the related species” 184

T. Hemprichii

Halodule Wrightii (Shoal Grass) - most common species in Tampa Bay “Shoal grass can tolerate more frequent exposure from low tides than other Tampa Bay seagrass species, which gave rise to its common name, and allows this species to grow in shallow, fringing areas adjacent to more dense turtle grass beds”

Syringodium Filiforme (Manatee Grass) - found in areas of higher salinity

Mangrove Forests - Mangrove forests produce, sequester, and export large pools of organic carbon, and as such are an important global blue carbon habitat”

Rhizophora Mangle (Red Mangroves) - At the lowest elevation usually along the fringing intertidal/shoreline zone

Avicennia Germinan (Black Mangroves) - Intertidal Zone

Laguncularia Raecmosa (White Mangroves) - Intertidal Zone

Conocarpus Erecta (Buttonwood) – mangrove associate, located upslope of the intertidal zone.

Polyhaline Salt Marshes - “included as a component of mangrove forests due to the difficulty in partitioning these habitats from mapping and land use cover analyses. Further, tidal wetland restoration practices in Tampa Bay have evolved to include careful grading and planting of pioneering salt marsh species (S. alterniflora) to encourage recruitment and retention of mangrove seedlings in order to revegetate and restore intertidal sites to a climax mangrove forest condition”:

Spartina Alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass)

Spartina Patens (Cordgrass)

Distichlis Spicata (Saltgrass)

Batismaritima (Saltwort)

Paspalum Vaginatum (Salt Jointgrass)

Meso-Oligohaline13 Salt Marshes or Brackish Marsh - “In Florida, oligohaline marshes are herbaceous wetlands located in tidally influenced rivers or streams, or coastal embayments, where the plant community exhibits a mixture of true marine plants and typical freshwater taxa such as cattails (Typha domingensis) and sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) that tolerate low salt concentrations. […]

Ecologically, oligohaline marshes and low salinity mangrove forests are recognized as critical nursery habitats for such species as blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), tarpon (Megalops atlanticus), and ladyfish (Elops saurus). Because recognition of this key role in estuarine life cycles has come only recently, much of this habitat has been lost or highly modified. The reduced amount of this habitat type may represent a limiting factor in total population sizes of some estuarine-dependent species”

185

Juncus Roemerianus (Black Needlerush)

Acrostichum Danaeifolium (Leather Fern)

Cattails

Sawgrass

Scirpus Robustus (Bulrush)

Hymenocallis Palmeri (Spider Lily)

Salt Barrens - “Tampa Bay salt barren habitats are found at the extreme, upper intertidal flat which is inundated typically only by spring tides once or twice a month. This results in hypersaline conditions with seasonal expansion of typically low-growing succulent salt-tolerant vegetation with lower interstitial salinities during the rainy season and retreat with less frequent inundation and rainfall. This produces the characteristic open unvegetated patches of the salt barren substrate. These areas are also referred to as salt flats or salterns. […] These areas have unique ecological values as seasonal feeding areas for wading birds when other habitats are unavailable, such as lower elevation mudflats that are more routinely inundated, and as night feeding habitats on spring tides for snook, tarpon, and ladyfish. Nonetheless, the ecological contributions of salt barrens to estuarine dependent species are poorly understood relative to other emergent tidal wetlands.”

Salicornia Bigelovii (Annual Glasswort)

Salicornia Virginica (Perennial Glasswort)

Monanthochloelittoralis (Key Grass)

Limonium Carolinianum (Sea Lavender)

Blutaparon Vermiculare (Samphire)

Sesuvium Portulacastrum (Sea Purslane)

HEM RESULTS According to the assessment, “The total extent of intertidal habitat changes little through time, decreasing slightly by 2100 for high rates of sea-level rise. However, as the rate of sea-level rise accelerates in the latter half of the century, the capacity of the wetlands to accrete vertically becomes sensitive to the availability of mineral sediments to support soil building. While there is potential for mangroves to transgress into salt and freshwater wetland areas, the model projects a decline of mangrove area under the low sediment availability scenarios (Run 3 and Run 5). Although intertidal habitat is projected to decline through the coming century, this loss is offset by an increase in area of subtidal seagrasses should water quality be maintained. “ (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2016).

Lower Sea- Level Rise Scenarios: . Acreage increases for salt barren, high salt marsh, Juncus roemarianus marsh, and mangrove habitats

186

Higher Sea- Level Rise Scenarios: . Acreage decreases for high salt marsh

High Sea-Level Rise and low accretion: . Juncus roemarianus marsh and mangrove habitats replaced by open water, and 15,000 acres were seagrass

Overall: . Many existing mangroves could be inundated by sea-level rise in 2100 to shallow subtidal zones suitable for landward seagrass expansion. . “Existing sea grass beds at deeper elevations could be drowned out by reduced light penetration caused by deeper water column” . Black Needle Rush (Juncus roemarianus) marshes are “restricted to lower-salinity zones found in tidal rivers and creeks” making them more vulnerable to sea level rise.

2020 Habitat Master Plan Update SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates. (2020). 2020 Habitat master plan update. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Retrieved from https://tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2009/TBEP_06_09_Habitat_Master_Plan_Update_Report_July_2010.pdf

Summary Tampa Bay is one of 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. By recognizing the value of the area, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP) runs an intergovernmental partnership that is dedicated to restoring and protecting the health of the Bay. The organization provides a series of planning and implementation documents that provide ongoing research and vulnerability assessments as to the health of the Bay and how that would impact the community.

Florida’s emergent tidal wetlands (mangrove forests, salt marshes, and salt barrens) exist in dynamic equilibrium that is affected by stressors like storm surge and flood damage, periodic freezes, and sea level rise. Trends document a net gain over the last 27 years, likely because of regulatory programs, restoration, and the possible aggregate effects of climate change with less freezes. Mangroves and salt barrens are migrating due to sea level rise.

Habitat Status and Trends

. The overall extent of freshwater wetlands has been almost stable over the past two decades. . There has been significant conversion of forested wetlands to non-forested wetlands. . There is a substantial loss of headwater stream, including impoundment for municipal drinking water, that compromises the salinity balance for estuarine communities. . Phosphate mining has substantially impacted the area’s watersheds. Just over ⅓ of the Alafia River watershed is left as reclaimed mined lands. . 39% of native upland habitats have been lost to development. Local governments must improve protections for native upland habitats.

187

Concern

. “Without adequate protection of native coastal uplands, as well as the reservation of soft development within the coastal stratum of Tampa Bay, the upland slope needed to accommodate the landward migration of tidal wetlands in response to sea level rise will be lost, resulting in a long-term decline in these habitats”. Low lying coastal uplands are critically important tidal wetland buffers and will be necessary to accommodate wetland migration. . The available acreage of potentially restorable tidal wetlands is expected to decrease rapidly with climate change and development pressure. . The main future stressors are land development, sea level rise, and climate change. o These create a level of uncertainty for ecosystems that will require adaptive management and iterative readjustments to what is possible. . Urban development will not allow room for communities to migrate as sea levels rise, which would effectively drown tidal wetlands. o Hardened coastlines, instead of natural edges, will confine and ‘pinch out’ coastal wetlands as sea level rises and they drown. . Sea level rise is happening too fast to allow for landward migration of tidal wetlands. . Expecting full ecosystem restoration on a human time scale is unreasonable

Conclusion

The Tampa Bay Watershed (the coastal stratum, the river floodplain stratum, and the upland stratum) provides critical wildlife habitat, provide important nutrients, stabilize shorelines and minimize erosion, and assimilate pollutants from urban runoff. Given development pressure and future climate stressors, there is a real and pressing need for adaptive management and contingency plans. Restoration strategies have been based on historic benchmarks (Restore the Balance), but need to recognize actual feasibility in the context of development related losses and sea level rise.

CARIBBEAN MANGROVES ADJUST TO RISING SEA LEVEL THROUGH BIOTIC CONTROLS ON CHANGE IN SOIL ELEVATION SOURCE: McKee, K., Cahoon, D., & Feller, I. (2007). Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea level through biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 545-556. Retrieved from http://www.ces.fau.edu/climate_change/everglades-recommendations-2014/session-g-resource-7.pdf

Summary Mangrove systems have survived throughout the years in varying conditions, however, their current survival depends on the SLR rate being equal to their peat formation rate. Mangroves can respond to SLR either through vertical building (soil accretion) or lateral retreat. However, some mangroves have restricted flexibility and mobility due to natural or human barriers, preventing the system from adapting to SLR.

The survey conducted produced evidence that “mangroves are an integral and active component of the coastal landscape and thus represent a natural defense against submergence and wetland loss due to sea level rise. Natural or anthropogenic disturbance that alter root dynamics may consequently impair the ability of such systems to accommodate to sea level rise”. The less mangrove roots accreting the soils and adapting our elevations, while erosion is still occurring, the more other habitats and our communities are at risk.

188

Mangrove Wetlands’ Ecological and Societal Services: . Nursery and shelter for commercially important marine organisms . Buffers against hurricanes . Filtration of terrestrial sediment and nutrients, reducing the load on more sensitive systems like seagrass and coral reefs . Ability to sequester carbon into soils faster than terrestrial ecosystems

Changes in the nutrient regime can cause significant changes in the rate mangrove roots accumulate and in what direction the elevation change occurs. Therefore, the National Science Foundation supported a geological survey to study mangrove islands in tropical and subtropical climates. Three vegetation zones in the Twin Cays were selected to randomly receive one of three nutrient treatments: nitrogen-fertilizer, phosphorous- fertilizer, and unfertilized controls. Each zone was exposed to the treatment for seven years at 6-month intervals through subsurface soils.

Figure 89: Data depicting responses of mangrove zones to nutrient treatments

Findings Unfertilized Nutrients: . Fridge zones showed an increase in elevation and surface accretion . Both the transition and interior zones experienced a decrease in elevation

Nitrogen-fertilized Nutrients: . Both the fringe and transition zones showed no net gain in elevation and exhibited subsidence rather than expansion . Root mortality was increased, causing greater subsidence of zones exposed to nitrogen

Phosphorous-fertilized Nutrients: . Fringe zones and transition zones showed no net gain in elevation and exhibited subsidence rather than expansion . Interior zones experienced visual peat formation and resulted in hummocks higher than systems exposed to unfertilized nutrients . Increased rates of accumulation on fine and coarse roots was observed in both the transition and interior zones 189

Conclusions . Analysis of the data gathered from the experiment on Twin Cays systems determined subsurface change as the detriment to elevation change. Subsurface factors include, below-ground root accumulation, root mortality and root decomposition. . “In order for root matter to accumulate, the rate of root decomposition must be slower than the rate of root production”. Mangroves systems at Twin Cay had very slow decomposition rates and experienced minimal affects from external nutrient treatment. “Slow decomposition and lack of response to external nutrient treatment probably reflected the inability of the microbial community to decompose refractory root tissues under flooded, anaerobic conditions. Thus, change in elevation of these intertidal islands varied primarily with inputs of mangrove roots, which resist microbial decay due to their refractory nature and anaerobic conditions limiting decomposers”.

PREDICTING THE RETREAT AND MIGRATION OF TIDAL FORESTS ALONG THE NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO UNDER SEA-LEVEL RISE SOURCE: Doyle, T., Krauss, K., Connor, W., & From, A. (2010). Predicting the retreat and migration of tidal forests along the northern Gulf of Mexico under sea-level rise. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 770-777. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.023

Summary This study analyzed the five Gulf of Mexico coastal states, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida by applying the Sea Level Over Proportional Elevation (SLOPE) model to predict coastal forest retreat and migration from the current projected sea level rise (SLR). Their process divided the states into the 60 coastal counties and applied the maximum tidal range for each county to analyze the relationship between the migration of tidal forests and tidal range.

190

The following equation was used to determine how the forests would react to SLR: 풁ퟏ 풀 = 푿 × Y (predicated coastal forest retreat) 풁ퟐ X (total area of saltmarsh/mangroves) Z1 (projected SLR) Z2 (local tidal range)

Figure 90: Hillsborough County has a modernity high tidal range of 75-100cm

Figure 91: Hillsborough County will experience less than 1,000 ha of freshwater wetland los

Figure 92: Saltmarsh and mangrove forest accounts for 2,500-5,000 ha of land in in Hillsborough County 191

Figure 93: SLR will aid mangrove migration and growth, replacing saltmarsh, as seen by the increase of mangroves forests to 500-1,000 ha in Hillsborough County

Findings . Gulf of Mexico coastal states will experience dieback and retreat of tidal freshwater forests from an increase in “tidal inundation and saltwater intrusion due to SLR. Tidal saltwater forests (mangroves) will contrastingly expand landward and replace freshwater marsh and forest zones. . Areas with larger tidal ranges will experience greater storm surge and more saltwater intrusion. (See figure 92 for Hillsborough County tidal range) . Florida is expected to see proportionate disruptions in habitat with a change from “saltmarsh dominated coastlines to mangrove dominated shores”. (See figures 93 and 95 for Hillsborough County specific coastal habitat transformation) . A change of forest will have ramifications on the land and wildlife such as: o Saltwater intrusion will cause shifts in associated fisheries and bird populations, potentially resulting in a decrease in species diversity but an increase the saltwater species o The growth of mangrove forests will help stabilize coastal areas form erosion due to their unique root structures.

Figure 94: Potential tidal freshwater forest loss in comparison to saltwater forest gain in the states surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. Florida will experience proportionate loss and gain resulting in the change of forest type.

192

BARRIERS TO AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDWARD MIGRATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS WITH SEA- LEVEL RISE SOURCE: Enwright, N., Griffith, K., & Osland, M. (2016). Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea‐level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(6), 307-316. doi:10.1002/fee.1282

Summary Tidal saline wetlands (TSW) can thrive in stressful conditions, like sea-level rise (SLR), better than other ecosystems. In the past, TSWs have been able to equalize their vertical movement with the SLR rate and in instances where SLR has been greater than the vertical rate, TSWs have been able to migrate laterally landward into freshwater tidal forests. However, with an accelerated SLR and increasing anthropogenic activities such as urbanization and the construction of flood prevention infrastructure, barriers that impede ecosystems migration are being created. This study used the 2013 US National Climate Assessment SLR scenarios with and overlay of current urban, future urban, and leveed lands to evaluate how TSW’s migration techniques will be impacted by accelerated sea level rise and rapid coastal development. Their aim was to identify areas of migration opportunity and areas where migration is blocked due to urban development or flood protection infrastructures. Findings . Gulf of Mexico coastlines have a substantial amount of area available for TSW migration except for the Tampa to Ft. Myers coastline. Tampa’s current and future urban development is the primary barrier to TSW migration. (See figure 97) . TSW migration barriers include: topographic barriers, leveed barriers, and urban development barriers. (See figure 98)

193

Figure 95: Gulf of Mexico coastlines have a substantial amount of area available for TSW migration with the exception of the Tampa to Ft. Myers coastline. Tampa’s current and future urban development is primary barrier to TSW migration.

Possible Migration

hic

Legend Barriers

Topograp Green/Red Box: opportunities or barriers for migration

Dark pink: existing LSW

Urban Urban Barriers Light Pink: future LSW

Black: areas preventing LSW

migration (urban or leveed

areas)

Barriers Leveed

Figure 96: Diagrammatic representations of tidal saline wetland (TSW) migration barriers

Conclusion Although not considered in the study, it is recognized that many other factors play a role in TSW response to SLR such as: . Erosion, sedimentation, and subsidence . Collapse of wetland peats before TSW plants can migrate . Effects of hurricanes and storm surges influencing sediment elevation and dispersal 194

However, “by improving the adaptive capacity of TSWs, we can help ensure that human populations will continue to have access to the goods and services provided by these highly productive ecosystems”. Adaptive measures, along highly urbanized coasts, alleviating space for TSW migration corridors is associated with difficult logistics and high costs due to high property value and competing land use interests. However, TSWs (mangrove forests, salt marshes and salt flats) offer many environmental and societal benefits such as: . Recreation . Water quality improvement . Flood control . Fish and wildlife habitat . Enhanced ecosystem connectivity . Protect coastline from erosion

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CRITICAL COASTAL HABITATS SOURCE: Sherwood, E., & Greening, H. (2013). Potential impacts and management implications of climate change on Tampa Bay estuary critical coastal habitats. Environmental Management, 53(2), 401-412. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0179-5

Summary Currently, Tampa stormwater is managed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). They are working to ‘Restore Balance’ to the Tampa Bay estuary by returning habitats that have been displaced or lost since the 1950’s (pre-development marker). NOAA predicts Tampa will experience 2.36 cm of sea-level rise (SLR) per decade and the impacts this change will have on the Florida coast will greatly depend on the rate at which it occurs and other key factors effecting an ecosystem’s ability to adapt and respond to SLR.

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program conducted research with the aim to provide updated estimates of coastal habitat changes in the Tampa Bay estuary “using local data, multiple sea-level rise scenarios and two divergent adaption strategies”. Then the extracted data was compared with current restoration efforts and goals for the Bay.

Opposing Adaption Strategies: 1. Protecting currently developed, dry land from sea level rise impacts 2. Allowing coastal habitat migration to occur in response to sea level rise

Findings Regardless of which adaption strategy is implemented, “significant changes in critical coastal habitat coverage and distribution” is expected and will result in skewed habitat ratios within the Tampa Bay estuary. This will have “confounding effects on estuarine biota habitat requirements” inherently impacting the ecosystem services that benefit society. . “Expansion or succession of mangrove habitats within the Tampa Bay estuary is estimated to significantly skew critical coastal habitat ratios toward a more mangrove dominated estuary type system”. Mangrove coverage is estimated to increase to 85-89% coverage of the estuary ecosystem. 195

. With the succession of mangroves, loss of salt marsh and salt barren habitat is expected. Salt marsh coverage is estimated to reduce to 10-14% of the estuary ecosystem and salt barren habitats are estimated to diminish to less than 1%. . Progress made in the restoration of salt marsh and salt barren habitats from 1995 to 2007, is expected to reverse by 2100 and there will be greater disparity in restoring species diversity.

Figure (A) 97: Chart showing the 2007 critical habitat ratio of the Tampa Bay estuary with mangroves making up 74% of the estuary making it the dominate habitat.

Figure (B) 98: Chart showing the restoration goal for the critical habitat ratio of the Tampa Bay estuary. Mangroves remain the dominant habitat, but the ratio between salt marsh and mangroves is more proportionate.

Figure (C) 99: Chart showing habitat changes if migration is allowed. An obvious loss of habitat is seen, with salt barren habits making up less than 1% of the estuary ecosystem.

196

Figure (D) 100: Chart showing habitat changes if developed land is protected and migration is prevented. An obvious loss of habitat is seen, with salt barren habits making up less than 1% of the estuary ecosystem.

Figure 101: “Tampa Bay overview map depicting the distribution of different land use/land cover types using SLAMM categories 1–23 as of the initial condition year of 2007.

Figure 102: “Tampa Bay overview map depicting the distribution of different land use/land cover types using SLAMM categories 1–23 as estimated under a worst-case scenario (2 m sea level rise and implementing an adaptation strategy to protect developed dry land that occurred in 2007)”.

197

WILL COASTAL WETLANDS CONTINUE TO SEQUESTER CARBON IN RESPONSE TO AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL SEA LEVEL: A CASE STUDY OF THE RAPIDLY SUBSIDING MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTAIC PLAIN SOURCE: Delaune, R., & White, J. R. (2011). Will coastal wetlands continue to sequester carbon in response to an increase in global sea level: A case study of the rapidly subsiding Mississippi river deltaic plain. Climate Change, 110, 297-314. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0089-6

Summary Wetland ecosystems play an important role in the global carbon cycle. High peat formation rates coupled with slow decomposition rates, due to anaerobic soil conditions when flooded, provide the opportunity for wetland ecosystems to regulate and sequester atmospheric carbon. Research on Louisiana gulf coast marshes was conducted “based on vertical marsh accretion and aerial change data” with the following objectives:

Objectives: . Understand “specific ecological and physical changes that will occur in coastal wetlands as results of increased rates of sea-level rise . Provide an estimate of factors that impact a wetland’s ability to regulate and store carbon storage in response to sea level rise.

Threats to Carbon Sequestration Ecosystems: . Shoreline erosion . Salt water intrusion . Submergence

Findings Wetland Loss and The Impact on Carbon Storage: . Loss of carbon regulation and storage is primarily due to the loss of wetlands rather than erosion. “Coastal marshes in Louisiana are being converted to open water primarily due to (migration barriers), subsidence and associated water level and salinity increases, which negativity impact wetland vegetation”. . Salt-water intrusion increases the salinity levels of the soil, putting stressors on wetland vegetation, increasing the risks of damage or loss of vegetation and their root networks . Vegetation root networks provide structure to marsh soil, so when wetland vegetation is lost, the marsh soil elevation decreases rapidly resulting in the conversion to ponds or open water . The conversion of a marsh to open water “releases a considerable amount of carbon into the adjacent estuary or coastal shelf.” . Majority of sediment found in the estuary was not from salt marsh vegetation, but from phytoplankton, “suggesting much of the carbon lost from marshes was oxidized instead of preserved by burial”. . Once marshes are converted to open water it is difficult to restore vegetation dense enough to restore a functioning marsh ecosystem. This is due to the large amount of sediment needed to fill in open water and low sediment transfer, which are often further reduced by dams and reservoir construction. . Amount of sediment needed to fill 1 meter of open water to support emergent marsh vegetation is equal to 700-1,000 kg.

198

Hurricane Impacts on Carbon Storage: Hurricanes can have both negative and positive impacts on marshes. . Salt water intrusion from storm surge “negatively affects marsh vegetation communities.” . Strom surge can instantaneously cause large amounts of previously sequestered carbon in the accreted soil to be released . Hurricanes can scour and redeposit sediments and organic material rising the marsh elevation in some areas while reducing it in others

Figure 103: Historical and projected land loss from coastal Louisiana

199

Figure 104: Diagram of process involved in marsh formation and loss

Figure 105: Estimated carbon loss and gain from marsh wetlands

COASTAL HABITAT INTEGRATED MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA: CHAPTER 10 BISCAYNE BAY SOURCE: Radabuagh, K., Powell, C., & Moyer, R. (2017). Coastal habitat integrated mapping and monitoring program. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Technical Report No.21. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kara_Radabaugh/publication/318381199_Coastal_Habitat_Integrated_ Mapping_and_Monitoring_Program_Report_for_the_State_of_Florida/links/5966b752458515e9af991945/Coastal- Habitat-Integrated-Mapping-and-Monitoring-Program-Report-for-the-State-of-Florida.pdf

Summary The Biscayne Bay was formed when sea level rose and flooded a “limestone depression on the Miami Ridge, creating a shallow estuarine lagoon.” The Bay’s hydrologic process was significantly connected to the Everglades 200 through rivers and creeks where freshwater could enter “the bay as a diffuse sheet of surface water from surrounding wetlands and through groundwater springs.” However, for the purpose of stormwater management and urban development, ditches, canals, and levees were dredged, drastically altering the hydrology of the region and the ecosystem services provided. The Fish and Wildlife Research Institute analyzed how the bay’s hydrologic process was altered and what greater impacts this had on the region’s ecosystem functions and services.

Findings . Water management structures, such as ditches, canals, and levees, created barriers for surface freshwater sheet flow resulting in the loss of many small creeks which caused inundation to surrounding mangrove forests . Constructed canals led to a reduction in the freshwater sheet flow causing freshwater depletion in wetlands and extreme fluctuations in the salinity levels. Saltwater intrusion and high salinity levels encourage salt-tolerant vegetation, such as mangroves, to migrate inward and colonize in the freshwater wetlands; this resulted in the decay of salt marshes. This alteration causes coastal wetlands to shift from freshwater vegetation to salt-tolerant vegetation and “decreases their productivity and ecosystem utility.” . Aquifers are highly susceptible to contamination, so salt water intrusion into aquifers further diminishes freshwater availably, which is already under stress due to water demand and management. . The aquifer is considered a critical ecosystem resource because it provides public water to three surrounding counties. When the hydrologic process of the region was altered it caused the water table to lower and freshwater flow into the bay to decline, inevitably reducing the water quality of the bay. “ . Large urban population increase the risk of contaminating ecosystems with sewage and stormwater discharge. The development of wastewater treatment plants improved the region’s water quality; however, stormwater runoff still contributes to “excess nutrients, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons to the bay. . Power Plants create warm-water effluent, noticeably warmer than the environment . The Turkey-Point Power Plant created warm-water effluent, noticeably warmer than the environment, and had “detrimental impacts of turtle grass and many of the fish and benthic organisms.” In response, 168 miles of cooling canals were created through the adjacent mangrove forests and today provide the ecosystem service of a nursery and shelter to endangered wildlife. . Tall mangrove forests along the coast and on barrier islands were greatly damaged by intense storm surge, but inland mangroves saw little damage due to the protection from coastal mangroves.

RAPID HEADWARD EROSION OF MARSH CREEKS IN RESPONSE TO RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE SOURCE: Hughes, Z. J. (2009). Rapid headward erosion of marsh creeks in response to relative sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 1-5. doi:10.1029/2008GL036000

Summary Tidal creeks in South Carolina have been observed to be rapidly extending into established marsh platform in response to accelerated sea level rise, creating a unique marsh morphological development. Research was conducted to determine the cause of this repeating morphology. Typically, marsh response to sea-level rise (SLR) 201 is to trap sediments in vegetation and accrete vertically. However, this biotic process fails when the SLR rate surpasses the rate of accretion, and the marsh become inundated. This increases the system’s total tidal prism and drainage network. This likely will have “critical effects on marsh hydrology and ecology,” because uninterrupted marsh ecosystems function differently than those interrupted by the creek ecosystem.

The field study used historic aerial views from 1968-2006 of the Santee River to map and understand the process of the creek morphology. Discovered was the reoccurring process extending creeks into developed marsh land.

Findings . Since the water velocity up-channel is insufficient in transferring sediments, creek heads are being stripped of vegetation and densely burrowed by crabs. (See figure 109) . “Due to feedbacks between bioturbation, vegetation dieback, and drainage,” the creek heads dropped to significantly lower elevations than the marsh platforms, which forms a depression. . Water then funnels into these depressions and forms channels that “merge to form an extension of the creek” further into the marsh platform. . “With time, regions of crab colonization and vegetative dieback transgress further onto the marsh platform. As the bare region migrates headward onto the marsh, the creek extends into the denuded area, improving drainage and promoting plant recolonized” in the previously denuded and burrowed regions. . This has become a repetitive process and can be seen in repetitive creek morphology from 1968 -2206. (See figure 108 and 110) . This reoccurring progress is directly attributed to an accelerated sea-level rise rate increasing the total tidal prism of the marsh ecosystem and triggering the ecological responses illustrated above.

Major contributing factors to the morphology of creeks: . Physical removal of sediment by crab burrowing, . Collapse of sediments due to crab burrowing, . Destabilization of sediments due to removal of vegetation and rooting, . Increased decomposition of organic matter due to infiltration of oxygenated water in burrowed regions.

Figure 106 (left): Photograph illustrating straight canals ending in pinnate structures on marsh platforms”. Figure 107 (middle): Photograph of creek head denuded of vegetation and burrowed by crabs. Figure 108 (right): Diagram mapping the repetitive creek morphology from 1968 -2206.

202

INDIRECT RESPONSE OF THE PEACE RIVER, FLORIDA TO EPISODIC SEA LEVEL CHANGE SOURCE: Guccione, M. J. (1995). Indirect response of the Peace River, Florida, to episodic sea-level change. Journal of Coastal Research, 11(3), 637-650. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Indirect- response-of-the-Peace-River%2C-Florida%2C-to-Guccione/abe046ddd6747bf3032d79b5a30b7816c498988c

Summary The geology department at the University of Arkansas conducted a study to determine the distance inland river systems will respond to sea level changes and if there is any delayed timing in the response. Rivers respond to fluctuations in the water-table elevation “by incision and aggradation in the flood-plain sediment and soil. The timing, nature and location” of this response is unique by individual systems. The study primarily examined the Peace River and other rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and their response to sea-level fluctuations overtime. Radiocarbon dating was analyzed to understand past response to sea-level fluctuations and climate changes and the impacts it had on vegetative and hydrologic changes.

Findings . During the late Quaternary, the predominant vegetation included pine and oak woodlands, rosemary and hickory scrubs, as well as dunes and dried up shallow lakes indicating a decrease in the water table elevation. . Over the past 13,000 years, water and precipitation has been more abundant resulting in shifts in habitats and their functions, seen with the replacement of rosemary shrub with oak woodland and prairie vegetation. . During the late Holocene, with another increase in moisture, habitat alternation was seen by the depletion of oak woodlands being replaced pine woodlands. Accordingly, the number of wildfires decreased causing an increase in charcoal. . Sea-level fluctuations are indirectly responsible for changes in vegetative and hydrologic functions while change in climate, like an increase in precipitation, is directly responsible for the incision and aggradation of river systems, however not synchronous. . Incision and aggradation of river systems are primarily noticed in downstream areas, while the distance upstream where impacts are noticed is dependent of its size.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ON EXCESSIVE WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS IN STRATIFIED FRESHWATER LAKES SOURCE: Zohary, T., & Ostrovskt, I. (2011). Ecological impacts of excessive water level fluctuations in stratified freshwater lakes. Inland Waters, 47-59. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5268/IW-1.1.406

Summary “Natural fluctuations are an inherent feature of lake ecosystems, essential for the survival and well-being of many species that have evolved to suit their life cycle to those fluctuations, and needed for a range of ecosystem services. However, extreme or untimely water level fluctuations have undesirable effects on the biota, the ecosystem, and mankind”. As humans continue to exploit water resources for their ecosystem services, paired 203 with the prediction for more frequent extreme events (flooding and droughts), the ecosystem’s natural amplitude and capacity to respond accordingly may be surpassed.

This research analyzes existing literature and data to illustrate the impacts on both shallow and deep freshwater lakes from excessive water level fluctuations. Highlighted are the critical functions and services the littoral zone provides and demonstrates if the littoral zone is impaired or lost, how it will have a cascading effect on the “structure, function and biodiversity of wetland communities”.

Littoral Zone Function and Services: . Habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms producing high biodiversity . Habitat nursey/shelter . Rich food source for macroinvertebrate, fish grazers, predators and birds . Balance between nutrient intake and discharge increasing biodiversity and water quality . Climate regulation through absorption of pollutants

Examples . Lake Sevan - “A multiannual drop of the water level by 19.5m resulted in the loss of most of the macrophyte vegetation, followed by a shift in primary producer dominance to planktonic algae”. . Lake Constance - Due to a flooding event which increased the water level by 1m above the normal maximum, 24% of reed beds were lost which diminished the effectiveness of the ecosystem to digest sewage and purify the water. . Lake Kinneret - The amount of shoreline covered in small particles (sand, clay and silt) increased from 6% during periods of high-water levels to 49% during low water level periods. . Lake Kinneret - Abnormal water level fluctuations reduced the extents of the littoral zone and decreased the shoreline’s capacity to function as a nursey and shelter for macrophyte species. This led to a fast rate of fish reproduction and as these macrophyte species consumers became more abundant, a significant decline in zooplankton population was overserved. Consequently, after the decline of zooplankton, the lake experienced the biggest bloom of N2-fixing cyanobacteria.

Figure 109 (left): Conceptual diagram highlighting the effects extreme water level fluctuations will have on an ecosystem

Figure 110 (right): Conceptual diagram highlighting the likely effects from extreme water level fluctuations on lake ecosystems. The diagram demonstrates when the littoral zones diminishes so will native keystone species. This will result in the incline of invasive species and internal nutrient cycling.

204

Findings . The impacts from excessive water fluctuations is more distinctly seen in shallow lakes and wetlands “because small water level changes translate to significant proportions of the total surface area and total amount of water.” . Terrestrial vegetation is more abundant during extreme water level fluctuations than during the ecosystem’s normal water level regime. . “Man-made hydrologic reservoirs tend to experience greater water level fluctuations than natural lakes,” and are typically lacking the littoral zones making them less diverse. . Reduced external nutrient and sediment cycles can result in the conversion of a deep-water lake/wetland to a shallow one. Which during rainy seasons or extreme events are more prone to cyanobacterial blooms. (See figure 112) . Abnormal water-level fluctuations diminish littoral zones, associatively decreasing the food resources and nursery/shelters. This will decrease the reproduction and survival rates of both terrestrial and aquatic organisms and have cascading effects on species diversity, richness and abundance and the water quality of the ecosystem. (See figure 111).

Terms Accrete - an increase in land resulting from alluvial deposits or waterborne sediment

Littoral Zone - “Belt of shallow water around the shoreline of a lake to the maximum depth at which light still reaches the bottom sediments to allow macrophytic growth”

Pelagic Zone - The area of water not associated with the bottom or shoreline of a lake, river, or ocean

RESPONSE OF BALD CYPRESS AND LOBLOLLY PINE SEEDLINGS TO SHORT TERM SALTWATER FLOODING SOURCE: Conner, W., & Askew, G. R. (1992). Response of Bald Cypress and Loblolly Pine Seedlings to Short-Term Saltwater Flooding. Wetlands,12(3), 230-233. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03160614

Summary Both bald cypress and loblolly pine can be found on the edges of flat, poorly drained swamps and can survive in saturated conditions. Both species are expected to experience an increase in long-term flooding from sea level rise and periodic flooding from hurricanes and storm surge.

The Baruch Forest Science Institute at Clemson University conducted a controlled project to determine the response these species would have in the face of short-term saltwater flooding. “Six-month-old and eighteen- month-old bald cypress and loblolly pine seedlings were subjected to a simulated saltwater surge for 0 to 5 days by flushing and daily watering with freshwater”. The species’ “growth, biomass, and survival were than monitored for 9 weeks following the inundation”.

Findings 205

Survival: . “Six-month-old of both species were extremely susceptible to salt water flooding and survival percentages declined rapidly beyond 1 day of saltwater flooding”. . Eighteen-month-old seedlings are more tolerant to salt-water flooding and survival rates increased: 90% of bald cypress seedlings survived four days and 50% of pine survived for three days. Growth: . The typical response of bald cypress seedlings was to die back and re-sprout while growth of pine seedlings showed slow death or ultimate death. . Both species’ six -month-old seedlings had similar growth patterns decreasing in diameter with increasing durations of flooding. . Eighteen-month-old cypress seedlings has a steady decrease in diameter size with increase durations of flooding and ultimately shrank after the third day . Eighteen-month-old pine seedlings continue to grow for the first two days, with a slowed growth on the third day Biomass: . One day of saltwater flooding reduced the biomass of six-month-old cypress seedlings but not eighteen-month-old cypress seedlings . Six-month-old pine seedlings experienced a slight decrease in biomass after the first day of flooding and eighteen-month-old pine seedlings experienced a slight increase in biomass on day one and only slight reductions on day two and three.

UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE RELATED RISKS SOURCE: Dolan, A., & Walker, I. (2006). Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 1316-1323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742967

Summary “Social and biophysical resilience are closely tied in resource-dependent communities and climate change effects like sea level rise, may increase uncertainty of resource availability and access” and have significant economic impacts. Sea-level rise is expected to cause biophysical changes to ecosystems changing the way the function and the services they provide. Ecosystem services typically lead to some sort of economy and the biophysical changes expected to alter ecosystems will inevitably have an impact the economy they support. These economic impacts can lead to unemployment and changes in income level. The degree of biophysical changes a community will see due to SLR is unevenly distributed due both the exposure of hazardous events and the factors influencing the community’s ability to adapt.

Examples . Depleted fish populations and changes in allocation fishing privileges . High fluctuations in tourism . The University of Victoria researched existing literature and case studies with the aim to identify both the social and environmental factors involved in determining adaptive capacity and to ultimately create a multi-scaled framework to aid communities in determining their adaptive capacity.

Environmental Factors: To What Degree Will the Community Experience: . Elevated tidal inundation 206

. Increase in flood frequency . Accelerated erosion . Rising water tables . Increase in saltwater intrusion

Social Factors: . Access and distribution of resources . Technology . Information and wealth . Risk perceptions . Social capital and community structure . Institutional framework addressing climate change hazards

Climate variability & change

Exposure

Biophysical Human Environment Environment -nature sensitivity -socio-economic & cultural susceptibility -dynamic resilience -resilience Vulnerability

Adaptive Capacity

Individual

Community

Region - Nation - Globe

Figure 111: Multi-scaled framework to aid communities in determining their adaptive capacity

THE GLOBAL VALUE OF MANGROVES FOR RISK REDUCTION SOURCE: The Nature Conservancy. (2018). The global value of mangroves for risk reduction. Retrieved from https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/GlobalMangrove sRiskReductionSummaryReport10.7291/V9930RBC.pdf

Summary Coastal development is continuously growing and so is the risk to flooding, erosion and extreme weather events that put people, critical infrastructure, and industries at risk. Governments typically, combat these risks with “grey infrastructure,” such as seawalls that “remain vulnerable to coastal risk and fail to adapt to changing 207 environments”. This is because adequate valuations of protective services have not been applied resulting in “short-term over-exploitation and degradation” of coastal habitats and a larger focus on built infrastructures to provide protection.

Mangroves protect coastal communities by reducing both the exposure and vulnerability to erosion and flooding while simultaneously offering both social and economic services such as ecotourism and trade. “Mangrove roots retain sediments and prevent erosion, while the roots, trunks, and canopy reduce the force of oncoming wind and waves and reduce flooding. A 500-meter wide mangrove forest can reduce wave heights by 50-100%”. (See figure 112)

Figure 112: Illustration of how mangroves and other coastal habitats, protect coastal communities from erosion and reduce to force of waves, wind and surge.

Case Study The Philippine government commissioned a study to examine the effectiveness and benefits associated mangrove coastal protection.

Findings . Mangroves reduce annual flooding to residential and industrial property by 28%, diverting more than US $1 billion in damages . Mangroves reduced flooding to 776km of roads . Increase in storm events, caused significant declines in the fishing industry and encouraged destructive and illegal practices logging mangroves. . To not deplete the mangrove forest, the community’s source of coastal protection, efforts were made to enable sustainable management of mangroves. This resulted in an increase of community awareness of mangroves critical role in coastal protection, and halted the illegal mangrove logging practices

Siargo, Philippines is highly exposed to extreme storms but is surrounded by a large mangrove forest which provides coastal protection and serves as the community’s main source of income. Increasing storm events, have led to fewer fishing days which resulted in a 30% decrease in fish harvesting from the local communities over a ten-year period. Since the communities depends on that fishery industry, substantial declines in harvest result in 208 loss of income. Inevitably, locals must shift from traditional fishing methods to “destructive fishery practices and illegal mangrove logging”.

These destructive and illegal practices became a threat to the mangrove forest that serves as their coastal protection. To not lose this protective resource a “network of community organizations and local authorities that would improve natural resource management and decrease the vulnerability to coastal communities” was formed.

CLIMATE CHANGE’S IMPACT ON KEY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE HUMAN WELL-BEING THEY SUPPORT IN THE US SOURCE: Nelson, E. J, Kareiva, P., Ruckelshaus, M., Arkema, K., Geller, G., Girvetz, E., Tallis, H. (2013). Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(9), 483-493. doi:10.1890/120312

Summary Ecosystem functions become ecological services “when humans translate them into valuable processes, materials, and commodities”. Due to climate change, ecosystems are being confronted with those functions being altered, inevitably, changing the ecosystem services that people and society rely on. This article discusses and identifies some ecosystem services that have been or will be impacted by climate change and how this transformation will affect livelihoods in the US.

This article also highlights the current risk of not having an inventory of natural capital, assets and associated ecosystem services. “Climate change translates into change for the way governments, companies, and citizens conduct their daily business. If society begins to adapt to change without a framework to decide which changes are most damaging and what can be tolerated, resources could be squandered and the impacts of climate change exacerbated.”

Examples Discussed below are a few examples of how climate change impacts and changes on ecosystem functions can ultimately alter the services society depends on, causing profound consequences the well-being of livelihood in the US.

Water Supply: Current water scarcity and water quality issues in the US are expected to worsen due to climate change impacts because “water is essential to so many facets of human life” and a complex network of services stem from the water source ecosystems being affected. Some of the services ecosystems supply water for: . Potable water . Recreation . Agriculture . Industrial

US Agriculture and Food Production Industry: Sea level rise and flooding can induce change to the ecological functions that make it possible to grow crops: . Altered soil conditions and an increase in salinity levels could cause shifts in what crops can be produced . Inundation can reduce the amount of useable land to grow and distribute crops 209

As a result, certain crops may disappear or migrate to new locations causing a loss or disruption in product, land, and productivity as well as the distribution systems locally, nationally, and internationally. . Loss of domestic production of crops will increase food prices at both the national and international levels . Migration of crop production, within the US borders, can generate economic prosperity in new communities. However, the transition can be financially demanding . US farms contribute to 1% of the US GDP and support .5% of all US jobs

Marine Fishery Production: Habitats that contribute to marine fishery production are responding to sea-level rise by migrating poleward, inland, or are at risk for extinction. This makes the livelihood of the populations dependent on the ecosystem service highly vulnerable to the financial burdens of relocating or depleted industries. Ecosystems that support robust wildlife and fisheries contribute to the seafood industry by: . Creating 1.03 million US jobs . Resulting in $116 billion in sales . Contributing .34% to the US GDP

Coastal Ecosystems: Coastal habitats such as wetlands, dunes and mangroves provide many ecological services and “loss of these habitats as a result of climate change (sea-level rise), coastal developments and other human activities intensifies the risks to people and property.” Ecosystem Services: . Protection From “Erosion and storms by attenuating waves and stabilizing shorelines,” reducing the cost and loss coastal cities will experience. . Wildlife habitat. . Recreational use supporting public health and well-being. . Robust marine fisheries resulting in jobs.

Nature Dependent Tourism and Outdoor Recreation: Many ecosystem functions such as shoreline protection, water quality, diversity of habitat, and filtration of pollutants provides the service of nature-based recreation. Climate change consequences are predicated to have the biggest impact of winter sports and beach recreation.

Beach recreation values are likely to drop due to: . A decrease in number and size from sea- level rise and erosion . Limited access to fishing sites and open beaches for sunbathing and sports . A destruction of both commercial and residential property

In 2010: . Americans spent $646 billion on outdoor recreation . 6.1 million jobs stemmed from the recreation service

210

COASTAL HABITATS SHIELD PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM SEA-LEVEL RISE AND STORMS SOURCE: Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G., Wood, S., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva, P., … Silver, J. (2013). Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 913-918. doi:10.1038/nclimate1944

Summary Coastal populations are expected to experience severe consequences from sea-level rise, extreme weather events and storm surge. Traditional approaches like hardened shorelines have been used to reduce that risk, however the recent understanding of the ecological services that coastal habitats offer, like protection from coastal hazards, has been recognized. Coastal habitats provide the service of buffering coastlines from waves and storm surge as well as provide “collateral benefits to people” such as recreation, improved water quality, and robust marine fisheries.

To determine the extent to which habitats provide protection, The Natural Capital Project at Stanford University conducted a study comparing US residential communities along the coast and their estimated risks based on the presence of coastal habitats.

Nine Coastal Habitats That Provide Coastal Protection: . Coastal forest mangroves . Coral reefs . Marsh . Oyster beds . Dunes . Seagrass beds . Kelp forests

Findings . Florida has the highest amount population exposed to coastal hazards without habitat protection. (See figure 115) . Hillsborough County has intermediate to high exposure to coastal hazards. (See figure 109) . Hillsborough county has approximately $900-$32 billion in residential property exposed to coastal hazards. (See figure 116)

(b) Future (a) Current

211

Figure 113 (left): Map illustrating the amount of coastal populations exposed to coastal hazards. Florida has approximately 500,000 residents along the coast with habitat protection and 900,000 residents along the coast without. Hillsborough county is considered to have intermediate to high exposure to coastal hazards.

Figure 114 (right): Map illustrating the total property value exposed to coastal hazards with or without habitat protection. Hillsborough county has approximately $900-$32 billion worth of residential property is exposed to coastal hazards.

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF GULF COAST HURRICANES: SHORT-TERM AND LONG- TERM CONSEQUENCES SOURCE: Jackson, C. (2006). Ecological effects of gulf coast hurricanes: short-term and long-term consequences. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.1890/0012- 9623(2006)87[374:eeogch]2.0.co;2

Summary A symposium was held at the University of Mississippi to discuss current research about the ecological impacts of hurricanes in the South. The paper summarizes the presentations, including the following key points:

. Swamps dominated by the wetland species of bald cypress and water tupelo were much less impacted, if not completely intact, after hurricanes. . Bottomland hardwood forests and open marsh were much more affected, up to 80% wind throw being cited from Hurricane Katrina. Cypress swamps will degenerate into marsh or open water due to saltwater intrusion (and human extraction). . A few days exposure to salinity levels can stress the cypress-tupelo environments. . High winds and saltwater inundation from a hurricane can catalyze a shift in ecosystems, into a new cycle of development with long-term changes. . Exotics can fill in damaged woodland areas . Live foliage litter is associated with hurricane impacts on trees. This litter is slower to decompose and induces a high organic content into its environment.

212

REFERENCES

Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G., Wood, S., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva, P., … Silver, J. (2013). Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 913-918. doi:10.1038/nclimate1944

Conner, W., & Askew, G. R. (1992). Response of bald cypress and loblolly pine seedlings to short-term saltwater flooding. Wetlands,12(3), 230-233. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03160614

Delaune, R., & White, J. R. (2011). Will coastal wetlands continue to sequester carbon in response to an increase in global sea level: A case study of the rapidly subsiding Mississippi river deltaic plain. Climate Change, 110, 297-314. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0089-6

Doyle, T., Krauss, K., Connor, W., & From, A. (2010). Predicting the retreat and migration of tidal forests along the northern Gulf of Mexico under sea-level rise. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 770-777. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.023

Enwright, N., Griffith, K., & Osland, M. (2016). Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea‐level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(6), 307-316. doi:10.1002/fee.1282

Gonneea, M., Kroeger, K., Roberts, D., & Spivak, A. (2016). Tampa Bay carbon burial rates across mangrove and salt marsh ecosystems. American Geophysical Union, Ocean Sciences Meeting. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUOSEC14B0976G

Guccione, M. J. (1995). Indirect response of the Peace River, Florida, to episodic sea-level change. Journal of Coastal Research, 11(3), 637-650. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Indirect- response-of-the-Peace-River%2C-Florida%2C-to- Guccione/abe046ddd6747bf3032d79b5a30b7816c498988c

Environmental Science Associates. (2020). 2020 Habitat master plan update. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Retrieved from https://tbeptech.org/TBEP_TECH_PUBS/2009/TBEP_06_09_Habitat_Master_Plan_Update_Report_July_2010 .pdf

Hughes, Z. J. (2009). Rapid headward erosion of marsh creeks in response to relative sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 1-5. doi:10.1029/2008GL036000

Masonry Institute of America. (Accessed July 16, 2019). About Masonry Institute of America. Retrieved from https://www.masonryinstitute.org/about_us.htm

McKee, K., Cahoon, D., & Feller, I. (2007). Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea level through biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 545-556. Retrieved from http://www.ces.fau.edu/climate_change/everglades-recommendations-2014/session-g-resource-7.pdf

Moyer, R. P., Radabaugh, K. R., Chappel, A. R., Powell, C. E., Bociu, I., & Smoak, J. (n.d.). Carbon stocks in mangroves, salt marshes, and salt barrens in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA: Vegetative and soil characteristics. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFM.B43D2163M

The Nature Conservancy. (2018). The global value of mangroves for risk reduction. Retrieved from https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/GlobalMa ngrovesRiskReductionSummaryReport10.7291/V9930RBC.pdf 213

Nelson, E. J, Kareiva, P., Ruckelshaus, M., Arkema, K., Geller, G., Girvetz, E., … Tallis, H. (2013). Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(9), 483-493. doi:10.1890/120312

Radabuagh, K., Powell, C., & Moyer, R. (2017). Coastal habitat integrated mapping and monitoring program. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Technical Report No.21. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kara_Radabaugh/publication/318381199_Coastal_Habitat_Integr ated_Mapping_and_Monitoring_Program_Report_for_the_State_of_Florida/links/5966b752458515e9af99 1945/Coastal-Habitat-Integrated-Mapping-and-Monitoring-Program-Report-for-the-State-of-Florida.pdf

Sherwood, E., & Greening, H. (2013). Potential impacts and management implications of climate change on Tampa Bay estuary critical coastal habitats. Environmental Management, 53(2), 401-412. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0179-5

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. (2016). Tampa Bay blue carbon assessment. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Tampa-Bay-Blue-Carbon-Assessment- Report-final_June2016.pdf

Zohary, T., & Ostrovskt, I. (2011). Ecological impacts of excessive water level fluctuations in stratified freshwater lakes. Inland Waters, 47-59. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5268/IW-1.1.406

214

HURRICANE CASE STUDIES

215

SUMMARY

Hurricanes are compound disasters with impact by both flooding and high winds. To understand this from recent real-world events, this study reviewed news reports and governmental publications for Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Florence. In each instance, elements of infrastructure are frequently destroyed, with water lines, roads, and electricity being the most significantly damaged. Additionally, storms have dramatic and sometimes traumatic effects on the people within an area, with different groups having unique experiences and impacts. Lastly, these case studies provide a useful resource for understanding how our environment is impacted, and potentially modified, by these occurrences. The following information attempts to summarize the breadth of vulnerabilities that were revealed through recent storms.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS Infrastructural damage largely occurs when waters wash away the ground beneath elements of infrastructure (roads, bridges, power lines), allowing them to collapse or be blown over by high winds. Additionally, heavy rainfall overwhelms the water infrastructure, causing wastewater to backflow and mix into the floodwaters (Alexander & Cope, 2018; Jansen, 2017; Ibrahim, 2017; Lee & Hall, 2011; Stradling, 2018).

Water: Treated and untreated wastewater both overflow into flood waters when water treatment systems fail during heavy rainfall. Examples include overflow of storage tanks, filter failure, and high volume in water lines. To manage these incidents, it is typical to turn water supply off, which impacts water supply for people in the area and inhibits water consumption, cooking, hygiene, and toilet flushing (AP, 2018; Baranger, 2015; Chen, 2005; EPA, 2005; Georgiou, 2018; Hendren, 2018; Ocala Star Banner, 2017; Pinellas County, 2018; White, 2017).

Roads and bridges: Damage to roads and bridges occurs when the gravel underneath the concrete or asphalt is washed away. Without this foundational support, these elements of infrastructure are vulnerable to collapse, washout, or being crushed by high winds (Alexander & Cope, 2018; Jansen, 2017).

Electricity: Loss of electric power persisted through all hurricanes reviewed, with the most commonly cited cause being destruction to above ground power lines. Underground power lines are not invulnerable to power loss, exhibited by loss of power in New York following Hurricane Sandy; underground networks can still experience power loss due to flooding. Nuclear power plants were perceived to be at risk in Hurricanes Katrina and Florence, although no significant damage was experienced (ACLU, 2006; AP, 2018; Baranger, 2015; Dolnick, 2012; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; Ocala Star Banner, 2017; Pinellas County, 2018; White, 2017).

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Evacuation is not just a matter of where to take people to escape impact, but it is also important to ensure that people have somewhere safe to return to. Evacuation cannot be seen as a single solution either. Evacuation requires additional resources and leaving possessions behind may mean risking the loss of one’s entire material wealth. News reports have highlighted how staying at home during a hurricane has become a point of Florida pride (Glorioso, 2017).

216

Elderly: The elderly has historically taken on the largest burden of health costs and lives lost in hurricane exposure. Injuries affecting the elderly include mechanical injuries, such as falls, as well as heat injuries. Mitigation of these injuries tie synchronously to loss of electricity, which limits in-home visibility and cooling (Amadeo, 2018; Beaubien, 2018; Brunkard, Namulanda, & Ratard, 2013; CNN Library, 2018).

Children: Children experience multiple vulnerabilities from hurricanes and hurricane recovery. Schools are commonly used as evacuation sites, and classes cannot resume until evacuees are able to leave the site. When children do return to classes, it is often in water damaged classrooms. In an extreme case, Hurricane Katrina generated what has been called a “Lost Generation” of children who were so impacted by their ability to resume classes that it delayed entire graduating classes. Small children are also susceptible to health exposures when returning home, as sediment from contaminated flood waters has affected household objects or toys. The EPA has previously given recommendations to either disinfect or discard any exposed toys or other objects which children may frequently interact with (Derosier, 2018; Edney & Prince, 2006; Frosch, Aliworth, & Gold, 2017; NCCSA, n.d.; Ocala Star Banner, 2017; Save the Children, n.d.).

Prisoners: One of the most vulnerable populations is also one that is the least sympathetic. Although a precedent to evacuate threatened prisons was established following the impacts of Hurricane Andrew, deviation from this has been noted at multiple points. Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Florence all featured threatened prisons criticized for refusing to evacuate prisoners. Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey both featured flooded prisons which had to be evacuated by boat after the impact. Following power outages, which released electronically controlled locks, a halfway house in NJ experienced prisoners leaving their cells. Prisoners escaped damaged prisons in both Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. In addition to the prisoners being in danger from hurricane impacts, evidence lockers were impacted by hurricanes. This is significant to the justice process and has been cited by the ACLU as a complication for persons to demonstrate their innocence (ACLU, 2006; Bohatch, 2018; Daily Forty- Niner, 2017; Dolnick, 2012; Dolven, 2017; Frenkiel, 2006; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; Iannelli, 2018; Linton, 2012; Moynihan, 2013; Rannard, 2018).

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS Ecologic impacts are consistently understated when disaster strikes. Hurricanes, regardless of the severity, have direct and indirect effects as well as short-term and long-term impacts on every ecosystem they pass through. They especially impact estuarine and coastal habitats. They impact several animal species by altering their habitats and food availability. The most important aspect to understand when examining the ecologic impacts of flood from hurricanes is that any effect to one ecosystem is going to affect every other part of that ecosystem and the ecosystems that surround it. Hurricanes can initiate a flood of sea water into freshwater ecosystems such as wetlands, bays, and estuaries. This increase in salinity leads to changing soil properties and nutrients that affect marsh elevation and vegetation in these ecosystems. Hurricane storm surge and wind forces will strip sand from barrier islands that once acted as protection measures of the area, ultimately permanently altering the shape of the coastline. That same hurricane can defoliate an area and cause dramatic structural changes in wooded ecosystems. That can affect animals that live in affected environments and can increase erosion of the soil, increasing the risk for further flooding. This list of examples is only to illicit the notion of interconnectivity, that one change will impact every other aspect of an ecosystem. Sometimes these effects aren’t as easily seen immediately following a hurricane. However, more indirect or longer-term impacts cannot be discounted. It is also important to note that not all ecologic impacts to ecosystems are negative. Hurricanes are a natural force, and sometimes the movement of sediment to areas such as saltwater marshes can provide beneficiary effects 217 from storm surge and hurricane force winds. Examples of ecologic impacts are provided for the following hurricane case studies.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS Calculating the cost of a hurricane includes all impacts from a storm that you can measure financially. They are the costliest natural disaster in the United States, and as more development occurs over time, costs of hurricanes will naturally rise. Not only are there economic impacts on the individual and regional level after a hurricane, but large hurricanes can also depress the stock market and other financial markets depending on the kind of destruction that ensues. The coastal shoreline counties in the United States create 40% of America’s jobs (NOAA, 2017). As hurricanes and sea level rise diminish the amount of coast line or alter significantly the coast line characteristics, the more effect they will have on people’s livelihoods, as well as the GDP of the country. The costliest hurricane to this day was still Hurricane Katrina (2005) at a record $161 billion dollars, followed by Hurricane Harvey (2017) at $125 billion dollars. The economic impacts will only continue to rise each year.

Hurricane Case Studies

HURRICANE KATRINA (2005) 08/23/2005 - 08/30/2005

Summary Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on August 23rd and affected Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. Hurricane Katrina had the second highest death toll in U.S. history at 1,826 direct deaths. Katrina flooded 80% of New Orleans and caused over one million people to be displaced. Katrina revealed that while hurricanes are impartial by nature, they affect those of vulnerable populations at drastically higher rates. There are some areas of Louisiana who still have not recovered since the event.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS Within the short-term recovery period, only 20 of 118 New Orleans public schools had reopened (Edney & Prince, 2006). Partly responsible for this delay to recovery was the flooding of the canals, which was intended to direct sewage water past the wetlands (Schwarz, 2005). Additionally, pump failures and levee breaks had to be repaired to drain water from the city (Ourousoff, 2005). Levee washout occurred where adjacent levee materials were mismatched, and the lower elevation levee was made of a weaker material (Kayen, Collins, & Gibbons; Levin, 2006). Overall, 220 out of 350 miles of levees had to be rebuilt (Klatell, 2006).

Rebuilding roads and interstate in Louisiana cost $30.9 million in emergency repairs. Replacing the Twin Span Bridge cost $803 million; local road recovery cost $131 million. In Louisiana, highways and local roads suffered washout damage; 80,280 linear feet (15.20 miles) of local access roads were destroyed (Lee & Hall, 2011). Repairing water lines cost $20 million (Lee & Hall, 2011).

FEMA payouts post-impact extended beyond 10 years after the storm. $15 billion earmarked for public works projects was distributed to the Gulf states. Projects include the repair and rebuilding of schools, hospitals, roads, police and fire stations, and historic buildings (FEMA, 2015). Port damage was roughly $260 million, although it was open to ships a week later (Amadeo, 2018).

218

. Nuclear plants were resilient against the storm, with one temporarily shutting down before the storm; power lines were knocked down into the streets, causing disruption of power (Baranger, 2015; Treaster & Zernike, 2005). . 457 oil and gas pipelines were damaged (Amadeo, 2018). . Water became contaminated with sewage, bacteria, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and pesticides (Chan & Revkin, 2005). . Ground reporters had to be decontaminated daily upon returning from the areas affected. . Saltwater intrusion damaged crops (Baranger, 2015). . Surfaces and soil were both affected by contaminants in the short-term recovery window. Soil lead levels returned to pre-Katrina conditions within 6 months; arsenic and benzopyrene were detected at non- harmful levels. . Oil and diesel were also detected in soil and sediment (Williams, 2010). . The EPA provided guidance to restore lawns to aid in soil recovery and encouraged parents to decontaminate or discard children toys which were exposed to storm waters (EPA, 2005).

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Louisiana Superdome initially housed about 25,000 storm evacuees, but damage to the structure required secondary evacuation to other locations. Overall, more than one million people were displaced by the hurricane. Hurricane relief shelter occupancy peaked at 273,000 people. 114,000 displaced households were moved into FEMA trailers (CNN Library, 2018). In addition, FEMA provided $6.7 billion in recovery aid to affected persons and households (FEMA, 2015). Along with Hurricane Sandy, disruptions in medical care and challenges in performing medical evacuations have been the target of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Fink, 2014).

The educational offset of children impacted by Hurricane Katrina has led to the coinage of the term “The Lost Generation”. Out of 60,000 children in New Orleans Public Schools, only 9,500 were back in school within 6 months after the storm (Edney & Prince, 2006).

1,833 fatalities occurred across 5 states, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Massachusetts, with the greatest burden of lives lost occurring in Louisiana (n=1,577) (CNN Library, 2018). In a study of 971 fatalities in Louisiana, 40% were caused by drowning, 25% were caused by traumatic injury, and 11% were caused by heart conditions. Persons over the age of 74 were the greatest cohort among hurricane related deaths (49%). 68 deaths among the elderly occurred in nursing homes. There was a disproportionate burden of death among blacks compared to whites in Orleans Parish (Brunkard, Namulanda, & Ratard, 2013). Population changed in New Orleans (combined deaths and relocations) from 484,674 in April of 2000 to 230,172 in July of 2006. Rebounding from population loss has continued, with 386,617 people living in New Orleans in July of 2015 (CNN Library, 2018).

Prisons presented a major gap in preparations. Orleans Parish Prison accepted prisoners as young as 10 years old and housed roughly 6,500 prisoners during the storm; many prisoners were awaiting trial and were not convicted of any crimes. Some were in jail for such minor offenses as jaywalking or public urination on Bourbon Street. Deputies - several of which brought their families with them for shelter - had not received any prior training on emergency management. Many were reported abandoning their posts while leaving prisoners behind in dangerous conditions. Flood waters rose in the prison, causing post-impact evacuation which took several days to complete. 517 prisoners were never recovered. 14 additional prisoners escaped but were later recovered. During the multi-day evacuation, prisoner food, water, and medical needs were neglected. The evidence locker was additionally destroyed. (ACLU, 2006; Bohatch, 2018; Frenkiel, 2006; Rannard, 2018).

219

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS . 1,125 trees were planted to restore the tree canopy (Lee & Hall, 2011). . Air pollutant levels rose in the immediate post-recovery phase; however, air recovery was complete by December (EPA, 2005). . Not all impacts are negative, as Louisiana salt marsh sites were positively impacted by the sediment deposition in those areas. . Hurricane Katrina has led to shoreline position changes of 100m in some regions totaling 73 square miles of lost coastline (University of Rhode Island, 2015) . Several barrier islands, including Chandeleur Islands and Breton Sound, experienced severe losses of seagrass beds, habitats where marine mammals spawn, nest, and feed (Farris et al., 2007) . The hurricane damaged 16 federal wildlife refuges (Sheikh, 2005) . The USDA Forest Service estimated 19 billion board feet of timber damaged on over 5 million acres in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana (U.S. Dept of Agriculture, 2005). . Following the hurricane, the amount of tree debris available for fueling a wildfire was an estimated 20-30 times the normal level

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The overall cost, combining damages and loss of economic activities, has been estimated to be $250 billion (Amadeo, 2018). More conservatively, the NOAA has placed the cost at $161 billion, with $16 billion in flood insurance payouts (n=167,985, mean=$97,140) (NOAA, 2019).

Katrina damaged 19% of domestic oil production, destroying 113 offshore platforms when combined with the impacts of Hurricane Rita. Following this combination of hurricanes, gas prices increased by $3 per barrel, reaching nearly $5 per gallon (Amadeo, 2018).

Tourism in New Orleans was greatly affected. Pre-impact, New Orleans attracted 7.1 million visitors per year, generating $9.6 billion for the local economy; in 2006 the city only received 2.6 million tourists. Tourism has rebounded, capturing 10 million people in 2017 (Amadeo, 2018; AP, 2015). Casino closure cost MS $500,000 per day in tax revenue (Glanton, 2006).

Agricultural impacts: 40% of Louisiana sugar crop was damaged, valued at $500 million. Aquaculture was similarly impacted, with a reduction in oyster beds and damage to the local shrimping industry (Amadeo, 2018; Williams, 2010).

Displaced persons living in hotels cost American taxpayers $11 million per day. Replacement housing by the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (n=6,300) cost ~$15,000 in repairs each to be habitable. Up to 250,000 housing units were destroyed (in conjunction with Hurricane Rita) (Chen, 2005).

220

HURRICANE SANDY (2012) 10/22/2012 - 10/29/2012

Summary Hurricane Sandy made landfall in late October of 2012 near Brigantine, New Jersey. The sheer size of Hurricane Sandy, reaching 900 miles in diameter, caused mass destruction throughout the New York and New Jersey coastlines. There were at least 147 direct deaths and damage estimates were close to $50 billion. Taking place during Halloween, people have dubbed this hurricane Frankenstein by the National Weather Service.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS The floods exceeded the one-percent projections established by FEMA and caught many uninsured and underinsured citizens by surprise. Floodwaters inundated 17% of New York City’s land mass (51 square miles). Between New Jersey and New York City, the total number of homes damaged by hurricane conditions exceeded 646,000. The burden of damages to homes were primarily concentrated among older, light-frame, single-story buildings, however high-rises became uninhabitable due to loss of mechanical equipment stored in basements. Communities adjacent to wetlands, parks, and bulkheads were partially protected against the damage of the storm. Communities built on elevated areas were less impacted than downhill communities (NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2015; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Loss of subway services stranded 5.4 million normal weekday riders. Three vehicular tunnels were closed, effecting the commutes of 217,000 additional vehicles. Ferry service was disrupted, stranding 80,000 normal weekday riders. To resolve the resulting gridlock as residents attempted to resume their normal activities, city officials implemented restrictions for road that could be used by single occupant vehicles. They designated bus-bridges and increased operation cycles of functioning ferries, enabling over 226,000 commuters to regain access across the East River. Loss of electrical services delayed recovery of subway systems, as it was a challenge to pump water out of the subway lines. Delays in clearing flood water left sensitive equipment for subways soaked in corrosive salt water for extended time (Newman, 2012a; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Damage to telecommunication infrastructure lasted for longer than 100 days after the storm for some customers. Strategies to restore communications included carriers switching customers to other service providers based on functional coverage. Damages to switching facilities were quickly recovered, while overhead networks took longer to repair. Hospitals were especially impacted by the loss of telecommunications.

While potable water infrastructures were not damaged in New York City, water access remained a problem throughout the affected area. Facilities providing drinking water remained open in New York during the storm, but loss of power to individual pumps meant that residents in high-rise building were left without water for drinking or flushing toilets. 42 of the city’s 96 pumps were damaged. Meanwhile, New Jersey experienced damages to 70 drinking water systems. Wastewater infrastructure, however, suffered greater damages overall. 10 of New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants and 80 treatment plants across New Jersey suffered damage or power loss while storm surge doubled the operational capacity. In New York City, 99% of wastewater was being treated within 4 days after the storm's end; 100% was reached within 2 weeks (NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2015; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Flooding of substations and destruction to powerlines left nearly 2 million New York City customers without power during the storm. 8.5 million people were left without power. Overall, flooded substations returned online quicker than overhead structures and returned power to the majority of effected customers. Con Edison experienced damages to its steam system and was unable to deliver energy to one third of its customers, which included 221 hospitals. They compensated by using point-to-point radio relays across facilities while evacuating patients, two- way radios for doctor-to-doctor consultation within hospitals, and established runners by hospital floor to deliver doctors’ orders (Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013; Troianovski, 2012). As a result of these damages, hospitals were largely able to switch to emergency generators. Some sites were forced to go to black-out conditions when generators were turned off. Hospital staff were able to continue operations using hard-copies of patient records in lieu of digital record systems and by using flashlights and other battery-operated equipment. High-floor dwelling residents were additionally challenged with the loss of elevator services and inability to store perishable food. Similarly, supermarkets, bodegas, and other food retailers faced food spoilage due to power loss.

Additional services impacted by storm damage included fuel, natural gas, and parks. Gas pumps experienced a fuel shortage due to supply chain breakdowns: refineries were shut down, deliveries, including through pipelines, were halted, and storage terminals suffered damages. In the aftermath of the storm, gas rations were implemented in some areas, including an even-odd method permitting people to purchase gas on even or odd days depending on the last digit of their license plate. Natural gas remained largely intact, although in New York City loss of services were experienced by approximately 84,000 customers. Nearly 400 New York parks experienced damaged and closed for repairs. While 2 miles of scenic boardwalk in New York was damaged, alongside New Jersey’s Belmar boardwalk, Perth Amboy marina and waterfront, Seaside Height’s Casino Pier, and Seaside Park’s Funtown Pier (Attrino, 2012; Chen E. 2005; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013; Spahr, 2012; Yee, 2012; Zezima, 2012)

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Across the Eastern coast of the United States, Hurricane Sandy claimed a total of 147 lives, with 43 occurring in New York City, where victims ranged from a 2-year old boy to both a man and a woman 90 years old. In New York city, 6 hospitals, 26 residential care facilities, 5 acute care offices, 1 psychiatric hospital, and over 500 other health care offices were shut-down with the evacuation of over 6,500 patients. Health care facilities that remained open during the storm employed strategies such as repurposing lobbies as inpatient rooms, siphoning gas from vehicles to maintain generators, and having staff live on-site, more than four days. In some instances, the inundated areas caught 75,000 people in poor health while power outages affected an additional 54,000 medically vulnerable. The burden for hospital staff was aggravated by destruction of transportation networks preventing replacement staff from arriving. To mitigate the strain on staff, many affected facilities suspended non-emergency, elective, or outpatient services. During emergency evacuations, Coney Island Hospital opened its auditorium to host 60 evacuees plus 2 dogs. Along with Hurricane Katrina, disruptions in medical care and challenges in performing medical evacuations have been the target of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Fink, 2014; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013; Weather Underground, 2019).

While food retailers faced food spoilage due to lack of power and road damage, food distribution centers remained resilient. Across the span of 3 months after the storm the City of New York and FEMA worked together to distribute 4 million meals. Loss of infrastructure created temporary food deserts, which particularly affected the poor: food pantries, which often provide meals for this population, tend to function out of basements and were particularly vulnerable to flooding (Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Although the storm damaged solid waste facilities, rails, and delivery vehicles, collection services rebounded quickly. Street side collection resumed almost immediately after the storm passed. Across New York City, 400,000 tons of excess debris were collected; areas reliant on damaged rail systems to remove waste stored product in containers to be shipped using transfer trailers. Overall estimates of the amount of debris generated by Hurricane Sandy are placed at 700,000 tons or 12 million cubic yards (EPA, 2018; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013; Raymond, 2017).

222

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS Storm surge carried ocean water over beaches and bulkheads, flooding ocean-facing cities. Areas were impacted both by inundation as well as record high ocean waves. Water rushed through bays, inlets, and creeks, allowing the water to reach non-coastal shores and flood inland areas near connected bodies of water. Sandy beaches and dunes absorbed destructive energy carried by waves and floodwaters and buffered adjacent neighborhoods. Nourished beaches were more protective than malnourished ones. Erosion impacted the entire NJ coastline. There was a loss or change to 9,997 acres of coastal or emergent wetlands to open water (excluding tidal wetlands). Salt water damage to trees was evident in an assessment of wetlands; within New York City parks, 20,000 trees were either damaged or knocked down. Edges of water bodies were severely eroded; erosion was particularly severe on the shoreline where over 3 million cubic yards of sand were lost. (NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2015; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Wetland wildlife was largely un-impacted. Forests suffered damage from saltwater inundation, especially affecting Atlantic white cedar. Saltwater marine fish and shellfish demonstrated no significant changes compared to pre-Sandy trends, however freshwater fish were completely dislocated from several bodies of water. Tidal wetlands held limited ability to control the water volume carried by Hurricane Sandy (NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2015; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Flooding caused 10 of 15 water treatment plants in New York City to spill 560 million gallons of untreated sewage and 800 million gallons of partially treated water into stormwater and local waterways. Elsewhere, the Catskills System and Aqueduct experienced an increase in water turbidity, requiring additional treatment to supply potable water (Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS In New York City, 23,400 businesses were damaged effecting the jobs of 245,000 employees. The impact was primarily felt among small- or medium-sized businesses with fewer than 50 employees each; retail and service sectors were the most impacted industries. Indirect damages included loss of heat and power and the inability of customers and employees to arrive due to transportation. Additional damages included inventory, equipment, interior spaces, and structures (Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

The National Hurricane Center (2018) estimates Hurricane Sandy as the fourth costliest hurricane in US history, costing $65 billion, non-inflated, or $70.2 billion, inflated. The losses in New York City were estimated to be $8.6 billion with $4.8 billion of it uninsured. NOAA estimated costs at $71 billion; $18.75 billion was paid out to property losses (excluding flood insurance claims) (NOAA, 2019; Office of the NYC Mayor, 2013).

Illegal price gouging became a widespread problem for consumers. Examples of price gouging included gas prices increasing by over $2 per gallon and hotels increasing rates by nearly $30 per night, as well as increases in product prices such as matches and food compared to before storm rates. Attorney Generals and District Attorneys in New York and New Jersey each opened investigation and filed complaints against price gougers, they also advertised on Craigslist against people attempting to sell products on-line for extreme prices (Newman, 2012b).

223

HURRICANE HARVEY (2017) 08/17/2017 - 09/02/2017

Summary Hurricane Harvey made landfall on August 25th, 2017 and was the first major hurricane to hit southern Texas since Hurricane Celia in 1970. Causing $125 billion in damage, Hurricane Harvey affected 13 million people and killed 88. Unique to other storms, Harvey deposited over 27 trillion gallons of rain which has earned the name of wettest Atlantic hurricane ever measured. The hurricane generated over 8 million cubic yards of garbage in Houston alone. It was followed within a month by Hurricane Irma and Maria, compounding its negative effects.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS Over 300,000 structures flooded and 338,000 homes lost electric power. 204,000 homes were flooded. In a Rice University study of 9,798 registrants (approximately 29,000 residents), 44% experienced home flooding and 55% received some form of storm damage overall. In a Kaiser Family Foundation study, one in five residents in the 24- county area covered experienced severe home damage. 75% of damaged homes existed outside of the 1% floodplain; over half of the damaged homes were built outside of the 0.2% floodplain. Flooding occurred in 800 wastewater treatment facilities (Amadeo, 2019; Bess, et al., 2019; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; Hazmel, Wu, Brodie, Sim, & Marks, 2018; Hernandez, Zezima, & Achenbach, 2017; Hunn & Dempsey, 2018).

In the Rice University study, 43% of residents experienced electricity loss. 3,900 homes remained without power as late as three-weeks after the storm. Overall 200,000 customers lost power, including Arkema chemical plant, where loss of power to refrigeration caused volatile chemical ignition and subsequently prompted a 1.5-mile radius evacuation. Additional facilities experiencing power loss included wastewater treatment plants and prisons (Amadeo, 2019; Bess, et al., 2019; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; Gallagher, 2017; Moravec, 2017).

Up to 166 water systems were placed under boil water orders and another 50 were shut down completely. 3 weeks after the storm 77 boil-water notices persisted due to failures in water infrastructure. 19 water systems were down and 31 wastewater systems were offline (Amadeo, 2019; Hernandez, Zezima, & Achenbach, 2017; Moravec, 2017).

Both air and land transportation were negatively impacted by the storm. 1,031 flights were cancelled due to Hurricane Harvey. 290 roads were closed; extended submergence increased road damage. Moving stormwaters eroded bridge supports, leading to multiple collapses. Oil platforms additionally closed due to the hurricane. Evacuation of natural gas and oil platforms halted production of 765,318 barrels (116,143,365 US gallons) of oil and 5,741,54 million cubic feet of natural gas production across a 10-day period. 5% of the national gas and oil production was impacted as far as one month after the storm; 500,000 barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve were released to offset impacts. The national average gas price increased by $0.17 per gallon (Amadeo, 2019; Borodovsky, 2017; BSEE, 2017; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; Gallagher, 2017; Ibrahim, 2017; Jansen, 2017a).

224

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS 83 people died, including 65 drownings and 28 other storm-related causes of death. Other causes include a heart attack with delayed emergency response, being crushed by a fallen tree after the storm, and electrical outages effecting oxygen supplies. Emergency evacuations made during the storm caused multiple drownings (Constible, 2018; Weber & Lauer, 2017).

Wastewater treatment plants serving 169,000 residents were shut-down; at least 25,000 gallons of untreated sewage water contaminated floodwaters. Estimates are expected to be low since 20% of affected treatment plants did not publish information on the amount of spillage they experienced. Combined with industrial spillage, the Texas coastal area experienced at least 150 million gallons of wastewater contamination. Fecal contamination was detected in stagnant indoor flood waters. One woman died of septicemic shock after a cut was exposed to contaminated indoor water. Exposure to contaminated water also brought an increase in Emergency Department visits for cellulitis (Bever, 2017; Constible, 2018; Kaplan & Healy, 2017; Tresaugue, 2018).

Air pollution through the storm included bacterial, mold, dust, and chemical exposures which occurred during the storm and during recovery efforts. Fine particle pollutants from bacteria, mold growth and dust were 32 times higher in flooded homes compared to non-flooded homes; aerosolization largely resulted from repair activities. Within 24 hours after initial storm impact, 8 chemical plants in the area shut-down releasing an initial pulse of 1.3 million pounds in chemical air pollution. By 48 hours after impact, this had expanded to 23 incidents of chemical release and 2.2 million pounds of pollution. Chemical releases accumulated at least 8.3 million pounds of air pollutants. Causes of releases included electrical outages and equipment failures associated with flooding. As a recovery strategy, Arkema took a proactive approach of intentionally burning the remaining chemicals to ensure public safety and limit the time release of chemicals (Constible, 2018; Hernandez, Zezima, & Achenbach, 2017; Sanchez, 2018; Tresaugue, 2018).

Federal forces rescued 10,000 people during the storm for emergency evacuation. At the height of the storm, emergency call centers received 900 calls per hour. The average duration of stays before returning from evacuation were 20-weeks. Majority of displaced persons stayed with family, while others lived in a hotel, a temporary apartment, or found another means of temporary housing. At the height of flooding, 30,000 people had evacuated to shelters, while residents of approximately 21,000 households resided in 2,000 hotels across 33 states. The number of evacuated people overall expanded to include 37,000 people in shelters in Texas and 2,000 in shelters in Louisiana. The George R. Brown Convention Center acted as a shelter offering medical needs and providing patient care to 1,700 people of 7,000 people sheltered. Challenges to medical care included loss of prescriptions and medications for chronically ill patients and patients not remembering what medications or what dosage they were taking prior to evacuation. Due to extended needs for sheltering, FEMA moved 14,900 people into temporary housing and 8,000 families into hotel rooms (Amadeo, 2019; Bess, et al., 2019; Gallagher, 2017; Hernandez, Zezima, & Achenbach, 2017; Jansen, 2017b; Moravec, 2017).

Among people who experienced property damage or income loss, nearly a quarter reported a worsened financial situation and one in six reported a loss in quality of life. Property losses included 300,000 buildings and 500,000 privately owned vehicles. Across the population, 1 in 7 privately owned vehicles were damaged, where average ownership is 1.8 vehicles per household. Combined with dealerships and public transportation vehicles, an estimated 1 million vehicles were damaged beyond repair. In the Rice University study, 34% of residents experienced some vehicle damage. Impacts of loss of income or financial loss were most severely experienced among residents who were black or Hispanic and among residents with lower incomes; complications included difficulty paying rent or mortgages, and buying food (Amadeo, 2019; Bess, et al., 2019; Bomey & Madhani, 2017; Hazmel, Wu, Brodie, Sim, & Marks, 2018).

225

Four county jails were evacuated (4,500 prisoners) inland by bus. Even though the facilities were built to be hurricane resistant, they still experienced structural damage. In Houston, inmates were left in prison. Following the storm, prisoners had no access to food, water, or medicine. When water was shut-off they began preserving the toilet water as drinking water and instead relieved themselves into containers. New crimes after the storm featured 80 complaints about home repair fraud or of people posing as police to facilitate theft; additionally, in the months after the storm, there were 90 complaints of medical neglect and abandonment of elderly at long- term health facilities (Daily Forty-Niner, 2017; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; McWilliams & Trotta, 2017; Rannard, 2018).

22,000 children were made homeless by hurricane impacts. 964 school campuses experienced damages. Of these schools, 52 experienced catastrophic damage and 4 had to be rebuilt entirely, costing $126 million. 75 schools in the Houston Independent School District closed due to flooding (Amadeo, 2019; Frosch, Ailworth, & Gold, 2017; McWilliams & Trotta, 2017; Moravec, 2017).

Increases in mental health difficulties were evident through two surveys of affected residents. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 31% of storm survivors had developed unhealthy coping strategies, were on a new mental health prescription, or reported other mental health problems, while another ongoing study through Rice University has found 23% of storm survivors experienced difficulty concentrating (Bess, et al., 2019; Constible, 2018; Hazmel, Wu, Brodie, Sim, & Marks, 2018).

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS Hurricane Harvey brought record rainfall to the region with more than 50 inches of rain in four days. Stormwater displaced sediment from bayou banks, causing a drop of water levels by 3 feet in the Houston Ship Channel. Sediment was redeposited in spaces frequently used by the public, including residential areas, and generated a concern regarding lead, arsenic, and other pollutants being deposited with it. Flooding of refineries, 13 superfund sites, commercial and industrial facilities, and households caused multiple chemical releases into stormwater; household releases included cleaning products. Although damages occurred at superfund sites, no major issues were noted. Failure of sewer systems additionally spread various pathogens at levels greater than safe contact thresholds, and in some homes the levels were 135 times higher than safe contact thresholds (HARC, 2017). The following are further ecologic impacts that occurred because of Hurricane Harvey.

. The highest storm surge (12.5 feet) occurred in Aransas County and severely damaged the surrounding wildlife refuge (Constible, 2018). . Short term increases in ground level ozone and BTEX compounds were observed throughout the area (Glenn, et al., 2017). . Subsequent drops in salinity have been estimated to reduce oyster populations by as much as 90% (Glenn, et al., 2017; Najarro, 2017). . Fecal contamination was detected in 3 bayous near Houston 6 months after the storm (Amadeo, 2019; Glenn, et al., 2017; Hernandez, Zezima, & Achenbach, 2017).

226

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic costs of Hurricane Harvey are estimated to be around $125 billion according to NOAA. There were economic impacts to both individual households in their needed recovery efforts, as well as for local governments and industries. On an individual level, 738,000 people registered for FEMA assistance and $378 million were provided in direct payouts. Charities and other sources supplemented recovery payouts, however most residents were unable to receive financial assistance. Households also experienced a loss in income. In a Rice University Study, approximately 41% of residents experienced income loss due to business disruption. Large employers, universities, and transit services were among the earliest to reopen following the storm (Amadeo, 2019; Bess, et al., 2019; Hazmel, Wu, Brodie, Sim, & Marks, 2018; McWilliams & Trotta, 2017; Moravec, 2017).

In terms of industry, many industries were impacted economically by the hurricane. The top five industries according to the Dow Jones impacted by Harvey was in order of most impacted: retail, refining, insurance, air transit, and banking. The following are further economic impact examples.

. Damages to oyster populations rose retail prices on oyster crops by 15-20%. Fishing and processing businesses in the Galveston bay generate direct personal income of $66 million and $11 million in business revenue (Najarro, 2017) . Half a million cars and trucks were rendered inoperable due to flooding from the storm. . 31 percent of total U.S. refining capacity had either been taken offline or reduced dramatically because of Harvey . Played a role in increasing energy prices by 2.8% in August, with gasoline prices rising by 6.3%.

227

HURRICANE IRMA (2017) 08/30/2017- 09/13/2017

Summary Hurricane Irma was the strongest Atlantic basin hurricane ever recorded. It hit Southwest Florida on September 10th, causing massive storm-surge, flooding, and tornadoes. Hurricanes in Florida highlight an element of Floridian culture, drawing cultural pride and heritage in weathering storms (Glorioso, 2017).

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS . Critical bridges connecting island communities were blown out (Glorioso, 2017). . Failure of water treatment facilities placed Bellview on a 3 day notice post-impact. Ocala county reported a secondary treated wastewater spill due to the failure of a tertiary stage filter (Ocala Star Banner, 2017). . Widespread power losses occurred. In Pinellas county 433,267 customers lost power (Pinellas County, 2018). Manatee county lost power to 26 schools, including many used as emergency shelters (White, 2017). . Waste management was impacted. Pinellas county had 375,000 cubic yards of debris requiring removal (Pinellas County, 2018). In Marion county it took days before garbage collection could resume (White, 2017). . Overdevelopment and growing populations in coastal regions put Florida in a very dangerous position (Sneed, 2017). . Many of Florida’s buildings were built on swamp and marsh land that was filled in, and will ultimately be returned to nature (Sneed, 2017). . Buildings constructed at or near grade were subject to deeper and more damaging flooding from either storm surge or rainfall-induced flooding (FEMA, 2018) . Florida Building Commission found no systemic failures of structural systems in single-family houses built in accordance to the 2001 Florida Building Code (i.e. houses built after March 2002). However, many structural failures in the pre- Florida building code houses were found (Prevatt, Gurley, Roueche, & Wong- Parodi, 2018).

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Prisoners: After learning about the need to evacuate prisoners in Hurricane Andrew, 2 Miami-Dade County facilities refused evacuation orders and kept 4,500 prisoners in place (Dolven, 2017; Iannelli, 2018; Rannard, 2018). The alternative strategy was to increase manpower. Several guards ended up weathering the storm in the solitary confinement cells after their quarters were damaged by the storm. Guards that people spoke about the conditions after the storm were suspended (Iannelli, 2018).

Children: An Ocala County advisory directed to discard or decontaminate toys exposed to floodwater because they posed risk of disease in children (Ocala Star Banner, 2017).

Special Needs: Following closure of the evacuation sites, special needs patients continued to stay on site while authorities ensured they had habitable homes to return to (White, 2017). 228

Blood supply resources were negatively impacted following several days of donation suspension. O- blood was most critically impacted (Ocala Star Banner, 2017).

Power outages caused food spoilage. Marion county residents were advised to dispose of food from freezers which lost power. In addition, a study done by Mitsova, Esnard, Sapat, & Lai (2018) found that rural counties experienced slower restoration of power lines than non-rural counties.

Patients in healthcare settings: In Pinellas County, 49 healthcare facilities evacuated 3,250 patients. This included 30 assisted living facilities, 15 nursing homes, and 4 hospitals. Overall 238 healthcare facilities experienced power outages. Aid sent 840 lbs of ice to impacted healthcare facilities. After the impact, 2 healthcare facilities were evacuated due to heat issues associated with power loss (Pinellas County, 2018).

Those living in nursing homes: People in nursing homes face increased risks during a hurricane due to their age and mobility issues. Having physical and mental limitations increases the isolation those in nursing homes have. In addition, the elderly is at a much higher risk of heat stress and heat stroke. In Hollywood Hills, a rehabilitation center lost electricity for three days. The lack of air conditioning caused 12 deaths in the sweltering conditions of the rehab facility (News Service of Florida, 2019).

Pet owners: Pinellas County pet friendly shelters reached full capacity prior to the storm, forcing pet owners to seek shelter elsewhere (Pinellas County, 2018).

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS . Impacts to the Everglades: o Freshwater from rain and salt water from storm surge causing collisions in the Everglades system o 3-10 feet of storm surge from the Hurricane in different parts of the Everglades o Canals built in the Everglades short circuited the slow-moving flow of water. By accelerating the drainage, the system now has reduced the ability to hold water and be buffer inland environments. o 40% of mangroves were damaged or flattened immediately following Irma (Staletovich, 2018). . Many fallen trees caused habitat loss for wildlife such as birds (Draper, 2017). . The habitats of coral reefs, sea turtles, birds, and other native Everglades wildlife were all impacted severely by the storm. However, not enough time has passed to determine what effects the hurricane had on their populations. . About 14 to 22 percent of the Key deer population, which is estimated to be about 1,000 deer, was killed by the storm (Nobel, 2017) . Destroyed 50-90% of Florida’s citrus fruit in some areas.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS Moody’s Analytics estimated the total economic loss from Irma to be $70 billion dollars. However, some have cited this estimate to be too conservative. It has been estimated that the total cost to the economy from Irma is at $100 billion (AccuWeather, 2017). Florida’s tourism sector was negatively affected by the storm, as Visa card sales by out-of-state visitors fell by 26% in the Southwest region of Florida (Tourism Economics, 2018). Irma also kept away 1.8 million out-of-state visitors for four months (Tourism Economics, 2018). Another large industry that was 229 affected by Hurricane Irma in Florida is agriculture. An informal evaluation by the Farm Bureau estimated losses just in Okeechobee County at $16 million (Campo-Flores & Bauerlein, 2017). The citrus industry was also majorly impacted, causing over $760 million in damages, the worst for Florida oranges since 1945 (Rosenblatt, 2018).

HURRICANE FLORENCE (2018) 08/31/2018 – 09/19/2018

Summary Hurricane Florence, a Cape Verde hurricane, made landfall near Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina on Friday morning September 14th, after being downgraded to a Category 1 Hurricane a day earlier. Similar to Harvey, Florence gradually moved across the state, bringing with it up to 36 inches of rainfall in certain places and 9-13 feet of storm surge. Areas hit the hardest include Jacksonville, New Bern, Newport, Belhaven, Oriental, and North Topsail Beach. Though the storm was only a Category 1 by the time it made landfall, the amount of rain it produced has caused significant flooding in areas where there were unaddressed vulnerabilities. Several impacts both in the built environment, public health, ecological, and economic were witnessed due to the nature of this storm.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS . Water - About 63,000 gallons untreated wastewater flowed into streets for 4 hours in Greensboro, NC. Officials identified accumulation of rainfall from Florence as culprit (AP, 2018). . 60% of homes, or 1.4 million customers, lost power, according to FEMA (AP, 2018). . Flood damage closed over 1,100 roads, including sections of I-40 and I-95 (Stradling, 2018). Due to seasonal conditions, many road repairs were delayed until the spring. $14 million was provided in quick release funds. Early estimates are $75-$80 million in damage. Roads were damaged by asphalt and gravel underneath the asphalt being washed away (Alexander & Cope, 2018). . Bridge closures - 2.9 million daily drivers were impacted due to bridge closures (Alexander & Cope, 2018), as 2,200 primary and secondary roads closed (Varn, 2018). . Agriculture - 1.7 million chickens killed and 66 broiler houses destroyed or damaged by the hurricane. 30 farms were isolated by flood waters. 2 hog manure pits were flooded, contaminating the floodwaters (Hendren, 2018). An unquantified amount of cotton, peanut, and tobacco crops were damaged (AP, 2018). . South Carolina has 178 “high hazard” dams. At least 12 failed in South Carolina and 2 in North Carolina, further aiding flooding in the impacted areas.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Mental health patients: A van evacuating mental health patient was swept away by floodwater. 2 patients could not be rescued from the van (AP, 2018).

Children: 60% of New Hanover county schools were damaged (n<= 15); 3 high schools in Brunswick County were used as emergency shelters (Dolan & McAdams, 2018). A supply of $14 million in federal reimbursement and $2 million in equipment and food loss was granted (Derosier, 2018). Aside from loss of school time, some children are dependent on school for healthy, hot meals (Save the Children, n.d.). North Carolina Christian School Association 230

(NCCSA) reported 6 schools damaged, 6 schools with faculty who lost homes, and 13 schools had families who lost homes. Populations in flood-prone areas: 77% of fatalities were individuals who lived in the rural flood plains in North Carolina. The demographic most at risk according to the data was males over the age of 50 (Srikanto, Ghebreyesus, & Sharif, 2019).

Prisoners: Two SC prisons opted to shelter in place instead of evacuating (Rannard, 2018). The first of these prisons housed 934 inmates and 119 staff. Guards did not have an option to opt in or out of staying in place if they were scheduled. The second prison housed 651 people. A third nearby prison evacuated (Bohatch, 2018).

Migrant workers: Migrant workers live in very isolated, rural areas. After Florence, many were isolated and with basic needs such as food and water. In addition, there were only English radio stations in many areas of North Carolina, and without television, migrant workers were not receiving updates and warnings put out by the government. Workers and their families also feared seeking help due to the presence of ICE agents. Being migrant workers, they are not used to hurricanes and did not have people communicating properly to them so that they could prepare prior to when Florence made landfall (NPR, 2018).

Drinking water: Drinking water was greatly impacted by being overwhelmed in areas of mass flooding and rainfall. Drinking water is especially vulnerable as pollutants such as coal ash and pig manure were introduced to the water supply system from the floods (Varn, 2018). The 5-day rainfall event caused flooding among the Cape Fear, Lumberton, and Neuse Rivers were these coal ash pits and hog manure lagoons are located (Srikanto, Ghebreyesus, & Sharif, 2019).

ECOLOGIC IMPACTS Due to how recent Hurricane Florence was, the impacts to surrounding ecosystems are not yet known. However, the effects on surrounding animal populations has been observed. . North Carolina Department of Agriculture reported the deaths by drowning of 3.4 million chickens and turkeys and 5,500 hogs. . Impacts of sewage in the water system is hypoxia, where water with decreased oxygen creates algal blooms that lead to increased habitat degradation and deadly consequences for the surrounding wildlife (Prace, 2019).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS According to Bipartisan Policy Center, economic loss ranges from Hurricane Florence range between $30 and $50 billion (Varn, 2018), ranking it among the top 10 costliest hurricanes (Domm, 2018; Varn, 2018). Though the storm was only a Category 1 by the time it made landfall, the amount of rain it produced has caused significant flooding in areas where there were unaddressed vulnerabilities. Economic impacts have been worsened due to the recent increase in construction along North Carolina’s coast and fragile barrier islands (Kathryn, 2018).

231

REFERENCES

Accuweather. (2017). AccuWeather predicts economic cost of Harvey, Irma to be $290 billion. Retrieved from https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweather-predicts-economic-cost-of-harvey- irma-to-be-290-billion/70002686

ACLU. (2006). ACLU Report Details of Horrors Suffered by New Orleans Parish Prisoners in Wake of Hurricane Katrina. New York: ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-report-details-horrors-suffered- orleans-parish-prisoners-wake-hurricane-katrina

Alexander, A., & Cope, C. (2018, September 21). Florence damaged hundreds of NC roads and bridges. When will there be repairs? The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved from https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/weather/article218671150.html

Amadeo, K. (2018, July 4). Hurricane Katrina facts, damage, and costs: What made Katrina so devastating. The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-katrina-facts- damage-and- economic-effects-3306023

Amadeo, K. (2019, January 20). Hurricane Harvey facts, damage and costs: What made Harvey so devastating. The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-harvey-facts- damage-costs- 4150087

Attrino, A. G. (2012, October 30). Fire chief: Perth Amboy waterfront devastated; marina destroyed. Retrieved from https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2012/10/fire_chief_perth_amboy_waterfo.html

Baranger, W. (2015, August 26). Katrina: A turning point at The Times. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/insider/how-we-covered-hurricane-katrina.html

Beaubien, J. (2018, September 24). Floodwaters from Florence hit elderly hard. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/09/24/650957451/flood-waters-from-florence-hit-elderly-hard

Bess, M. B., Craft, E., DesVignes-Kendrick, M., McBrayer, R., Miranda, M. L., Shah, U. A., . . . Williams, S. L. (2019). Hurricane Harvey registry initial report. Hurricane Harvey Registry. Retrieved from https://harveyregistry.rice.edu/

Bever, L. (2017, September 27). A woman died of a flesh-eating infection from Hurricane Harvey floodwaters. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-survived- floodwaters-flesh-eating-infection-20170927-story.html

Bohatch, E. (2018, September 11). South Carolina officials won’t evacuate medium-security prison despite mandatory order. The State. Retrieved from https://www.thestate.com/news/state/south- carolina/article218179005.html

Bomey, N., & Madhani, A. (2017, August 31). Harvey may have wrecked up to 1M cars and trucks. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/31/hurricane- harvey- cars/619785001/

Borodovsky, L. (2017, September 29). The daily shot: 29-Sep-17. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://us14.campaign-archive.com/?e=1e729726d4&u=5a1e9cf11f172c5ca14fd9062&id=4192e642f5

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. (2017, September 1). BSEE Tropical Storm Harvey activity statistics update: Sept. 4, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latest- news/statements-and-releases/press-releases/see-tropical-storm-harvey-activity

Campo-Flores, A., & Bauerlein, V. (2017). Hurricane Irma’s major economic toll on Florida takes shape. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurricane-irmas-major-economic-toll-on- florida-takes-shape-1505381401

Chen, D. W., Hu, W., & Krauss, C. (2012, November 9). Behind New York gas lines: Warnings and crossed fingers. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/nyregion/in-new-york-gas- shortage-missed-opportunities-and-diverted-focus.html?search-input-2=gas+rationing

Chen, E. (2005, October 14). Seeking a bridge to somewhere. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-oct-14-na-housing14-story.html

CNN Library. (2018, August 30). Hurricane Katrina statistics fast facts. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/hurricane-katrina-statistics-fast-facts/index.html

Constible, J. (2018, August 29). The emerging public health consequences of Hurricane Harvey. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/juanita-constible/emerging- public-health-consequences-hurricane-harvey

Curwood, S. (2017). The Everglades after Irma. Retrieved from https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=17-P13-00037&segmentID=2

Daily Forty-Niner. (2017, September 18). Prisoners were blown over during Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. California State University Long Beach. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1942383657?accountid=14745

Derosier, A. (2018, October 11). Losses to North Carolina schools from Florence worse than Hurricane Matthew. Retrieved from https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2018/10/11/504053.htm

Dolan, D., & McAdams, A. (2018, September 18). School assessments after Hurricane Florence. WECT News. Retrieved from https://www.wect.com/story/39111986/school-assessments-after-hurricane-florence/

Dolnick, S. (2012, November 11). As storm raged, 15 fled New Jersey halfway house. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/nyregion/15-inmates-escaped-from-new-jersey- halfway-house-during-hurricane-sandy.html

Dolven, T. (2017, September 9). Trapped in Irma's Path: Thousands of Inmates are left in Miami's Irma Evacuation Zone. Vice News. Retrieved from https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/zmygb3/thousands-of-inmates- are-left-in-miamis-irma-evacuation-zone

Domm, P. (2018 Sept 17). Hurricane Florence damage estimated at 17-22 billion could go higher. CNBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/moodys-hurricane-florence-damage-estimated-at- 17-to-22-billion.html

Draper, E. Hurricane Irma: What we know. National Audubon Society. Retrieved from http://fl.audubon.org/news/hurricane-irma-what-we-know

Edney, H. T., & Prince, Z. (2006, March 30). New Orleans residents ponder their future. District Chronicles. Retrieved from http://www.districtchronicles.com/news/view.php/424833/New-Orleans-residents- ponder-their-futur

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (2005, December 6). Environmental assessment summary for areas of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/katrina/web/html/katrina_env_assessment_summary.html 233

EPA. (2018). Planning for natural disaster debris. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/final_pndd_guidance_0.pdf

Farris, G.S., Smith, G.J., Crane, M.P., Demas, C.R., Robbins, L.L., and Lavoie, D.L., eds. (2007). Science and the storms—the USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1306, 283 p.

FEMA. (2018). Hurricane Irma in Florida: Mitigation assessment team report. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1548685410107- 7ebc7d97c302e3d3524ab8dab0eba54d/392944_Irma_MAT_Book_Bookmarked_508_FINAL.pdf

FEMA. (2015, July 30). FEMA outlines a decade of progress after Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2015/07/30/fema-outlines-decade-progress-after- hurricane- katrina

Fink, S. (2014, March 12). Citing urgent need, U.S. calls on hospitals to hone disaster plans. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/us-citing-urgent-need-calls-on-hospitals-to- improve-disaster-plans.html

Frenkiel, O. (2006, August 10). Prisoners of Katrina. BBC Two. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/5241988.stm

Frosch, D., Ailworth, E., & Gold, R. (2017, August 27). Hurricane Harvey Slams Texas With Devastating Force. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvey-slams-texas-with-devastating- force-1503750047

Gallagher, J. J. (2017, September 1). Hurricane Harvey wreaks historic devastation: By the numbers. abcNEWS. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-harvey-wreaks-historic- devastation- numbers/story?id=49529063

Georgiou, A. (2018, September 26). Water pollution from Hurricane Florence is so bad you can see it from space. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/pollution-hurricane- florence-so-bad- you-can-see-it-space-1137656

Glanton, D. (2006, August 29). Raw deal seen on coast; as casinos lead Mississippi's recovery, some fear poor, elderly ignored. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006- 08-29-0608290170-story.html

Glenn, S., Kinne, E., Bare, R., Beydoun, M., Dillingham, G., Bass, B., . . . Chen, L. (2017). Summarizing Hurricane Harvey's ecological impact. Retrieved from https://www.harcresearch.org/feature/Summarizing_Hurricane_Harvey_Environmental_Impacts_Housto n-Galveston_Region

Glorioso, A. (2017, September 12). A generation of families survive Hurricane Irma’s aftermath in Chokoloskee. Naples Daily News. Retrieved from https://amp.northjersey.com/story/weather/hurricanes/2017/09/12/generation-families-survive- hurricane-irmas-aftermath-chokoloskee/659538001/

HARC. (2017). Summarizing Hurricane Harvey’s environmental impacts. Retrieved from https://harcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=d6b0a3d762ec46ef8ea676f1 008f7028/

Hazmel, L., Wu, B., Brodie, M., Sim, S.-C., & Marks, E. (2018, August 23). One year after the storm: Texas Gulf Coast residents' views and experiences with Hurricane Harvey recovery. Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation [KFF]. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/other/report/one-year-after-storm-texas-gulf- coast-residents-views-experiences-hurricane-harvey-recovery/ 234

Hendren, J. (2018, September 21). Hurricane Florence aftermath: Pollution spills into waterways. Al Jazeera News. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/hurricane-florence-aftermath-pollution- spills-waterways-180921113722676.html

Hernandez, A. R., Zezima, K., & Achenbach, J. (2017, September 3). Texas faces environmental concerns as wastewater, drinking water systems compromised. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/09/03/trump-administration-wants-to-tie- harvey-recovery-aid-to-debt-ceiling-legislation/

Hunn, D., & Dempsey, M. Z. (2018, March 30). Harvey's floods: Most homes damaged by Harvey were outside flood plain, data show. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/In-Harvey-s-deluge-most-damaged-homes-were- 12794820.php

Iannelli, J. (2018, April 25). Guards say they were forced to stay in flooded, dangerous Miami prison during Irma. Miami New Times. Retrieved from https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/prison-guards-trapped-at-fci- miami-during-hurricane-irma-10292901

Ibrahim, A. (2017, September 4). Texas officials see long road from Harvey for state transportation network. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2017/09/04/texas-officials-harvey- transportation/

Jansen, B. (2017a, August 30). Texas has 53,488 bridges. Here's the toll Harvey is expected to take on those. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/30/harvey- floodwaters-topple- bridges-gnaw-roads/616930001/

Jansen, B. (2017b, September 1). Harvey floods Tennessee, Kentucky, as Hurricane Irma spins up in the Atlantic. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/01/harvey-remnants-flood- tennessee- kentucky-irma-picks-up-steam-crossing-atlantic/624205001/

Kaplan, S., & Healy, J. (2017, September 11). Houston's floodwaters are tainted, testing shows. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/health/houston-flood-contamination.html

Kathryn, G. (2018). The environmental impact of Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://strongernc.org/the- environmental-impact-of-hurricane-florence/

Kayen, R., Collins, B., & Gibbons, H. (n.d.). USGS scientists investigate New Orleans levees broken by Hurricane Katrina. Sound Waves Monthly Newsletter. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/soundwaves.usgs.gov/2006/01/index.html

Lee, L. J., & Hall, B. (2011, July). Louisiana's Recovery. Federal Highway Administration Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11julaug/05.cfm

Leslie, J. (2018). The environmental consequences of Hurricane Florence in North Carolina. Retrieved from https://socialistaction.org/2018/10/02/the-environmental-consequences-of-hurricane-florence-in-north- carolina/

Linton, C. (2012, November 3). Hurricane Sandy’s Fallout: What About Rikers Island? The Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/hurricane-sandys-fallout-what-about-rikers-island

McWilliams, G., & Trotta, D. (2017, September 5). Houston quickens pace of Harvey recovery as new storm threatens U.S. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm- harvey/houston- quickens-pace-of-harvey-recovery-as-new-storm-threatens-u-s- idUSKCN1BG21E?utm_source=applenews

Klatell, L. (2006, August 27). Debate: Is New Orleans Storm-Ready? CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/debate-is-new-orleans-storm-ready/ 235

Mitsova, D., Esnard, A., Sapat, A., & Lai, B. (2018). Socioeconomic vulnerability and electric power restoration timelines in Florida: The case of Hurricane Irma. Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 94(1), 689-709. doi:10.1007/s11069-018-3413-x

Moravec, E. R. (2017, September 14). Texas officials: Hurricane Harvey death toll at 82, 'mass casualties have absolutely not happened'. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-officials-hurricane-harvey-death-toll-at-82-mass- casualties-have-absolutely-not-happened/2017/09/14/bff3ffea-9975-11e7-87fc- c3f7ee4035c9_story.html?utm_term=.88da1eecfb1a

Moynihan, C. (2013, September 20). No retrial in ’95 Bronx killing for 3 freed from prison. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/nyregion/no-retrial-for-3-freed-in-1995-bronx- killing.html

Najarro, I. (2017, September 21). Harvey decimated Galveston Bay's oyster population. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/retail/article/Harvey-decimated- Galveston-Bay-s-oyster-population-12218312.php

National Hurricane Center. (2018, January 26). Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables updated. NOAA. Retrieved from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Socioeconomic data summary. Retrieved from https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/socioeconomic-data-summary.pdf

National Public Radio. (2018). Migrant workers hit hard by Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/650052758/migrant-workers-hit-hard-by-hurricane-florence

Nobel, J. (2017). Recent hurricanes pushed rare island species closer to the brink. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/hurricane-irma-hurts-florida-keys-wildlife/

North Carolina Christian School Association [NCCSA]. (n.d.). NCCSA Fund for Schools/Families Damaged by Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://www.nccsa.org/2018/09/nccsa-fund-for-schools-families- damaged-by-hurricane-florence/

Newman, A. (2012a, November 9). For the rockaway, a ferry, and some subway service. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/rockaways-ferry-new-york-city.html

Newman, A. (2012b, November 9). New Jersey and New York start to address price gouging. The New York Times.

News Service of Florida. (2019). Nursing home where 12 died after Hurricane Irma loses license. South Florida Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-ne-nursing-home-license- revoked-20190107-story.html

NJ Department of Environmental Protection. (2015). Damage assessment report on the effects of Hurricane Sandy on the state of New Jersey's natural resources. Retrieved from https://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/publications/hurricane-sandy-assessment.pdf

NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2019). Fast facts: Hurricane costs. Retrieved from: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html

Ocala Star Banner. (2017, September 13). Irma notebook: News you can use. The Ocala Star Banner. Retrieved from https://www.ocala.com/news/20170913/irma-notebook-news-you-can-use

Office of the NYC Mayor. (2013). A stronger, more resilient New York. New York. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sirr/report/report.page 236

Ourousoff, N. (2005, October 9). How the city sank. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/433190614?accountid=14745

Peer, A. (2018, September 18). 2012 Hurricane Sandy: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. World Vision. Retrieved from https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2012-hurricane-sandy-facts

Pinellas County. (2018). Pinellas County, Florida Hurricane Irma After-Action Report. Pinellas County: Pinellas County. Retrieved from https://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/article_6f8b99de-1b0f-11e8-b264- cff958573b1d.html

Prace, S. (2019). Hurricanes led to millions of gallons of released untreated sewage water in 2018. The Carolinian. Retrieved from https://carolinianuncg.com/2019/04/17/hurricanes-led-to-millions-of-gallons- of-released-untreated-sewage-water-in-2018/

Prevatt, D., Gurley, K., Roueche, D., & Wong-Parodi, G. (2018). Survey and investigation of buildings damaged by category II, III, IV and V hurricanes in FY 2017-18 – Hurricane Irma 2017. Retrieved from http://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/publications/PrevattUF_FBC_2017_2018_FinalReport-Irma.pdf

Rannard, G. (2018, September 13). Hurricane Florence: Prisons in hurricane's path not evacuated. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45509303

Raymond, A. K. (2017, September 2). The waters recede, trash piles up. Intelligencer. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/when-the-waters-recede-trash-piles-up.html

Rosenblatt, K. (2018). One-two punch of disease and Irma has left Florida citrus reeling. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hurricane-irma/one-two-punch-disease-irma-has-left-florida- citrus-reeling-n839996

Sanchez, L. (2018, August 24). Toxic homes: the invisible threat after Hurricane Harvey. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-harvey-houston-toxic-homes-the-invisible-health-threat/

Save the Children. (n.d.). Hurricane Florence. Save the Children. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we-do/emergency-response/hurricane-florence

Schwarz, J. (2005, December 21). New Orleans wonders what to do with open wounds, its canals. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/433227676?accountid=14745

Sheikh, P. (2005). The impact of Hurricane Katrina on biological resources. Retrieved from https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20051018_RL33117_6b17a54524e2a81234a7f392e35835a64e0b16a f.pdf

Sneed, A. (2017). Hurricane Irma: Florida’s Overdevelopment Has Created a Ticking Time Bomb. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hurricane-irma-floridas- overdevelopment-has-created-a-ticking-time-bomb/

Spahr, R. (2012, October 30). Belmar's boardwalk destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. New Jersey Local News. Retrieved from https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2012/10/belmars_boardwalk_destroyed_by_hurricane_sandy.html

Srikanto P., Ghebreyesus, D., & Sharif, H. (2019). Brief Communication: Analysis of the Fatalities and Socio- Economic Impacts Caused by Hurricane Florence. Geosciences, (2), 58. Retrieved from https://doi- org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.3390/geosciences9020058

Staletovich, J. (2018). NASA team finds massive Everglades mangrove damage from Irma: Can it recover. Miami Herald. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article209148999.html 237

Stradling, R. (2018, September 17). Tuesday roads update: 1,100 roads are still closed, including two interstates. The News & Observer. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article218530775.html

Tourism Economics. (2018). The impact of Hurricane Irma on the Florida tourism economy. Retrieved from https://www.visitflorida.org/media/46680/fl-hurricane-impacts.pdf

Treaster, J. B., & Zernike, K. (2005, August 30). Hurricane Katrina slams into Gulf Coast; dozens are dead. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/us/hurricane-katrina-slams-into-gulf- coast-dozens-are-dead.html

Tresaugue, M. (2018, August 16). Industry's delay in plant shutdowns worsened air pollution during Hurricane Harvey. Environmental Integrity Project. Retrieved from https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news/industrys-delay-in-plant-shutdowns-worsened-air-pollution- during-hurricane-harvey/

Troianovski, A. (2012, November 1). A look inside Verizon’s flooded communications hub. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204707104578091171538491386

University of Rhode Island. (2015). Ecosystem perspective: What can a hurricane do to the environment. Retrieved from http://www.hurricanescience.org/society/impacts/environmentalimpacts/

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (2005). USDA Forest Service Reports Significant Damage by Hurricane Katrina to Public and Private Timberland, USDA News Release No. 0376.05. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/usda-forest-service-reports-significant-damage-hurricane-katrina- public-and-private

Varn, J. (2018). Physical impacts and policy implications of Hurricane Florence. Bipartisan Policy. Retrieved from https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/physical-impacts-and-policy-implications-of-hurricane-florence/

Vartabedian, R (2006, June 1). Corps: Levees' design caused deadly failure. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jun-02-na-levee2-story.html

Weather Underground. (2019). 2012 North Atlantic tropical storms. Retrieved from https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at2012.asp

Weber, P. J., & Lauer, C. (2017, September 6). Hurricane Harvey death toll hits 70. NBC Universal. Retrieved from https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hurricane-Harvey-Death-Toll-Hits-70-442918503.html

White, D. (2017, September 12). In Manatee, Irma-related costs will be substantial. Herald Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20170912/in-manatee-irma-related-costs-will-be-substantial

White, M. (2017 Sept 15). Why Irma’s impact on the economy will be worse than Harvey’s. In NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hurricane-irma/why-irma-s-impact-economy-will- be-worse-harvey-s-n801696

Williams, V. J. (2010). Identifying the economic effects of salt water intrusion after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1), 29-37. Retrieved from doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n1p29

Yee, V. (2012, November 9). Zero may be a strange number, but it's not odd. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/nyregion/hurricane- sandy.html

Zezima, K. (2012, November 1). Storm washes away much of 'Jersey Shore' town. WDay 6 News. Retrieved from https://archive.is/20130217011336/http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/70802/group/homepage/

238

REFERENCES

239

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (Accessed February 03, 2020) Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health- Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/Robert-T--Stafford-Disaster-Relief-and- Emergency-Assistance-Act-Fact-Sheet/

Attrino, A. G. (2012, October 30). Fire chief: Perth Amboy waterfront devastated; marina destroyed. Retrieved from https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2012/10/fire_chief_perth_amboy_waterfo.html

https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse- resources/resources/Preventing%20and%20Controlling%20Transmissible%20Diseases%20in%20the%20Ho meless/ doi.org/10.3201/eid1409.082042

Baranger, W. (2015, August 26). Katrina: A turning point at The Times. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/insider/how-we-covered-hurricane-katrina.html

Bethel, J. W., Burke, S. C., & Britt, A. F. (2013). Disparity in disaster preparedness between racial/ethnic groups. Disaster health, 1(2), 110-116. doi:10.4161/dish.27085

Borodovsky, L. (2017, September 29). The daily shot: 29-Sep-17. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://us14.campaign-archive.com/?e=1e729726d4&u=5a1e9cf11f172c5ca14fd9062&id=4192e642f5

BRPC / One Bay. (2017). The cost of doing nothing. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/2017-The_Cost_of_Doing_Nothing_Final.pdf

Brandes, S. (2015). SB 1094. Perils of Flood. Florida, United States: Florida Senate. Retrieved from https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1094/BillText/Filed/PDF 241

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Heat and older adults. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/older-adults-heat.html

Chen, E. (2005, October 14). Seeking a bridge to somewhere. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-oct-14-na-housing14-story.html

Children's Bureau. (2016). Disaster planning for child welfare agencies. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/disasterplanning.pdf

City of Copenhagen. (2018). The city of Copenhagen government 2018 – 2021. Retrieved from https://international.kk.dk/artikel/city-copenhagen-government

City of Copenhagen. (2011). Copenhagen climate adaptation plan. Retrieved from https://international.kk.dk/artikel/climate-adaptation

CNN Library. (2018, August 30). Hurricane Katrina statistics fast facts. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/hurricane-katrina-statistics-fast-facts/index.html

Congressional Research Service. (2019). Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf.

Constans, J., Vasterling, J., Deitch, E., Han, X., Tharp, A., Davis, T, Sullivan, G. (2012). Pre-Katrina mental illness, post disaster negative cognitions, and PTSD symptoms in male veterans following Hurricane Katrina. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(6), 568-577. Retrieved form https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-05371-001 doi:10.1037/a0027487

Curwood, S. (2017). The Everglades after Irma. Retrieved from https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=17-P13-00037&segmentID=2

Cutter, S., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65-77. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005

Department of Homeland Security. (2018, May 31). Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment. Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/threat-and-hazard-identification-and-risk-assessment

Derosier, A. (2018, October 11). Losses to North Carolina schools from Florence worse than Hurricane Matthew. Retrieved from https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2018/10/11/504053.htm

Dolan, D., & McAdams, A. (2018, September 18). School assessments after Hurricane Florence. WECT News. Retrieved from https://www.wect.com/story/39111986/school-assessments-after-hurricane-florence/

Domm, P. (2018 Sept 17). Hurricane Florence damage estimated at 17-22 billion could go higher. CNBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/moodys-hurricane-florence-damage-estimated-at- 17-to-22-billion.html

Draper, E. Hurricane Irma: What we know. National Audubon Society. Retrieved from http://fl.audubon.org/news/hurricane-irma-what-we-know

esponse-content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Gendered_Terrain_of_Disaster_Through.pdf&X-Amz- Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190807%2Fus-east- 1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190807T191352Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz- SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz- Signature=b306158e190610fc9ff9f2d67e1b0a35978c4c22f701dd502827492c74221a58

EPA. (2018). Planning for natural disaster debris. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/final_pndd_guidance_0.pdf

FEMA BRIC. (2020). Building resilient infrastructure and communities (BRIC). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/bric

FEMA. (2019). Flood Zones. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones

FEMA. (2015, July 30). FEMA outlines a decade of progress after Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2015/07/30/fema-outlines-decade-progress-after-hurricane- katrina

FEMA FMA. (2019). Fact sheet: FY 2019 flood mitigation assistance (FMA) grant program. Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. (web, accessed April 21, 2020) Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media- library-data/1578520288733-d372d995bdbb6aea6c88ed39636138fb/FMAFactSheetFY19_1.8.20.pdf

FEMA FMA. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Flood mitigation assistance grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program

FEMA HMGP. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Hazard mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program

FEMA (2020). Hazard mitigation plan status. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-plan- status 245

FEMA PA. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Public Assistance: Local, state, tribal and private non-profit. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit

FEMA PDM. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Pre-Disaster mitigation grant program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program

FEMA. (2004). Questions and answers for undocumented immigrants regarding FEMA assistance. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2004/06/17/questions-and-answers-undocumented-immigrants- regarding-fema-assistance

FEMA. (2016). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1519395888776- af5f95a1a9237302af7e3fd5b0d07d71/StaffordAct.pdf

Florida Department of Children and Families. (2018). Children in out-of-home care: Statewide. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/childwelfare/dashboard/c-in-ooh.shtml

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Coastal construction control line program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/coastal-construction-control-line

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Beaches Funding Program. Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2019). Beaches funding documents. Retrieved https://floridadep.gov/water/beaches-funding-program/content/beaches-funding-documents

Florida Division of Emergency Management (June 7, 2019). Local mitigation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.floridadisaster.org/dem/mitigation/local-mitigation-strategy/

Florida Health Finder. (n.d.). Facility/provider locator. Retrieved from http://www.floridahealthfinder.gov/facilitylocator/FacilitySearch.aspx

Florida Housing. (2017). Overview of the Florida building code. Retrieved from http://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/aboutflorida/august2017/august2017/tab4.pdf

Florida Housing Coalition. (2018a) Affordable housing resource guide. Retrieved from https://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Affordable-Housing-Resource-Guide-2018-12- FINAL.pdf 246

Florida Legislature. (2012). The 2012 Florida statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100- 0199/0161/0161ContentsIndex.html

Florida Legislature. (2000). The 2000 Florida Statutes. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0259/Sec105.htm&St atuteYear=2000

Fonesca, V., Smith, H., Kuhadiya, N., Leger, S., Yau, L., Reynolds, K. John-Kalarickal, J. (2009). Impact of a natural disaster on diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32(9), 1632-1638. Retrieved from http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/32/9/1632.full.pdf

Frazier, T., Thompson, C. M., Dezzani, R., & Butsick, D. (2013). Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography, 42, 95-107. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004

Frenkiel, O. (2006, August 10). Prisoners of Katrina. BBC Two. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/5241988.stm

Gomez, M. (2012). Natural disasters and people living with HIV and AIDS. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/blog/natural-disasters-and-people-living-with-hiv-and-aids-2

Greenberg, S. (2019, June 28). Interview by phone. [B. Cook]

HARC. (2017). Summarizing Hurricane Harvey’s environmental impacts. Retrieved from https://harcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=d6b0a3d762ec46ef8ea676f1 008f7028/

Haskell, B. (2014). Sexuality and natural disaster: Challenges of LGBT communities facing Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2513650

Henry, E. (2019, June 17). Interview by email. [B. Cook]

Hernandez, A. R., Zezima, K., & Achenbach, J. (2017, September 3). Texas faces environmental concerns as wastewater, drinking water systems compromised. The Washington Post. Retrieved from 248

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/09/03/trump-administration-wants-to-tie- harvey-recovery-aid-to-debt-ceiling-legislation/

Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020). Emergency management. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management

Hillsborough County. (web, accessed May 14, 2020a). ELAPP. Retrieved from https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/recreation-and-culture/conservation/elapp

Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. (2017). Sea level rise vulnerability assessment for the City of Tampa. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sea-Level- Rise-Vulnerability-Assessment-for-the-City-of-Tampa-rev5.pdfHillsborough County. (2015).

HSA Engineers & Scientists. (2012). Hillsborough County storm surge chemical contamination study. Retrieved from https://hsweng.com/wp-content/uploads/Artcile-Pages-from-October-2018-Edition.pdf

HUD CDBG. (web, accessed April 20, 2020). Community Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment

HUD Exchange. (web, accessed April 21, 2020). CDBG: Community development block grant programs. Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/

Hughes, Z. J. (2009). Rapid headward erosion of marsh creeks in response to relative sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 1-5. doi:10.1029/2008GL036000

Hurtibise, R. (September 11, 2015) Like them or not, our 60’s-70’s suburbs are here to stay. Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved from https://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-estate/fl-groovy-60s-and-70s-houses-20150913-story.html 249

International Code Council. (2017). 2017 Florida building code. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FBC2017

International Code Council. (2017). Florida building code: Test protocols for high velocity hurricane zones. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FTPC2017

International Code Council. (2017). Florida building code: Residential.

International Code Council. (2017). Florida building code: Test protocols for high velocity hurricane zones.

Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C., & Pal, R. (1999). Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) to summarize national environmental vulnerability proﬁles. SOPAC Technol. Rep. 275, 73. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lino_Briguglio/publication/267821112_Environmental_Vulnerability _Index_EVI_to_summarise_national_environmental_vulnerability_profiles/links/549d3d5f0cf2fedbc3104f77 /Environmental-Vulnerability-Index-EVI-to-summarise-national-environmental-vulnerability-profiles.pdf

Kathryn, G. (2018). The environmental impact of Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://strongernc.org/the- environmental-impact-of-hurricane-florence/

Klatell, L. (2006, August 27). Debate: Is New Orleans Storm-Ready? CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/debate-is-new-orleans-storm-ready/

Kousky, C. (2016). Impacts of Natural Disasters on Children. Future of Children, 26(1), 73-92. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513517418

Lee, L. J., & Hall, B. (2011, July). Louisiana's Recovery. Federal Highway Administration Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11julaug/05.cfm

Linton, C. (2012, November 3). Hurricane Sandy’s Fallout: What About Rikers Island? The Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/hurricane-sandys-fallout-what-about-rikers-island

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service [LIRS]. (n.d). Disaster preparedness in migrant communities: A manual for first responders. Retrieved from https://www.lirs.org/assets/2474/disaster_preparedness_for_migrant_communities.pdf

Morrow, B. (2002). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00102

Mosaic. (2017). Defining the terms: Gypstack. Retrieved from http://www.mosaicco.com/florida/new_wales_water_loss_incident_resources.htm

Murphy, J. A., Major. (2012, September 24). Two Case Studies on Jail Evacuations During a Natural Disaster: Iowa’s 2008 Flooding: Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.com/news/article/31329-two-case- studies-on-jail-evacuations-during-a-natural-disaster-iowa-s-2008-flooding-part-1

National Health Care for the Homeless Council. (2016). Surviving severe weather: Tools to promote emergency preparedness for people experiencing homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.diversitypreparedness.org/browse- resources/resources/Surviving%20Severe%20Weather%20Among%20Homeless%20Populations/

National Hurricane Center. (2018, January 26). Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables updated. NOAA. Retrieved from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Socioeconomic data summary. Retrieved from https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/socioeconomic-data-summary.pdf

National Public Radio. (2018). Migrant workers hit hard by Hurricane Florence. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/650052758/migrant-workers-hit-hard-by-hurricane-florence

Needle, S., & Wright, J. (2015, November 01). Ensuring the Health of Children in Disasters. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/136/5/e1407

Newman, A. (2012a, November 9). For the rockaway, a ferry, and some subway service. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/rockaways-ferry-new-york-city.html

Newman, A. (2012b, November 9). New Jersey and New York start to address price gouging. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/nyregion/updates-on-service-restoration-in- new-york-city.html?searchResultPosition=1 252

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (2019). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (2019). Fast facts: Hurricane costs. Retrieved from: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html

Ocala Star Banner. (2017, September 13). Irma notebook: News you can use. The Ocala Star Banner. Retrieved from https://www.ocala.com/news/20170913/irma-notebook-news-you-can-use

Office of the NYC Mayor. (2013). A stronger, more resilient New York. New York. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sirr/report/report.page

Ourousoff, N. (2005, October 9). How the city sank. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/433190614?accountid=14745

Peer, A. (2018, September 18). 2012 Hurricane Sandy: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. World Vision. Retrieved https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2012-hurricane-sandy-facts

Plan Hillsborough. (2014). Hillsborough MPO Transportation Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Project. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/hillsborough-transportation-vulnerability-assessment-pilot-project/

Plan Hillsborough. (web, accessed May 14, 2020). Comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County Florida. Retrieved from http://www.planhillsborough.org/hillsborough-county-comprehensive-plan/

Ramboll. (2013). Copenhagen Cloudburst Plans. Retrieved from https://acwi.gov/climate_wkg/minutes/Copenhagen_Cloudburst_Ramboll_April_20_2016%20(4).pdf

Rannard, G. (2018, September 13). Hurricane Florence: Prisons in hurricane's path not evacuated. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45509303

Raymond, A. K. (2017, September 2). The waters recede, trash piles up. Intelligencer. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/when-the-waters-recede-trash-piles-up.html

Rowel, R., Sheikhattari, P., Barber, T. M., & Evans-Holland, M. (2012). Introduction of a guide to enhance risk communication among low-income and minority populations: A grassroots community engagement approach. Health Promotion Practice, 13(1), 124-132. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910390312

Ruppert, T., & Deady, E. (2017). Climate change impacts on law and policy in Florida. Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://floridaclimateinstitute.org/docs/climatebook/Ch07- Ruppert.pdf

Save the Children. (n.d.). Hurricane Florence. Save the Children. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we-do/emergency-response/historical- emergencies/hurricane-florence 254

Schwarz, J. (2005, December 21). New Orleans wonders what to do with open wounds, its canals. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/433227676?accountid=14745

Sheikh, P. (2005). The impact of Hurricane Katrina on biological resources. Retrieved from https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20051018_RL33117_6b17a54524e2a81234a7f392e35835a64e0b16a f.pdf

Slomp, R. (2012). Flood Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands: A 2012 update. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:7d27240f-1169-4536-b204-fc821345669b#

Smelik, F. (2008). West8, Mosaics. Princeton Architectural Press.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2015). 2015 Regional Water Supply Plan. Retrieved from https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/resources/plans-reports/rwsp

Srikanto P., Ghebreyesus, D., & Sharif, H. (2019). Brief Communication: Analysis of the Fatalities and Socio- Economic Impacts Caused by Hurricane Florence. Geosciences, 9(2), 58. Retrieved from https://doi- org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.3390/geosciences9020058

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. (2016). Tampa Bay blue carbon assessment. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Tampa-Bay-Blue-Carbon-Assessment- Report-final_June2016.pdf 255

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2011). 2011 disaster resiliency study. Retrieved from http://www.tbrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TB_DisasterResiliencyStudy2011.pdf

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (2006). Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay Region. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/13572313/sea-level-rise-in-the-tampa-bay-region

Tobin, K., & Freeman, P. (2004). Emergency preparedness: A manual for homeless service providers. University of Massachusetts Boston. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umb.edu/csp_pubs/30/

Toughen Florida's Building Codes. (2018, October 19). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-toughen-floridas-building-code-20181019/

Tampa Bay Times. (2018, October 19). Toughen Florida's Building Codes. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-toughen-floridas-building-code-20181019/