A PARCEL LEVEL ANALYSIS OF COASTAL HAZARD IMPACT ON MANATEE COUNTY S RESIDENTIAL LANDS: AN INTEGRATED APPLICATION OF GIS, HAZUS MH AND LAND USE PLAN By JINGRU ZHANG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
Â© 2014 Jingru Zhang
To everyone who has ever inspired me or shaped my path
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee members. I would have certainly stumbled along the way for more than I did without their unsurpassed knowledge and advices. I thank Dr.Paul Zwick and who has supported me not only by pr oviding technical guidance and research assistance through the rough road to finish my thesis, but also academically and mentally in the past two years. The research guidance and encouragement from my co chair, Dr. Abhinav Alakshendra, has been equally inv aluable on both an academic and a personal level, for which I am extremely grateful. Dozens of people have taught me and shaped my growth immensely at the UF URP program. I am grateful to Stanley Latimer for introducing me to the world of GIS and for enor mous patience in teaching. Thank you to Dr. Ruth Steiner who introduced me to the valuable method in the process of research design. I would also like to thank Dr. Kristin Larson and Dr. Kathryn Frank whom inspired me with planning theories and ethics. I sincerely thank Dr. Ilir Bejleri who has restored my confidence in organizing and presenting my research ideas. Lastly, but certainly not least, I thank Dr. Joseli Macedo. She was the leader professor of URP Curitiba program, which has been a life changing experience for me. Above all, my sincere gratitude is bestowed upon my parents and my family members . I am truly indebted to them for their unconditional love.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Research Questions and Associated Objectives ................................ .................... 13 Significance of Research ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Meth odology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 16 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Coastal Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19 Coastal Hazard Risk Analysis ................................ ................................ ................. 20 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 22 Demographic ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 22 County Coastal Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ......... 23 County Coastal Hazard Planning Profile ................................ .......................... 23 GIS and HAZUS MH Modeling for Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment ............. 25 Future Land Use Planning and Coastal Hazard Mitigation ................................ ..... 26 3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................ 29 Data Description ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 29 GIS Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29 HAZUS MH Inventory Data ................................ ................................ .............. 29 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 30 GIS Data Preparation ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 Setting up unique identifications ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Combine parcel and future land use data ................................ ......................... 31 ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 Implementation of the HAZUS MH 2.1 Level 1 Flood Model ............................ 33 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ .............. 44
6 HAZUS MH Hazard Event Report Analysis ................................ ............................ 44 Building Inventory : General Building Stock ................................ ....................... 44 General Building Stock Damage ................................ ................................ ...... 46 Building Related Economic Loss ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Future Residential Lands and their Existing Condition ................................ ........... 50 Future Residential Lands Exposure ................................ ................................ . 50 Current Land Uses Remain Residential in the Future ................................ ...... 52 Vacant Lands Become Future Residential Properties ................................ ............ 55 Case Studies: Stacked Existing Residential Properties ................................ .... 57 Case 1: 887 Spanish Drive South ................................ .............................. 57 Case 2: 6303 Sun Eagle Lane ................................ ................................ ... 59 Case 3: 1394 Carlton Arms Drive ................................ .............................. 60 5 CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATION FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT .................. 76 Existing Residential Lands Remain Residential In the Future ................................ . 76 Stillwater Scenario : Exposed Areas with Average Depth Greater Than 4 Feet ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 76 Stillwater Scenario: Exposed Area with Average Storm Water Depth of 1 to 3 Feet and a 4 Foot Maximum Depth ................................ ............................ 78 Exposed Areas under a Half Meter Sea Level Rise induced Storm Surge with A 4 Feet Average Depth ................................ ................................ ........ 80 Exposed Areas under a Full Meter Sea Level Rise Induced Storm Su rge with a 4 Feet Average Depth ................................ ................................ ......... 82 Vacant Lands for Future Capacity ................................ ................................ .......... 85 Adaptation of Exposed Vacant Areas with Potential SLR Occurrence ............. 85 Adaptation of Exposed Vacant Areas without Potential SLR Occurrence ........ 87 Adaptation of Vacant Exposur e inside a Half Meter SLR Induced Storm Surge ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 89 Adaptation of Vacant Exposure inside a Full Meter SLR Induced Storm Surge ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 89 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 89 APPENDIX : TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS ................................ ............................... 96 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 113
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Manatee County Parcel Metadata ................................ ................................ ........... 38 3 2 Manatee County Fut ure Land Use Metadata ................................ .......................... 39 3 3 Coastal Hazard Scenario Creation: Entering 100 year Stillwater Elevation ............ 40 4 1 Building Exposure by Occupancy Type of Study Region ................................ ........ 62 4 2 Building Exposure ($1000)by Occupancy Type for the Scenario ............................ 62 4 3 Building Damage By Occupancy Types (Counts), Summarized by Scenarios ........ 63 4 4 Building Damag e (%) By Occupancy Types, Summarized by Scenarios ................ 63 4 5 Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Stillwater Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 64 4 6 Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Half meter Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 64 4 7 Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Full Meter Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 65 4 8 Summary of Exposed Existing Land (Acreage) Designated as Future Residential By Scenarios ................................ ................................ .................... 66 4 9 Summary of Exposed Future Residential Land Exposure (Acreage) By Scenarios ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 67 4 10 Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 4 feet , No Maximum Depth Limitation ) ................................ ................................ .......... 68 4 11 Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 1 (Stillwater Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) with Sea Level Rise Potentiality(Low er Topography) ................................ ........................ 69 4 1 2 Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 1 (Stillwater, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) with Sea Level Rise Potentiality (Higher Topography) ................................ ...................... 70 4 13 Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 2(Half meter, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) ....................... 71 4 14 Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 3(Full meter, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) ........................ 72
8 A 1 Future residential l ands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 1 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) ................................ ................................ ............................... 96 A 2 Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 2 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) ................................ ................................ ............................... 96 A 3 Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 3 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) ................................ ................................ ............................... 96 A 4 Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 2 ( Half meter , Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum Depth Li mitation) ................................ ................................ .......... 97 A 5 Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 3 ( Full meter, Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum Depth Limitation) ................................ ................................ .......... 97 A 6 Example: Exposed Existing Lands Designated as Future Residential in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum D epth Limitation ) ........ 98
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 HAZUS MH Implementation Process ................................ ................................ ...... 41 3 2 The attribute table of stacked parcels ................................ ................................ ..... 42 3 3 Stacked polygons ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 3 4 The categorical symbols of collected events ................................ ........................... 43 4 1 Existing Land Uses Designated as Future Residential. Displayed By Scenarios .... 73 4 2 Example: Exposed Future Residential Acreages in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1 Foot and Max Depth 4 Feet) ................................ ................................ . 74 4 3 Example: Exposed Existing Land Use Designated as Future Residential in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1, Max Depth 4 ................................ ............... 74 4 4 Case 1: 887 Spanish Dr. S ................................ ................................ ...................... 75 4 5 Case 2: 6303 Sun Eagle Ln. ................................ ................................ ................... 75 4 6 Case 3: 1394 Carlton Arms Dr. ................................ ................................ ............... 75 A 1 Expected residential building damage (Level of Damage) in Stillwater scenario .. 102 A 2 Expected residential building damage (Level of Damage) in Half meter scenario 102 A 3 Expected residential building damage (Level of Damage) in Full meter scenario 102 A 4 Building Exposure ($1000) by Occupancy Type by Scenarios ............................. 103 A 5 Future Residential Land Use Exposure By Scenario ................................ ............ 104 A 6 Vacant Lands Categorizations by Scenarios ................................ ........................ 105 A 7 Vacant Lands exposed to 100 yr Stillwater based SS and a potential 1 meter SLR ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 106 A 8 Vacant Lands exposed to 100 yr Stillwater based SS without a potential 1 meter SLR ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 107 A 9 Vacant Lands exposed to a half meter SLR induced SS ................................ ...... 108
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BFE Base Floor Elevation CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FDEP Florida Department of Environment Protection SLR Sea Level Rise SS Storm Surge
11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning A PARCEL LEVEL ANALYSIS OF COASTAL HAZARD IMPACT ON MANATEE HAZUS MH AND LAND USE PLAN By Jingru Zhang December 2014 Chair: Paul Zwick Cochair: Abinav Alakshendra Major: Urban and Regional Planning This thesis intend ed to reveal how coastal hazard would affect the Manatee ed the question about the strategies that can help improv e the integration of land use planning and coastal hazard adaptation. M y study estimated buildings an d building stock replacement value exposed to projected coastal hazard scenarios. R esidential properties are most vulnerable to the attacks of coastal hazards. Hence, my study summarized future residential land exposures and associated existing land uses b y scenarios . Land use exposures were categorized by spatial locations with respect to the magnitude of sea level rise s and associated storm surges . My study also developed a methodology to present the projected storm water depth at the parcel level, and to identify the number of properties in each parcel. For categorized future residential capacities, my study supported the community developments while also reduced their vulnerability to coastal hazards . Suggestions were made in views and flood insurance. Existing residential land uses remaining residential must follow the
12 development strategy that focusing on maintenance of buildings life spans and the associated ser vice infrastructure. Specified site development and purchasing and selling back of development rights might be adopted for evacuation access and other urgent public services. Development opportunities in these area s are limited, but the county should focus on sustaining the stability between the communities and coastal environmental process . Vacant lands have more development potential. The county should involv e flood insurance program, new constructions , and alternation of existing structures to meet the standards that the insurance company are willing to provide adequate coverage . Apart from federal flood insurance policy, land regulatory tools integrated with coastal planning considerations should take the predominant position to prepare coastal hazard ad aptations. An important goal the fulfillment of the plans and ordinances. Further coastal hazard based studies should not only focus on convinc ing the sta keholders with sophisticated model ed results about the adaptation process and to be willing to participate in implementations.
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Global warming, or climate change, is a subject that shows no sign of cooling down . ( National Geography News, 2007) The U.S Global Change Research Program presented key findings about global climate change impacts. T he program stated that the observed incr induced emissions of heat trapping gases ( U.S Global Change Research Program , 200 9 , p. 9 ) The facts demo nstrated by the program include expected increasing climate related impacts on energy, life line utilities, induced public health issues and driving compelling water sustainability issue s are at increasing risk from sea level rise and storm surge , (p. 12) the combination of coastal hazard risk ,wave heights and long term beach erosions put properties and public infrastructure around Gulf Coasts and Pacific Islands are at a 90% probability of being impacted by coastal hazard driven flooding and erosion effe cts. Nowadays, it is necessary to aware the facts of increasing coastal hazard risks in the scope of urban planning , and to follow the trend of hazard mitigation . It is also important to integrate flood hazard related elements to develop better land use strategies . Last but not the l east , it will be expected that the trend of using big data and customized hazard based programs can lead to profound improvement of coastal hazard mitigation strategies. Research Questions and Associated Objectives This research reflects understanding of coastal flood hazard s from an urban planning perspective. It also shows a view about how urban planning and management
14 work in the coastal hazard adaptation process. The thes is is about to answer the following question s : 1. Will coastal flood hazards affect the c Here the way to affect land developments mainly refers to bringing damages to building stock, especially residential properties and associated lands. At first, it was assumed that a 100 year storm surge would happen in the year 2040. By summarizing physical and economic damage s to the properties and lands within projected storm surge areas, my study produce d general estimation s of flood hazard impact. M anatee County, Florida, one of the counties at high risk of coastal hazards such as hurricanes and storm surges, was chosen as the study area. To answer the first question, this research used HAZUS MH to generate estimations about building stock losses an d related economic value losses caused by projected storm surges. In order to explore more details of the impact brought by storm surges , ArcGIS was used for an in depth analysis of the property losses . This was based on the c current land use codes, future land use plan , and coastal planning elements . In this way, the impact of coastal hazard s on future land development was revealed with relatively detailed justifications. 2. What strategies can help improv e the integration of land use planning a nd c oastal hazard adaptation? The first valuable strategy identified by my study is integration of estimations from different viewpoints . As mentioned , my study used HAZUS MH to generate building oriented loss estimation s , while also incorporating GIS technology to conduct a land area oriented loss assessment. Buildings and lands are tig htly associated characteristics. Therefore, both building losses and land exposures were estimated under different storm surge scenarios , for the sake of gaining com prehensive understanding s about flood hazard impact. The second strategy is to integrate general and local estimations about coastal hazard impact on lands and properties. My study used both HAZUS MH and ArcGIS to generate general loss estimations. Howeve r, the impact brought by storm surges onto each parcel or property varies for each individual building or parcel. In order to be more practical in the process of impact estimation, my study developed a property data preparation strategy to capture the details about storm surge caused damages to specific locations and properties. The strategy helped strengthen metadata for property data provided by the appraiser , making the property data more available for direct application of the coun policies. My study examined discusses how to apply land use plan, costal elements, building codes and FEMA construction strategies to certain types of lands affected by storm water .
15 Significance of Research My study can be regarded as a coastal hazard risk analysis i ntended to enhance hazard adaptation policy through analysis of hazard impact . D ata processing strategies and joint loss estimations are also part of the adaptation strateg ies . Coastal hazard analysis supports the maintenance and development of human life and properties, by mitigating the spatial conflict between built living show ed that human habitation tends to concentrate near coastal population within100 km of a shoreline and 100m of sea level was estimated as 1.2 X 109 people with average densities nearly 3 times higher than the global average density, and average population densities are higher at ele vation below 20m though the 100km width of the near along the nation's coastline has increased our vulnerability to severe coastal storms and other natural hazards. Puszkin Chevlin, et al. , 2 006, p. 7) A wareness of the risks living adjacent to potential hazard generators helps us develop proper avoidance strategies. Second, through site specific analysis and case studies , my study provides a method of capturing site specific information about flood hazard impact. Numerous previous studies show the property damage, economic loss es , and the on human living environment imposed by coastal hazards. In addition to generalization of land, population or economic value lo ss es by a standardized land value estimation system, government officials and related departments need an overview for hazards impact and an understanding the spatial variation of the strength of impact. They also need to know which of the aspects (e.g. , p hysical structures, economic characteristics) of the property
16 will be affected. In addition , coastal hazard evaluation program s inevitably carry imprecision resulting from data deficiency and model assumption. My study adds to the comprehensiveness of coastal hazard planning by integrating the HAZUS MH loss estimation strategy with the GIS property data preparation strategy. Methodology The entire research process relie d on using HAZUS MH flood hazard modeling and ArcGIS bas ic Geoprocessing tools. ArcGIS was mainly used for secondary data or property data process. The Geoprocessing tools were widely and flexibly adopted in compiling, transforming, aggregating and disaggregating geophysical, demographic and economic informatio n into the data stored at various regional levels. One important steps: identifying number of parcels stacked atop each other, was also done by ArcGIS. HAZUS MH was used for generating storm surge depth grids and Hazard Event Report s of direct and indirec t losses on building stocks, other infrastructures and utilities. Importantly, building characteristics defined in HAZUS MH ( such as structural types and foundation distributions ) were largely adopted in case studies for parcels with multiple stacked polygons. I nteractive use of the two software programs built the workflow of the sequential analysis , the parcel data were prepared to have attributes such as acreages , market value, and land use codes. Th ese attributes were built on various regional levels (Census Block Group level , future land use level and parcel level ). HAZUS MH produced storm surge depth grids . The grids were intersected with parcel data in ArcM ap for summarizing the statistics about affected land areas and associated land use codes. Together , HAZUS MH loss estimation Hazard Event , along with the GIS statistical summaries provide the contents and scope for coastal flood hazard impact analysis. This is because l ands exposed und er projected
17 storm surges can be displayed visually by different categorizations, such as storm water depth or land use descriptions. This provides a variety of ways to convey the information about storm surge cased impacts simultaneously . Apart from the methods listed above, three case studies were incorporated to deal with site specific issues and data inconsistency . Cases also helped illustrate the fact that the GIS based property management process and the flood based customized program can be inte grat ed to provide damage estimations and to initiate further detailed analysis. Result s HAZUS MH Hazard Event Report s show that 99% of buildings facing different levels of storm water caused damages are residential buildings. From the perspective of direct and indirect economic loss, residential buildings are still the primary group, and also the largest group to be affected by the 100 year storm surge projected in the year 2040. A half meter sea level rise causing associated storm surge will substantially increase damaged building stock. Considering that residential properties make up the biggest group exposed to future storm water, the following GIS analys is discusses the existing condition of future residential lands. Most future residential areas comprise current residential lands, followed by current vacant acreage and G reenfields. Vacant lands in the 100 year storm surge area with a one meter sea level rise make the most capacity for future residential developments , The government must give each of these land categories different land use treatment, according to their spatial location and associated potential land development oppor tunities . Finally, we examine d the joint utilization of future land use
18 elements and costal elements in the current comprehensive plan, coastal planning related land use tools, and FEMA suggested construction strategies.
19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW My study undertook flood hazard risk analysis and sought to enhance the process of hazard adaptation. Specifically, the risk analysis consists of risk (hazard) modeling and future land use based hazard scenario analysis . Studies in a variety of coastal hazard based scenarios estimated related hazard impact and explore the mitigation solutions from planning , building construction and environmental engineering. However, the past studies showed there are deficiencies in researches about the ways to build connec tions between coastal hazard impact assessment and applications of land use planning strategies, especially strategies in the view of future land use planning. Coastal Hazard Rising mean sea level is a significant indicator of global climate change. ( Barnett , 198 3 , p. 287) As generally considered result of thermal expansions and polar ice discharge, the impact of sea level rise ha s been studied extensively around the world. Meanwhile, the global sea level rises are also well established consequences of global (2012) , the global sea level has risen around the doubled speed as it did during the past centuries ( p . 12 ) . It has been acknowledged that the global mean sea level rose at an average rate of 1.7 mm per year during the 20th century , and the satellite measurements even suggests an increased rate by 3.2 mm/yr . ( Maryland Climate Change Commission, 2013, p. 3) (Church and White, 2011 , p. 585 ) The report estimated that coastal sea level rise has been a persistent trend and over eight millions people live in areas at risk to coastal flooding . A coherent pattern of increasing R elative
20 Sea Level (RSL) was found to exist on average at all stations analyzed between the year s of 1903 to 1969. ( Etkins and Epstein , 19 82 , p . 287 ) Go n it z (1991) also predicted (p. 379) In fact, every coastal flood today is already wider, deeper and more damaging because of the roughly 8 inches of warming driven global sea level rise that has taken place since 1900. (Climate Central, 2014. p . 11) The latest projected sea level rise range from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance showed that among the year 2050 the s ea l evel r ise will reach 0.5 to 1.5 feet (Climate Central, 2014 , p . 11) and in the year 2100 there will be (Fra nk, 2014) . Coastal areas are also vulnerable to increases in the intensity of storm surges. Generally, the Climate indicated that a storm surge drives extra water tidal level (p.16) , which concurrently works with the tidal level at a gi ven time. In the meantime, sea level rise contributes extra baseline component , w ith all the base level and extra time added up would be the water level elevation at the time of flood he water level EPA , 201 4 ) Coastal Hazard Risk Analysis Numerous s tudies revealed the magnitude of coastal hazard s , an increasing number of researches tried to adopt the results for strategy development, to set the risk as a level of estimation for the severance and impact of coastal hazard. Broadus (1996, p 313) conducted a potential economic impact assessment result ed from the absence of capital lost.
21 More specifically, In order to present the damage brought by coastal hazards, measurements of property and infrastructure value los s and other economic costs under coastal hazard scenarios were conducted o n varied purposes. As Leatheman (1984) and nine other scholars stated, potential Sea Level Rise impacts have been studied to lying ecosystems, propert ies, critical infrastructure, and population. (Zhang, 2011, p. 130) We could conclude that this quantitative analysis lay the foundation for any further analysis testing the future land use p lan by scenario comparison. A previous study of the San Francisc o Bay area (Gleick and Maurer, 1990,) concluded that a 1 meter sea level rise would threaten existing commercial, residential and infrastructu res in a cost of $48 billion ( in year 1990 dollars) (p . 79 ) . The study of potential impacts of increased coastal flooding in California (Heberger, Cooley, et al. caused by climate change induced sea level rise, together with the associated storm and wave effects (p . 2 29 ), and it eval uates the current population, infrastructure and property threatened by projected sea level rise using a joint analysis of GIS and HAZUS (p . Lower Fox river basin (Kousky, Olm stead, et al . , 2011) tried to identify the quantity and location of land that should be protected under flood hazard .This research used HAZUS to estimated expected flood damages associated with current land use to demonstrate how flood prone local communi ties can use HAZUS as a planning tool and go about the business of calculating benefits and costs of alternative land use scenario to reduce the risks of flooding. (p. 3) Similarly, in the year 2012, a research about the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact developed a regionally consistent
22 methodology for sea level rise inundation mapping and vulnerability assessment about physical features, property values, and future land use acreage loss. The vulnerability was visualized through regional co mparison. However, this study mainly aims at developing finer technical strategy for SL R mapping and analysis methods. ( pp vi, B 22) Study Area Demographic Located in Tampa Bay area, Manatee County has a moderate density and total population in state of Fl orida. 2012 Census TAZ data shows the average population density within each TAZ jurisdiction is around 3.91 per acre. According to the population projection from Bureau of Economic and Business Research, in a medium level, the county population will reach 469, 800 in the year 2040, based on current number of 330, 302. The result of higher level projection is 568, 500. (Smith and Rayer , 2013 , p. 6 ) The annual growth rate of residential and employment population is growing as well: according to Manatee County t ransit d evelopment p lan (Fiscal year 2008 2017), population would rise from 327,544 in the year 2010 to 358,412 in the year 2017 with the annual growth rate at 1.59%, which is higher than the annual growth rate in the year 2010 (at 1.21%). ( CUTR, 200 8. p p. ES 25 & 5 5 ) , the employment growth rate in the year 2015 would be 3.37% and the working population will be 211,611 in that year. Being adjacent to 3 of the most densely developed county (Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Sarasota), Manatee county will p ossibly take the charge of part of the population overall population appreciation.
23 County Coastal Hazard Profile The State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan rank ed Manatee County as one of the most risky county for severe storm and flood hazard occurrence (Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2013, pp. 3. 5 , 3.93) . According to 2011 Study ( p . 12 ) primarily from tidal surge and associated wave action (caused by hurricanes and tropical storms in the coastal areas of the county and from overflow of the streams) in other areas. (FEMA, p p . 23 24 laying SLOSH Storm Surge Data prepared by Manatee County with current parcel data shows that the land use types that are under the surge areas are mainly medium low density residential, along with a large proportion zoned for planned development residentia l. In the future land use plan map, it is expected that several medium density residential or mixed use development will be affected by storm surge. County Coastal Hazard Planning Profile In 1992 when City of Bradenton was under site study for its trend o f shoreline recession led by sea level rise , results showed that apart from the eroding barrier shorelines, and also temporal and spatial variability along shoreline positionand the county plans are afoot to address the diverse problems. Site specific plan s are still a mong principle guidelines for authentically addressing coastal hazard issues ( Daniels , et al., 1992 . p. 5 44) . In Florida, the local government c omprehensive p lan set forth goals and objectives to reduce land development ( Florida Department of Community Affairs , 2005 , p . 18 ) . Manatee County c omprehensive p lan followed a series of coastal hazard zone designation from FEMA , to scale and envision coastal development and land use development elements.
24 T he county already classified flood risk levels and designated evacuation zones in parcel level. The County processed GIS property data incorporate flood zones according to base flood elevation s and probabilities of the occurrence of a 100 year flood. So far the county already designated coastal hazards elements in comprehensive plan. Land use and construction limitation were divided according to the overlay districts. The Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) refers to areas below the Category 1 storm surge line and Overland surge lines under SLOSH Hurricane model according to c omprehensive p lan to manage the development of the land exposed to coastal hazards. P ublic expend itures and population concentration therein are limited (Manatee County, 2005 A , p. 107 ) . possible inundation. CHHA categorizes lands in a similar way that V were defined (FEMA, 2005, pp. 1 5) . The county noticed that more precise determinations can override the CHHA because CHHA is an approximation. Consequently, analysis within CHHA or in specific related locations would be beneficial to the modification and delineation of CHHAs. Apart from CHHA, the county also identified Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA, which refers to the areas within the evacuation zones for a Category 1 hurricane as established by the County Emergency Management Division ) (Manatee County, 2005 A , p. 155 ) and Coastal Planning Area (CPA, Zones from Category 1 , 2 , 3 within Hurricane Evacuation Zone A) based on th e level of severity of hurricane hazards based on the SLOSH Model. Regarding coordination of land use elements and coastal hazard concerns, the county planned to limited the density of new residential development and the placement
25 of industrial and public infrastructures in the FEMA V Zone and intended to lead a clustered development inside CHHA (Manatee County, 2005 B , p . 342 ) area and maintain minimum construction setback lines to be consistent with Coastal Construction Control Line ( CCCL). However, integration of land use elements and coastal elements are limited as conceptual, thus, land categorization within the CHHA according to the locational coastal hazard characteristics and the level of hazard impact will be further requi red for better implementation of the elements inside the county plan. Overall , Manatee County is exposed to the risk of coastal hazard . Nevertheless, the county land use development enforcement has already been strategically managing the risk mitigation and addressing adaptation issues. The county government and planning department must take further steps to facilitate the coordination of coastal hazard mitigation concern and the application of the elements in future land development. GIS and HAZUS MH Mo deling for Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment GIS has already being serving as a traditional technology for coastal hazard risk (or in geophysical level) (Gambolati & Teatini, 2001, p. 964). It has been acknowledged that effective management of low an important El Raey, 1998 , p . 39) in future development planning. HAZUS MH can work with ArcGIS to map and display hazard such as hurricane winds, flooding, and earthquake. An important function of HAZUS MH is to estimate the impact of different haz ards . Developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
26 (FEMA), Hazards U.S. Multi Hazard (HAZUS MH) is a methodology and software program that contains models for estimating potential losses from natural disasters. HAZUS MH is widely used by states and communities economic loss scenarios for risk analysis. It uses data provided with the software or user provided local data to estimate the type and extent of damage for specific hazard. It performs for certain natural hazards. It also supports rapid impact as sessment and disaster response. HAZUS MH provides different level of analysis. Level 1 involves using HAZUS MH 2.1 provided hazard and inventory data with minimal outside data collection or mapping. Analysis in level 1 uses the inventory and hazar d data provided with HAZUS MH 2.1. For coastal hazard analysis, only digital elevation model, 100 year Stillwater area and Stillwater elevation are required. Level 2 integrates the HAZUS MH provided the study area. Level 3 adjusts the built in loss estimation models for hurricane loss analysis. Considering the data availability, my study only performed Level 1 analysis. (FEMA, 2014, pp. 2 8 2 9 ) Future Land Use Planning and Coastal Hazard Mitigation managers are beginning to think about and tackle these increasing management inundation or damage risks tha t could be forecasted in the future. One way is to look at their future land use strategy, taking hazard loss assessment as a level of estimation for their level of the preparedness in their future land development. Considering how well of future land use plan incorporates concerns about coastal hazard mitigation, a HAZUS based analysis was done in Volusia County (Zou, 2012 p. 11 ). level rise. It show ed how quantitative
27 hurricane hazard models work in future land u se decision making process. Additionally, term impacts of storm surge and sea level rise on infrastructure, property parcels and other public and private resources by land use d the linkage b etween storm surge modeling and future land use planning, it did not determine the possible solutions in future land use plan, or modify the associated decision making strategy. However, Glynn County, Georgia emphasized that with suitable response to exist ing coastal hazard vulnerability, term risks by promoting s between county hazard mitigation plans and local and regional comprehensive plans by a series of detailed comparisons. They showed the importance of incorporating land use mapping in hazard mitigation plans and coordinating land use mapping and natural h azard analysis to reduce damage. One result recommended a parcel based future land use development map that includes floodplain categories. This research made potential property and economic value loss as a precondition for implementing the mitigation with land use and policy options. Nevertheless, neither of the study considers an implementation strategy in response to property loss and vulnerability measured with a quantitative model within land use categories. It has been acknowledged by Department of Florida Community Affairs that policies into the comprehensive plan and its implementation Department of Community Affairs , 2005, p.26 ) . P revious studie s show that Manatee County coastal
28 planning policy is already well rounded . Through a comprehensive view, the county proactively incorporated advanced planning and engineering techniques to identify coastal planning areas. H owever, since the county was generally designating the land use elements and characteri stics in terms of CHHA and CPA, it is necessary to examine the policy application through detailed categorization by Designed Flood Elevation and coastal high hazard zones to examine the effectivene ss of county plan elements and integration. According to my literature review, land use resolutions based on coastal hazard mitigation or adaptation characteristics are inadequate to coordinate the diverse conflicts among hazard adaptation activities and l and development . Therefore, in coastal hazard mitigation process, site specific inspection of the land development within coastal planning, evacuation and high hazard areas can help develop linkage of coastal hazard planning and land use tools . A nd the cooperation of land use planning and coastal hazard management will hopefully strengthen the effectiveness of coastal hazard planning processes.
29 CHAPTER 3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Description GIS Data Table 3 1 and Table 3 2 show important value s considered for the first step parcel preparation and subsequent analysis. Manatee County provides parcel data that incorporates multiple flood control attributes, such as flood zones, flood ways, and evacuation zones. Parcel data have 214180 records. Dif ferent value categories also provide the chance to develop a sound damage evaluation system. Additionally, parcel future land use characteristics. Further steps of analy sis focus on future land use, so a specific future land use shapefile was used in order to explore more details. HAZUS MH Inventory Data HAZUS MH inventory data can be used when users cannot supply sophisticated data. Inventory data are a composite of building stock and associated facilities with high level loss probabilities. Buildings and facilities are classified and stored indifferent c ategories. In HAZUS MH, listing the inventory data constitutes data presentation and one step of the model operation process. A simple description of inventory data and categorization is provided as follows: 1. . GBS are b uildings stocks that are assumed as evenly distributed through each census block. (FEMA, 2012 A, p. 3 1) 2. Occupancy mapping schemes . Occupancy mapping schemes are d ifferent mapping scheme s that display different valuation parameters, exposure and values by multiple matrixes, which can emphasize various proportion of building and damage characteristics. (i.e., first floor elevations or occupancy types). (FEMA, 2012 A, p. 3 2)
30 3. Essential facilities and high potential loss (HPL) facilities (FEMA, 2012 A , pp.3 33 , pp. 3 38): essential facilities include medical care facilities, and emergency response facilities. Being similar to general building stocks, essential facilities are also classified based on building structural and occupancy classes. HPL facilities are vital and sensitive infrastructures such as dams and militarily facilities. HAZUS MH automatically incorporates essential facilities and HPL facilities in its inventory data display. However, my study will mainly focus on building stocks and associated cl assification systems, inventory presentations, and loss estimation and analysis. 4. Hazardous materials (FEMA, 2012 A , pp. 3 59) : Hazardous substances are defined by different degrees of danger. The materials include substances that might be toxic, radioactive or flammable, leading to significant property or life damage once being released. 5. Demographics: Census housing and populat ion statistics on block level. Like the census block data used for GIS parcel preparation, each block division is coded by a unique 15 digit number. However, in the HAZUS MH dataset, census block attributes with relatively homogeneous characteristics (such as income level, age and races) are grouped as factors for estimating social loss due to household replacement , temporary housing and other factors which will be discussed in the methodology chapter. Methodology GIS Data Preparation Analy sis began with creating a parcel based dataset storing all of the analyzable attributes into one GIS parcel shapefile. The created parcel also serve as the associated information. The entir e data disaggregation and transformation process was accomplished with ArcMap. To analyze the information attributes in the parcel dataset required both global view based statistic summaries, such as the total count of the inundated parcels, and site spec ific information, such as the number of affected floors in a certain parcel . Point GIS data is a good way to store the count of parcels without too much processing . Correspondently, parcel polygons were mainly used for precise information processing. Basi cally, parcel points and polygons must possess the same attribute fields that store
31 the data in a consistent way . Processing polygon and points was accomplished in different approaches. The technical process of property data preparation is listed below. Th e preparation process also shows basic issues for which imprecision or uncertainty of data can impede the research, when processed data are not consistent with each other. These issues are real world problems that always happen in GIS property management processes. Setting up unique identifications A unique ID was added to the parcel polygon data, calculated using ObjectID. (named according to user preference). A unique ID is an identifier that keeps track of a certain record. For instance, in a parcel d to make this field more discern able. After this step, parcels were converted into points , and a unique ID was added for the ease of keeping track of the data. Combine parcel and future land use data This step aim ed at disaggregating the census block data and future land use into each pa rcel, on which all the further analysis will be conducted through the joint consideration of the multiple attributes. Technically, ArcMap operated through the following process: 1. Loaded parcel and future land use shapefile into ArcMap 2. Combined parcel data w join parcel and future land use polygon data. This step joined attributes from the future land sue dataset to parcels based on spatial relationship. Future land use attributes were added to the o to ensure no repetitive parcel features in the output feature class. However, it is
32 from both parcel and future land use are aggregated to the output data, wiping out to ensure all the features are written to the parcel. After the new point dataset was Acreage, Total Under Roof, Units. Similarly, it is also necessary to involve attributes ollecting Events This step eliminated stacked parcels and set the foundation of the analysis based each other at exactly the same geo spatial location. This step specifically serves t o reorganize the parcel data prepared by Manatee County. The parcel data provided by Manatee County are grouped or divided by primary address and property ownership. Each parcel would be coded by a unique parcel ID. In other words, the parcels are not divi ded only on a geometric plane surface. If one piece of parcel is designated for Condominium land use, this parcel can be split into multiple individual properties. However, all properties share one primary address, meaning a number of parcels are geo coded in exactl y the same location. The result is stacked parcels. Figure 3 1 to 3 3 owner. On the map, the 64 piece of properties are overlapped to only two polygons. The geo coded parcel acreage is 5.66. However, this represents the floor area of each private property, rather than the actual land area of the parcel it belongs to. Additionally, the points converted from parcels still possess the same problems, although th eir attributes have been processed. In order provide resolution, we must identify frequency to identify coincident
33 1. In the . In enter the converted parcel points . This step generated a new output feature class containing all of the unique locations found in the parcel points. A field was adde d to hold the sum of all incidents at each unique location. O utput features were displayed in categorized symbols. The la r ger the ICount, the bigger the points. Hence, it is easy to visually distinguish area with overlapping points (Figure 3 4 ) . 2. I n the 214,180 pieces of parcel properties, only 129,227 parcels are standing by their own. The remaining formed somewhat repetitive pattern. The next step is to find overlapping parcels and assign them actual land values. 3. Set a 3 meter buffer for each event points, including the event point with only 1 coincident number. 4. This step spatially captures the attribute value from the parcel points into the event points. T he 3 meter buffer is to make sure no points are missing from any slight spatia l discrepancies. 5. Select buffers with ICount field larger than 1 . T his step specified locations where parcels were repetitively drawn in exactly the same place. 6. Geoprocessing tool to incorporate the ICount field into the parcel point , using the selected buffered event data. I dentity can be used to factor the Implementation of the HAZUS MH 2.1 Level 1 Flood Model One of the important features of HAZUS includes designing its scen arios in deterministic approaches and generating its scenarios based on probabilistic approaches. However, the two approaches give the analysis an integrated scope . A lthough the flood hazards are strictly defined, widely tested and inspected, they are stil l interpolated natural phenomena. D uplicated characteristics of flood hazard provide a flexible research context for analysis, while adding uncertainty for the results. As a flood vulnerability quantification system, HAZUS MH sees the flood damage from en gineering and science viewpoints . Flood depth, duration , and water velocity in the flood area are the predominant factors into the process of loss estimation. The relationship among model parameters, data , and databases are strictly identified.
34 HAZUS MH pr ovides analysis scope for both riverine and coastal flood hazard. My study focus ed only on c oastal flood hazard analysis. Figure 3 1 shows the overall schema of the HAZUS MH Flood model . The figure descripts the conceptual workflows of HAZUS MH modeling. 1. Identify the flood hazard and determine hazard velocity 2. Identify direct physical damage 3. Interpolate induced physical damage (i.e. , debris induced damage) HAZUS MH runs the flood hazard model through three phases to produce the estimations. First, it conduc ts velocity based measurement of direct physical damage, which includes a success ion of essential physical infrastructures, vital systems , and facilities described in inventory data. Second, HAZUS MH evaluates damage induced by lower floor damage of genera l building stock: debris damage. By joint consideration of direct damage and induced damage, HAZUS MH finishes its model preparation and goes into the next step: generatin g direct socio economic losses. This estimation measures demand for shelters, tempora ry housing , and transportation. More importantly, economic losses assessment includes repair and relocation expenses. Finally, the model assesses the indirect socio economic loss: it generally account s for future expenses on hazard mitigation related polic ies and the establishment of hazard prevention systems. For direct losses, users can view the results either from maps or from the hazard event report conveyed by the system. The ArcGIS mapping tool displays accurate spatial distribution of damage states, and users can actually see the joint effects of default settings and flood scenario s . The maps follow the same mapping schema as ArcMap and cannot display multiple valuation parameters at once. Hence, the tool is only powerful in revealing the performanc e of individual or limited building parameters
35 (i.e. , economic loss of Residential Occupancy). Besides, HAZUS MH summary reports present quantified losses due to building and contents damage but also include monetary losses resulting from the loss of funct ion. Technical Process of Creating Flood Hazard Scenario The technical process was used in my study. However, it is the general process of HAZUS MH loss estimation. Three scenarios were created in my study to reflect different magnitude and intensity of flood hazard. Basically, the scenarios were categorized by the probabilities of storm surges and sea level rises. 1. Stillwater scenario (Scenario 1). This scenario describes the areas that have a 1 percent or gre ater chance of experiencing storms surges in any given year before the year 2040. The projected storm surge s will happen without accompanying sea level rise s . 2. A Half meter SLR scenario ( Scenario 2 ) . This scenario describes the areas that have a 1 percent o r greater chance to experience storm surge s in any given years before 2040. The storm surge will occur with (or induced by) a half meter s ea level rise. The sea level rise has 1 percent probability to happen in any year till 2040 . Thus, the probability th at this scenario happens in the period before the year 2040 is 0.01 percent. 3. A Full meter SLR scenario ( Scenario 3 ) . This scenario describes the areas that have a 1 percent or greater chance to experience storm surge s in any given years before 2040. The s torm surge will occur with a one (full) meter s ea level rise. The sea level rise has 1 percent probability to happen in any year till 2040. Thus, the probability that this scenario happens in the period before the year 2040 is 0.01 percent . Define the study region Open HAZUS . After the model is set up and scenarios are created, each time of opening HAZUS MH, 1. Examine the i nventory d ata: C apture the profile of the inventory data composition. In HAZUS MH, menu items include lists of inventory and compile built in calculation parameters. HAZUS MH provides the function of mapping the inventory data one at Square
36 Footage stock by detailed occupancy type. A simple descript ion of each parameters and their storage type in the inventory list is presented as follows. Square f ootage: displayed in occupancy type. Building c ount: displayed by C ensus B locks along with the number of buildings. A ssigned to each category of general occupancy Valuation p arameters: a combination of views including replacement cost, location factors, garage distribution , and height distribution. Depreciation p arameters: median age of the census block and buildings help determine the depreciated exposur e of each census block. scheme , the building type distribution (building structures and materials) is classified by occupancy types. First Floor Elevations: elevations are def ined by different foundation types. 2. Identify the h azard : As it has been stated before, my study focused on Costal flood hazard. Hence, on the menu, choose Hazard Flood Hazard Type Coastal Hazard Only. 3. Deriving d igital e levation m odel : In the first level analysis, only t system default data w ere adopted. HAZUS MH automatically incorporate d the Digital Elevation Model from its dataset. To accomplish this step, continue navigation through the listed process : Hazard User Data DEM Determine R equired DEM Extent Navigate directly to the NED Download Download the 1/3 arc Data and extract it to HAZUSData Navigate to Region MyFolder RegionDEM To import the data: Navigate to User Data DEM Browse Import the data ( At this step, choose the Vertical Datum as NAVD88). Coastal h azard s cenario c reation HAZUS MH allow s users to create multiple scenarios regarding hazard type and study region. It also allows combination of multiple hazards. For each of the parameter composition HAZUS MH can c reate a unique scenario. In my study a t the first level analysis, a 100 year storm surge based scenario was created. A half meter and a one meter sea level rise were added to the Stillwater elevation at the time point, the year
37 2040 . Table 3 1 shows the Stillwater elevation input for three scenarios. The scenario of one meter sea level rise with storm surges stands for the worst case. T o complete these step, navigate to Hazard Scenario (create a new scenario) Add to selection, save and click OK. Ho wever, to enrich the scenario with flood information and associated property related parameters, flood surface visualization needs to show the magnitude and directions of floods . 1. Delineate c oastal f loodplain : In this step , HAZUS MH was used to prepare th e flood surface data, to confine the shoreline limitation, and to model the direction for flood to proceed. Since my study is a level 1 analysis, it is not necessary to identify the start and end point of shorelines across the coastal line where flood haza rd is projected (FEMA, 2012 A, p . 3 83) . 2. Shoreline c haracterization with default d ataset : This step differentiated scenarios. In this step, the 100 year Stillwater elevation was entered as mandatorily input . Stillwater elevation stands for the vertical distance between the Stillwater flood surface and bottom ( FEMA, 2012 A, p . 4 85) . Magnitude of coastal hazard was generated by sea level driven surges. Hence, in thi s step, the Stillwater elevation was decided by entering the average number of 1 percent Stillwater Elevation. Gulf of Mexico, Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay area are all considered in order to acquire a relatively unbiased number. Lakes and Rivers are not sub stantially considered. The input elevation is listed in Table 3 3 . ( The v ertical datum must be NAV88). 3. Check the flood surface characteristics : Navigate to Scenario Coastal CaseOutput f older Transects and Wave Heights. Specifically, transects are sho wn as perpendicular to the shoreline. This is the step where HAZUS MH calculates its wave setup and dune erosion effects. Transects are drawn automatically by Coastal Flood Model at around 1000 f ee t intervals along the shoreline (FEMA, 2012 A, p. 4 85) . An y coastal flooding beyond transects is assumed to be Stillwater. As being used for dune and flood characteristics estimation, transects can be divided into two proportions. Accessing the details of transects help s users to get better understand about the p atterns and trends where the flood propagates.
38 Table 3 1. Manatee County Parcel Metadata Name of Attributes Description ACRES Acreage LUC Land Use Code LUC_DESCRIPTION Land Use Code Description ZONING FUTURE_LAND_USE HIST_NAME FLOOD_ZONE FEMA flood zone FLOOD_WAY FEMA flood way(Yes/No) FLOOD_PANEL Flood map panel OVERLAYS Any planning overlays WATERSHED Watershed Districts if any FLOOD_WAY FEMA flood way(Yes/No) FLOOD_PANEL Flood map panel OVERLAYS Any planning overlays WATERSHED Watershed Districts if any HISTORIC FIRE_DISTRICT EVACULATION_ZON E IMPACE_FEE_DIST SPECIAL_AREAS Planning Dept. Special Areas(If any) SCHOOL_SVC_AREA FRONTAGE Frontage of lot feet PARCEL_ID Different than selec t pin code IMPVAL Improvement Value JUSTVAL Estimated market value as determined by the PAO less th an cost of the sale such as Realtor fees, surveys, points, etc. LANDVAL Land value ASSESVAL Assessed value SFLA Square f oo t age living area YRBLT_RES YB residential YRBLT_COM YB Commercial TUR Total Under Roof UNIT CODE_ENF Code Enforcement
39 Table 3 2. Manatee County Future Land Use Metadata Future Land Use Label Future Land Use Category Maximum Potential Density(Dwelling Units per Gross Acre) Net(Dwelling Units/Net Acre) FAR(Maximum Potential Intensity CON Conservation Lands 0.00 0.00 AG/R Agriculture/Rural 0.20 2.00 ER Estate Rural 0.20 1.00 RES 1 Residential 1 DU/GA 1.00 2 or 6 (see pace land use policy page 20) RES 3 Residential 3 DU/GA 3.00 6.00 UF 3 Urban Fringe 3.0 DU/GA 3.00 9.00 RES 6 Residential 6 DU/GA 6.00 12.00 RES 9 Residential 9 DU/GA 9.00 16.00 RES 12 esidential 12 DU/GA 12.00 16.00 RES 16 Residential 16 DU/GA 16.00 20.00 0.25 OL Low Intensity Office 6.00 12.00 0.23 OM Medium Intensity Office 0.30 ROR Retail/Office/ Residential 9.00 20.00 0.35 IL Industrial Light 1.00 1.00 0.75 IH Industrial Heavy 0.00 0.00 0.50 IU Urban Industrial 0.00 0.00 1.25 MU Mixed Use 9.00 20.00 P/SP(1) Public/Semi Public(1) P/SP(2) Major Public/ Semi Public (2) AT Major Attractors R/OS Major Recreation/Open Space 0.00 0.00 0.00 MU C(MU C/AC 1) Mixed Use Community 6 -9 20 (Max) 1.00
40 Table 3 2. Continued Future Land Use Label Future Land Use Category Maximum Potential Density(Dwelling Units per Gross Acre) Net(Dwelling Units/Net Acre) FAR(Maximum Potential Intensity MU C/AC 2 Mixed Use Community 6 -9 20 (Max) 0.35 MU C/AC 3 Mixed Use Community 3.00 9(Max) 0.23 MU C/R Mixed Use Community 3.00 9(Max) 0.23 MU C/RU Mixed Use Community 9.00 16.00 0.23 Future Land Use Overlay District HR Historic Resources WO Potable Water Reservoir Watersheds CHHA Coastal High Hazard Area CEA Coastal Evacuation Area Table 3 3. Coastal Hazard Scenario Creation: Entering 100 year Stillwater Elevation Flooding Source and Location 100 year Stillwater Elevation Stillwater 10.03333333 Half Meter 11.67375328 Full Meter 13.31417323
41 Figure 3 1. HAZUS MH Implementation Process
42 Figure 3 2 . The attribute table of stacked parcels Figure 3 3 . Stacked polygons.
43 Figure 3 4 . The categorical symbols of collected events
44 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION HAZUS MH Hazard Event Reports indicate that the majority of damage will happen to buildings of residential occupancy type as the projected storm surge happens. This is because 99% of the buildings facing different levels of damages were expected to be residential buildings. The dollar values related to expected residential building expo sure account for over 78% in all the three scenarios. From the building related loss estimation , my study considered residential land use as the predominant land use that must be studied and analyzed. HAZUS MH Hazard Event Report Analysis HAZUS MH not only produce d general descriptions of the damage expected for building and infrastructure properties but also provide d summarized damage states for estimated inventories and multiple parameters under different scenarios . The program produced Hazard Event R eports that comprehensively interpret results . The hazard event reports consist of building inventory dollar value loss estimation, building damage estimation, and associated facilities damage estimation. The report also included debris damage induced by flood hazard, social impact assessment and one of the most important part s , building related economic loss . Considering the GIS data availability and structural consistency of this thesis research, result s interpretation and analysis were mainly conducted using occupancy based statistics. Building Inventory : General Building Stock As showed in the HAZUS MH event report and the Table 4 1, HAZUS MH estimated that there are 132,349 buildings in the study region which have an aggregated total replacement value of 20,681 million. The summary reports present the
45 relative distribution of the value with respect to the general occupancies by Study Region and Scenario respectively. The General Building Stock (GBS) include s residential, commercial, industrial, agricult ural, government, and education buildings. is an estimation of the damage to the buildings at a given depth, which can be expressed as a percentage of the replacement cost of the structures, and later translated into a dollar value using its estimation module ( FEMA. 2012 A, p. 5 2) . In each of the three scenarios, the buildings exposed to the storm wave are defined in Table 4 1 . Residential dwellings originally dominate d portions of the entire building population, followed by those of commercial and industrial abodes. Building dollar value exposure by occupancy categories (Table 4 2) varie d according to different storm surge based scenarios. Basically , through the three s cenarios , the actual residential value exposures follow ed a trend that increased , as did commercial , industrial and other building values. Under the circumstance that residential building stock value was still mostly exposed to the rising water depth, as t he water level increased, the percentage taken by residential buildings went down from 79.3% at Stillwater elevation to 78.1% at the full meter level. Conversely, the commercial building dollar exposure went up proportionally with the rising water level, f rom 14 .2% at Stillwater level to 14.9 % at the one meter sea level scenario . The building value exposure increased at a lower speed at increments between the three scenarios. For instance, the residential building value exposure only increased 9.25% when t he storm water level rose from a half meter to a full meter, which was less than 11.17% when the scenario switche d from Stillwater to a half meter, compared to the commercial building value exposures. We considered three value categories that
46 are about to be exposed , residential (always around 78% to 79%), c ommercial (around 14% to 15 %) and Industrial (around 3.3% to 3.4%), we took a closer look at these three categories and noticed that the commercial building value exposure increased the least as water l evel s went up, while the industrial buildings almost maintained the same level of exposure from scenario to scenario. One conclusion would be that Residential and Commercial building construction incline s to locate close to shorelines and wave exposure are as , while industrial buildings tend to be built away from flood sensitive areas , or they may be scattered around the study areas. General Building Stock D amage HAZUS MH estimated the number of buildings that will be damaged at different levels. Damage st ates were derived from the percentage o f damaged buildings (1 10% damage is considered slight, 11 50% damage is considered moderate, and 51 100% is considered substantial damage). Moderate damages are also classified with a 10% increment. Table 4 3 a nd Table 4 4 present the counts and the percentage of buildings in each damage state by occupancy and structural types . Generally, HAZUS MH estimated that the number of buildings that will be at least moderately damages gr e w from 19,306 to 27,231 as the s cenario changes from meter sea level rise with associated storm surge. These numbers take 14% to 17% of the total number of buildings as the scenario changes. From Table 4 3 it can be observed that residential building damage in different scenario s are most close to each other when the damage levels reach around 11% to 30%. We noticed that as the storm water depth s grow, the major proportion of damaged buildings changes through categories that represent different extent s of damag e. For instance, in the Stillwater scenario, 9.265 residential buildings 41% to 50%
47 damaged, but that number rises sharply to 10,374 as the water level went up half a meter . It drop ped to 8,865 (which is even less than the 9,265 in the Stillwater scenario ) in a 1 meter sea level rise scenario . This indicates that the number of buildings that will be substantially damaged actually gr e w drastically between the half meter scenario and the full meter scenario , from 7,321 to 12,631. Additionally, the damage le 41% to 50% also reflected the largest residential and industrial building damage, and among level of damage, building exposure kept an increasing trend. A fair indication from this trend is that the flood hazard induces medium level or su bstantial damage for residential areas . T he number of affected residential buildings peaked around the 41% to 50% affected rate. Table 4 3 shows that generally, the number of exposed industrial buildings never exceed ed 10 in any scenario . However, althoug h the total number of affected industrial buildings was relatively small , under the full meter scenario, there are 46.15% industrial buildings under different levels of damage. This means that almost half of the industrial operation in the county might be affected once a one meter sea level rise happens. Building Related Economic Loss HAZUS MH present s the building related economic loss es in millions of dollars . Table 4 5 to Table 4 7 indicate that economic losses will result from increasing depth of inundation, and the losses will primarily happen to residential and commercial buildings. Content losses, which refer to personal or organization owned properties, cannot be ignored: among the buildings occupied by commercial, industrial and other (mainly institutional oriented) land uses, the dollar values attached to content losses exceed ed the values related to the building physical structures such as the foundation. Among all of th e three scenarios, for commercial and industry occupied buildings, content losses
48 total ed over two times the expense of building related loss es . For other types of building , such as institutional oriented buildings, content losses almost triple d the amount of the building related losses. Residential buildings still t ook the largest percentage of economic related losses. Overall, the dollar values attached to building and content losses both soar as the storm wave depth increases. On the other hand, indust rial areas contribute to few indirect losses caused by supply and reproduction after the storm surge attack . As the input Stillwater elevation gets higher , T able 4 6 and Table 4 7 demonstrate that business interruptions do not result in large amounts of ec onomic losses . It is easy to tell that residential units will suffer losses of rental income and expenses related to relocation. Residents of commercial dwellings must endure loss of income and wages ; only 2% of the industrial buildings need relocation and wage supplements during the recovery process . All in all, post hazard recovery is a predominant reason that pre hazard preparation strategies are instituted. Restoration of building structures is one of the foundations of post hazard recove ry. Hence, it is an essential requirement to strengthen building structures and locate the building in a secure place as much as possible. Nevertheless, a large number of buildings and related operation activities already existed. Government should not int ervene ongoing constructions and business operation, so that the government can prevent overriding private property rights and public interests. By analyzing the Hazard Event Reports, it was recognized that among all the buildings suffering physical damag e and loss of economic value, buildings of residential occupancy type made up the largest proportion. Hence, it is necessary to look at potential residential land losses in the year 2040. HAZUS MH produced scenarios
49 representing the extents of sea level ri se and associated storm surges. In Chapter 4 , l ands within different land use categories are analyzed according to HAZUS MH based coastal hazard scenarios. The discussion of the results is conducted through the integration of HAZUS MH results and GIS based analysis results, based on the given three scenarios. Specifically, the discussion explores the distribution of future residential land exposure. I t also analyses the existing condition of these lands. By doing this, the discussion shows the relationship between current land use (especially residential and vacant lands) and their future designation. Additionally, a potential categorization for areas inside or adjacent to coastal hazard zones is made to elaborate on the designation of current coastal hazar d zone s. As mentioned, my study defined three coastal hazard scenarios by using HAZUS MH. However, varying averages of storm water depth are applied to each of the scenarios in order to present a variety of samples in proper sizes. Scenario descriptions are listed below: 1. Stillwater scenario (Scenario 1). This scenario describes a 100 year storm surge happening in the year 2040 without accompanying sea level rise (this is the same setting as the Stillwater scenario defined in HAZUS MH). In this scenario, la nds were analyzed within the zones where the average wave depth ranged from 1 foot to 4 feet, and the maximum wave depth was 4 feet. 2. A Half meter SLR scenario ( Scenario 2 ) . This scenario describes the results of a 100 year storm surge happening in the year 2040 with an accompanying half meter sea level rise. In this scenario, the changes between existing land use and future residential land use were analyzed within the zones where average storm surge wave depth was four feet. 3. A Full meter SLR scenario ( Scen ario 3 ) . In this scenario, a 100 year storm surge happening in the year 2040 with an accompanying full meter sea level rise is described. Changes between existing land use and future residential land use were analyzed within the zones where average storm s urge wave depth was four feet. This chapter discusses the vulnerability of exposed current vacant capacity in Scenario 1 . C onsidering there are vacant lands whose elevations are below 1 meter,
50 these vacant lands are facing a 1 meter sea level rise. Besides , this chapter also generally describe s the limitations and availability of future land use allocation and related construction strategies. Chapter 2 (Data and Methodology) talked about the stacked parcels which represent condominiums or other multi story properties that were registered with the same address . For the sake of reducing the complexity from this issue, the stacked parcels were eliminated from the discussion. Future Residential Lands and their Existing Condition This step took a look at the relationship between designated future residential land uses and their existing (current) designation. The analysis from this step reflects ordin ances. Additionally, the analysis below also shows whether coastal hazard mitig ation elements come into effect by preventing residential community development in coastal hazard prone areas. Last but not the least, the following analysis revels the potentia l development capacities that can be enhanced by well prepared land use codes and coastal management strategies, so that these potential development opportunities can be well adopted with respect to the coastal hazard management. Future Residential Lands Exposure According to Table 4 8 and 4 9 , among all the future residential lands, the numbers and percentages occupied by low density residential land exposure and medium density residential land exposure remained the largest amount and are close to each ot her as the average wave depth rises and the scenarios changes . RES 1(which means parcels with 1 dwelling unit per gross acre) and RES 6 both took around 30% of
51 the exposed future residential land distribution. RES 3 and RES 9 both took around 14% to 16 % i n the exposed residential area. Inside the coastal hazard areas where HAZUS MH said that there would be a Stillwater elevation based storm surge but not an actual rising sea level ( Table 4 10 ) , 7090 acres of land designated as future residential were iden tified as being under an average 4 feet storm wave height. Among the exposed lands, low density residential uses make up 47% (30.83% + 16.19%) of the entire estimated areas. This proportion of the lands were designated by the county with a maximum of 1 dwelling units per acre, or 2 units on the portion of parcels where economic benefits could be derived directly ( Net Acres ). According to the f u ture l a nd use p olicy (Manatee County , 2005 A , p . 113 ), these residential lands are mainly located in suburban area s and are compatible for short term or special agricultural activities , and also for neighborhood amenities such as retail and recreation. The net densities vary from 2 units per acre to 6 units per acre when the lands are needed fo r higher housing or public concentration. F or the 16.19% RES 3 residential lands , where gross density can be 3 units per acre, the maximum net densities can be 9 units per acre if they are inside CRA affordable housing project areas (Manatee County , 2005 A , p . 115 ). Medium density lands make up another 46% (30.02% + 16.04%) to attain moderate urban districts with proper public amenities, community infrastructures and water related uses (Manatee County , 2005 A , p. 117 ) . Results varied as the average depth of the storm surge rose. Basically, as the average storm surge depth was set higher, less future residential acreages were presented in the study areas. Althoug h the total acreage exposures are different as the scenarios change, there are no large variati ons in the numbers of low or medium
52 density parcels and the percentage s they are representing. For instance, for the parcels designated as RES 1, as the projected average storm surge depth rises from 1 feet to 4 feet (with the maximum wave height at 4 feet ) in Scenario 1 , the exposed existing residential land uses was only reduced 18% (from 4101 acres to 2789 acres), while the total land area was reduced 30 %, from 10,153 acres to 7,089 acres (Table 4 8 and Table 4 9 ). Subtraction of other types of future l and uses, such as mixed use residential lands, contributes to the reduction of the total lands. The situation indicates that more residential lands should be released from the attack of coastal hazards according to the county policy designation. However, from Figure 4 1 , we notice d that land exposures soar as a half meter sea level rise with an associated storm surge changes to a one meter sea level rise scenario (in other words, c hang es from Scenario 2 to 3). At the same time, medium density residential lands increase d sharply and the line they are representing can be distinctively distinguished from the increasing line of low density residential. The trend shows that in spite of the large amount of land exposure, the c ounty plans to locate larger amounts of medium or high density lands in a landward direction . Current Land Uses R emain R esidential in the F uture By reviewing the current residential land s that are either changed in the future or remain residential, we notice how land use patterns are changed under the guidance of the c elements can be incorporated into the land use policy design. Table 4 8 , Figure 4 2 and Figure 4 3 show that as the storm water depth grows and a half meter sea level rise are added into consideration (a change from Scenario 1
53 to Scenario 2) , in all of the cases, around 40. 4 % of the future residential will remain residential use until the year 2040. 28% 29% of future residential lands are change d from current vacant lands , followed by current agricultural as well as conservation lands which c onstitute a total of 18.13% to the future residential land composition. Table 4 9 indicates that a projected sea level rise will definitely cause a higher am ount of land exposure. T he existing residential lands remaining residential in the future will decrease from 4101 acres to 2789 acres as the mean depth gets higher (4 feet). Land acreages jump from 2789 acres again to more than 4000 acres as a half meter a nd then a full meter sea level rise is added to the Stillwater elevation. Meanwhile, the other two land Green There, land acreages grow with the rising storm water depth an d the proportion taken ( took around 18% and vacant lands took around 27% to 30%) . Table 4 8 also shows that generally, current lands increase or decrease incrementally as the storm wate r depth rises and falls. The increments portray the locations where the land s are mainly located. Results show that l ands remaining residential tend to locate in the areas where storm surge depth is around 4 feet with an additional half meter or one meter sea level rise. Existing vacant lands are mainly located in areas that might be impacted if a storm surge projected in Scenario 3 (100 year storm surge brought about by a one meter sea level rise ) happens . But these vacant lands are not mainly l ocated within the area where a storm surge described in Scenario 2 happens. This is because vacant land exposure increases dramatically by
54 21.73% (from 2347 acres to 2856 acres) in the area where Scenario 2 shifts to Scenario 3. Besides, despite the fact t hat current commercial, service, and institutional lands designated as future residential lands make up smaller proportion s among all of the considered acreages compared with existing residential lands , their increments of increase and decrease in terms of varying storm water depth are generally larger than the increments of changes for existing residential or vacant lands. For instance, the existing service land s maintain their rate of change above 40% for most of the time (as the average storm water depth raises from 1 foot to 4 feet, the service acreage exposure decreases 41.06% ( from 418acres to 246 acres) . When a half meter sea level rise is added into the scenario, the service land exposures soar by 56.75% (from 210 acres to 326 acres ). This reveal s th e fact that service lands are largely located in the area where a 100 year storm surge happens, with an average 1 to 2 foot depth, or the area where the depth reaches 4 feet as long as a half meter or higher sea level rise happens. These areas can be inter preted as the one s with uncertainty about the possible impacts of coastal hazard , but they are definitely vulnerable once the projected hazards happen. In conclusion, within the considered coastal hazard areas, the largest proportion constituting future r esidential lands is current residential lands, followed by vacant lands T hese lands are changed primarily to low or medium density residential land uses (RES 1 and RES 6) . Therefore, considering county future land use objectives, current residential lands and vacant lands must be considered primarily for land use based hazard mitigation strategies other than
55 the county designated Coastal High Hazard Areas, and Greenfields not recommended for future land use allocation . Moreover, existing vacant lands are the largest categories that are flexible for future land use development. Consequently , the next section would be an in depth categorization of vacant lands. Vacant Lands Become Future R esidential Properties In order to broadly show the spatial distribution of the second largest potential capacities of future residential lands, analyses in this section were conducted in terms of the scenarios used in the last section . Howev er, in order to acquire a larger sample size of vacant lands, we do not talk about the condition when the average storm surge depth of 1 to 3 feet is applied to Scenario 1 (Stillwater Scenario). As demonstrated through Table 4 10 to Table 4 13 , a t Scenario 1 , only part of the vacant lands have s future land use plan. T he topography was brought into consideration : lands where their elevation is lower than one meter were classified apart from areas with higher elevations , because a 100 year s torm s urge might happen in this area. The former sections might be the most dangerous area with shortest distance to the surging wave s and rising sea level, so that a sustained possibility of damage can happen to these lands. In Scenario 1, t opography splits the vacant land s inside into two halves. On one hand, in the vacant area where there might be a storm surge happen ing above the lower topography locations ( the area with a potential 1 meter sea level rise ) , 36.91% (2,222 acres , Table 4 10 ) of the lands V acant R and the rest, 61%, have not been designated yet the corresponding future land designation, 29.29% of current vacant lands have been designa ted as future residential (especially RES 1, the lowest density residential), and
56 the rest of the 70% were largely designated as urban fringe area and city owned lands. This trend shows that the future land use plan compromises the vulnerability of these a reas so that few changes were made to the existing vacant uses. On the other hand, in the second half of lands where the elevation is relatively higher, 49.21% are currently vacant residential and 33.05% were designated by the county as future residential, and city or urban fringe designations take over 50% of all the future lands. Apparently the At the Stillwater elevation based scenarios, the vacant lands within lower t opography areas are especially sensitive . E ven if a projected sea level rise does not happen in the near future, lands primarily submerged by storm surge will face repetitive shoreline erosions, property damage and the recessions of constructible area. How ever, if a projected 1 meter sea level rise happens, l ands with a higher topography will also come in at a vulnerable place similar to that outlined in the former situation where there are storm surges happening in a low elevation . Additional construction and development opportunities will be jeopardized by the unstable natural conditions within this area. It is controversial to explore the development and redevelopment opportunities in the v acant lands exposed to a storm surge induced by a half meter sea level rise. Uncertain environmental concerns mixed with the trend towards residential development would lead to conflicts which need to be addressed through joint application of land use tools and coastal hazard adaptation strategies. Vacant development op portunities in the areas that might be submerged due to a 100 year storm surge induced by sea level rise make the livability of mixed use
57 communities with large land use diversities . The government must be concern ed about the proper control and release of development rights. Case Studies: Stacked Existing Residential Properties parcels on exactly the same location. In this case, each parcel not only consists of multiple individual u nits, but also contains more than one census block. As the number of stacked registered properties on each parcel var ies by different locations, with the statistics of coincident events, we would be able to check parcels individually and to know the numbe r of units inside each individual building . HAZUS MH possesses the information about o ccupancy and s tructural type s by Census Block. Therefore, as shown in Figure4 4 , 4 4 and 4 6 , this part summarized to what extent the individual parcels would be affected by comparing wave depth zonal statistics with the building s first flood elevation plus the first story height, estimation through occupancy and structural type, and analysis of parcel data attributes information. Case 1: 887 Spanish Drive South As shown in Figure 4 4 , the Case 1 parcel is currently loaded with 212 Registered Properties and 187 building footprints. The entire parcel was expected to be affected by storm water without the consideration of sea level rise. The parcel was built before December 31, 1974 so it was considered according to the FEMA flood insurance definition as a pre FIRM building . As a masonry building with a closed foundation (possibly slab on grad e according to maps and pictures), the foundation structure would be around 1 feet high and would not allow water to pass through the foundation elements below the elevated building. Hence, large wall and side foundation surface s would be exposed to the obstruction of floods. Parcel metadata identifies this group of
58 properties as being Y zone (similar to Zone V ). As FEMA recommended constructions considered that any close foundation located within Zone V is inappropriate (FEMA, 2009. p.2 8), the structure of this residential group is suscept ible to erosion (p .2 10) . According to Zonal Statistics in Scenario 1 , the minimum wave height would reach up to 5.5 feet. Assuming that the first floor above the walking space is 10 feet high, the flood force would be expected to attack through ground walking spaces. However, the Mean wave height of storm surge is 9.8 feet, during which the building s first story would definitely experience moisture penetration and scouring, even without consideration of the damage through wind attack and debris destruction . However, HAZUS MH returned actual damage statistics, which was less than the damage expected. A total of 23 square feet in residential areas would be under a medium or higher extent of damage, only 35% of which would be substantially damaged. Undoubtedly, m asonry construction represented the largest damage group, 28 square feet with medium damage, followed by wood structure s (16 square feet). Concrete and steel structures were barely damaged (only 10 square feet in total). The result s indicate that although the parcel is loaded with large amount s of masonry structure d buildings substantially damaged at the ground level, HAZUS MH only returns estimation s based on story height instead of foundation height plus story height. Damage caused by addit ional wave heights above Stillwater elevation are ignored. The way that HAZUS MH considers the damage level is generalized so that it could not precisely reflect the actual vulnerability of this area.
59 Nevertheless, the city will take control of the develo pment rights over this group of properties. In the future, the lands will belong to the city. HAZUS MH does not incorporate future land use consideration into an estimation model; the estimated results will not be in conformity under the future land use sc enario: there will barely be any buildings and residential groups located in this parcel. Case 2: 6303 S un E agle Lane Figure 4 5 shows that i n this case, t here are 46 registered residential properties, which constituted 23 buildings identified in this parcel. A total of 99% of them will be affected by the flood. Each building is a stand alone apartment with attached storage s . The c ondos were built in the post FIRM period mainly with masonry exterior and slab on grade foundation. T he average wave height in this property is 2.3 feet, so the slab foundation will be affected. According to General Building Stock damage statistics displayed by HAZUS MH, only 1.22 square f ee t of residential areas will sustain medium damage . C o nsidering the s tructur al attributes, 3 square feet of the wood structure area will be substantially damaged. Around 17 square feet will sustain medium damage (around 11% to 30%) . Concrete and steel components will suffer little to no damage. In total, 26 square feet of m asonry areas would be mainly at medium level damage (41 50 %) , which consists of the largest damage proportion. As a residential parcel inside N, Y zone of CHHA (which is similar to the area located between Zone A and Zone V), although a storm surge wou ld let the land be exposed to storm water, there would not be substantial damage to this property. In the future, the land will remain residential. Other than residential buildings, neighborhood amenities are not allowed. T he land use designation goes in consistently with HAZUS -
60 MH s indication of storm surges. Hence, the designation was considered proper for coastal hazard adaptation in the future. Case 3 : 1394 Carlton Arms Drive In Figure 4 6 , t his parcel consists of 15 Census Blocks with 322 registered properties located around 63 multi family buildings. Then stacked units are included which equal 4 to 6 units for each building. The parcel was built in the post FIRM period and is located across Zone V and Zone A. This complex was constructed 99% under t he Scenario 1 storm water surface. With a closed foundation whose height will not exceed 2 feet, the 6 foot mean wave height will definitely obstruct the base floor space. T he first story will be slightly affected . T he Maximum wave height, 11.5 feet, would cause moisture erosion and flood force pressure through the entire first floor. Information returned from HAZUS MH demonstrates that for residential buildings, 51.69 square feet will be slightly damaged, 288.76 square feet will suffer medium damage (21 5 0%) and 37.45 square feet will be largely destroyed. For commercial buildings, 68.53 square feet within this parcel will be moderately damaged. Considering the building structural type, the largest damaged proportion was m asonry with a total of 247 square feet which were medially damaged and 23 square feet substantially damaged. The remaining 7 square feet are expected to be slightly damaged. However, the county was aware of the high risk level of this area and the controversial geo location. Consequently, the city will take the land back for proper designation in the future. The result shows that HAZUS gave a specific and sophisticated estimation in terms of occupancy and structural types, but the program is still limited by an unspecified time period. Even though the year put into the program was 2040 The
61 program only returned the result based on current unit density and distribution of building footprints. This indicated that we need further researches based on interpolated lands and building distributio n s, so that we can get more convincing and comprehensive impact estimations.
62 Table 4 1. Building Exposure by Occupancy Type of Study Region Occupancy Exposure($1000) Percent of Total Residential 16,075,167 77.7% Commercial 3,022,122 14.6% Industrial 836,819 4.0% Agricultural 103,502 0.5% Religion 385,799 1.9% Government 110,083 0.5% Education 147,212 0.7% Total 20,680,704 100.0% Table 4 2. Building Exposure ($1000)by Occupancy Type for the Scenario Occupancy Stillwater Percent of Total Half Meter Percent of Total Full Meter Percent of Total Residential 7,271,87 9 79.3% 8,084,509 78.4% 8,832,215 78.1% Commercia l 1,302,54 8 14.2% 1,521,345 14.7% 1,688,104 14.9% Industrial 298,962 3.3% 341,972 3.3% 389,500 3.4% Agricultural 57,234 0.6% 64,852 0.6% 69,682 0.6% Religion 157,954 1.7% 186,588 1.8% 206,198 1.8% Governmen t 20,234 0.2% 47,653 0.5% 55,544 0.5% Education 57,173 0.6% 68,582 0.7% 74,125 0.7% Total 9,165,98 4 100.0% 10,315,50 1 100.0% 11,315,368 100.0%
63 Table 4 3. Building Damage By Occupancy Types (Counts), Summarized by Scenarios 1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 Substantial Occupancy Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Agricultural 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commerc ial 3 2 3 37 44 46 15 24 12 16 13 13 7 12 12 0 1 16 Educati on 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Governm ent 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industr ial 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 3 1 6 Religio n 0 0 0 15 13 15 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residen tial 20 3 5 817 825 860 3,042 3,141 3,200 1,761 1,552 1,549 9,265 10,374 8,865 5,640 7,321 12,631 Total 2 5 7 8 870 885 923 3,059 3,166 3,215 1,777 1,567 1,564 9,274 10,390 8,879 5,643 7,323 12,653 Table 4 4. Building Damage (%) By Occupancy Types, Summarized by Scenarios 1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 Substantial Occupancy Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Still Half Full Agricultural 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Commercial 3.85% 2.08% 2.94% 47.44% 45.83% 45.10% 19.23% 25.00% 11.76% 20.51% 13.54% 12.75% 8.97% 12.50% 11.76% 0.00% 1.04% 15.69% Education 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Government 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Industrial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 11.11% 7.69% 14.29% 11.11% 15.38% 0.00% 22.22% 15.38% 28.57% 44.44% 15.38% 42.86% 11.11% 46.15% Religion 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 93.75% 100.00% 100.00% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Residential 0.10% 0.01% 0.02% 3.98% 3.55% 3.17% 14.81% 13.53% 11.80% 8.57% 6.69% 5.71% 45.10% 44.68% 32.70% 27.45% 31.53% 46.59%
64 Table 4 5. Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Stillwater Scenario Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building Loss Building 1734.70 206.28 44.06 30.64 2015.6 9 Content 1094.01 470.14 83.72 135.7 5 1783.6 2 Inventory 0.00 8.22 16.66 2.66 27.55 Subtotal 2828.71 684.65 144.44 169.0 6 3826.8 6 Income 0.09 2.78 0 0.32 3.49 Relocation 2.85 0.50 0 0.13 3.19 Rental Income 0.85 0.19 0 0 1.04 Wage 0.30 2.83 0 2.29 5.41 Subtotal 4.09 6.29 0.01 2.74 13.13 All Total 2832.80 690.94 144.44 171.8 0 3839.9 9 Table 4 6. Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Half meter Scenario Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building Loss Building 1,913.09 264.45 54.07 37.76 2,251.36 Content 1,197.40 551.42 105.14 146.00 1,999.97 Inventory 0.00 10.24 21.26 3.26 34.77 Subtotal 3,110.49 808.11 180.47 187.03 4,286.09 Business Interruption Income 0.10 3.15 0.00 0.31 3.56 Relocation 3.01 0.57 0.00 0.12 3.70 Rental Income 0.86 0.24 0.00 0.00 1.10 Wage 0.39 3.17 0.01 2.43 6.00 Subtotal 4.31 7.12 0.01 2.87 14.31 All Total 3,114.80 815.22 180.48 189.90 4,300.40
65 Table 4 7 . Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of Dollars) in Full Meter Scenario Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building Loss Building 2,280.06 319.44 71.38 54.85 2,725.73 Content 1,396.57 680.98 140.23 178.87 2,396.65 Inventory 0.00 13.31 28.29 4.32 45.92 Subtotal 3,676.63 1,013.73 239.90 238.04 5,168.30 Business Interruption Income 0.12 3.84 0.00 0.38 4.34 Relocation 3.52 0.71 0.01 0.16 4.40 Rental Income 0.99 0.31 0.00 0.00 1.30 Wage 0.39 3.95 0.01 2.94 7.29 Subtotal 5.01 8.81 0.02 3.48 17.32 All Total 3,681.64 1,022.54 239.93 241.51 5,185.61
66 Table 4 8. Summary of Exposed Existing Land (Acreage) Designated as Future Residential By Scenarios Scenario 1 (Stillwater) Scenario 2 (Half Meter SLR) Scenario 3(Full Meter SLR) Land Use Categories Stillwater Mean1 Max4 Percenta ge Stillwater Mean2 Max4 Percenta ge Stillwater Mean3 Max4 Percenta ge Stillwater Mean4 Percenta ge Half Meter Mean4 Percenta ge Full Meter Mean4 Percenta ge Averaged Percentage Residenti al 4101.184797 40.39% 3305.7320 39.21% 3099.8891 39.50% 2789.2012 39.34% 3376.857423 40.40% 4076.237839 41.40% 40.04% Mixed Use 195.051954 1.92% 171.1698 2.03% 168.9261 2.15% 152.7655 2.15% 173.4346434 2.07% 178.1737147 1.81% 2.02% Commercial 44.941703 0.44% 32.6531 0.39% 31.6450 0.40% 24.3725 0.34% 34.14374193 0.41% 31.317499 0.32% 0.38% Service/Retail 450.91926 4.44% 278.3630 3.30% 201.2422 2.56% 140.8928 1.99% 228.0673279 2.73% 369.0760029 3.75% 3.13% Institutional 67.722723 0.67% 59.6253 0.71% 45.2063 0.58% 32.6101 0.46% 47.01690644 0.56% 78.53421713 0.80% 0.63% Greenfields 1882.063908 18.54% 1591.3908 18.88% 1402.2851 17.87% 1185.5918 16.72% 1531.054494 18.32% 1815.164553 18.43% 18.13% Industrial 53.389973 0.53% 33.1474 0.39% 32.7587 0.42% 19.3724 0.27% 39.48147065 0.47% 49.88575012 0.51% 0.43% Infill/Vacant 2764.365413 27.23% 2364.8291 28.05% 2292.0799 29.21% 2197.9529 31.00% 2346.520048 28.07% 2856.445365 29.01% 28.76% Others/Unclassifi ed 593.647351 5.85% 593.4618 7.04% 573.7010 7.31% 546.7555 7.71% 582.8067569 6.97% 391.4951395 3.98% 6.48%
67 Table 4 9. Summary of Exposed Future Residential Land Exposure (Acreage) By Scenarios Scenario 1 (Stillwater) Scenario 2 (Half Meter SLR) Scenario 3(Full Meter SLR) Future Land Use Label Stillwater Mean1 Max4 Percentag e Stillwater Mean2 Max4 Percentag e Stillwater Mean3 Max4 Percentag e Stillwater Mean4 Percentag e Half Meter Mean4 Percentag e Full Meter Mean4 Percentag e MU 287.78 2.83% 208.471649 2.47% 198.180729 2.53% 99.7544 1.41% 183.640824 2.20% 237.592981 2.41% MU C 360.07 3.55% 194.316695 2.30% 38.393827 0.49% 38.3938 0.54% 152.265692 1.82% 375.256593 3.81% RES 1 2,664.65 26.24% 2329.305811 27.63% 2282.588132 29.09% 2185.6937 30.83% 2303.139585 27.55% 2419.54958 24.57% RES 16 452.98 4.46% 216.893997 2.57% 211.349237 2.69% 192.1847 2.71% 230.740967 2.76% 289.043245 2.94% RES 3 1,637.59 16.13% 1412.547795 16.76% 1268.60949 16.17% 1147.6381 16.19% 1385.423836 16.57% 1684.720935 17.11% RES 6 2,945.21 29.01% 2584.39808 30.66% 2442.791513 31.13% 2128.1582 30.02% 2634.738621 31.52% 3164.599481 32.14% RES 9 1,419.33 13.98% 1196.616604 14.19% 1174.707731 14.97% 1137.2218 16.04% 1213.369864 14.52% 1335.330603 13.56% ROR 385.67 3.80% 287.821837 3.41% 231.112754 2.94% 160.4700 2.26% 256.063424 3.06% 340.236662 3.46% SUM 10,153.29 100.00% 8430.372468 100.00% 7847.733413 100.00% 7089.514806 100.00% 8359.382813 100.00% 9846.33008 100.00%
68 Table 4 1 0 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 4 feet , No Maximum Depth Limitation ) Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 11 99.7544 1.4635 MU C 2 38.3938 0.6467 RES 1 843 2185.6937 186.4767 RES 16 555 192.1847 73.4087 RES 3 1447 1147.6381 365.7650 RES 6 3603 2128.1582 572.0724 RES 9 2085 1137.2218 284.3513 ROR 323 160.4700 41.2806 Sum of Residential(All) 8869 7089.514806 1,525.4649
69 Table 4 1 1 . Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 1 (Stillwater Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) with Sea Level Rise Potentiality(Lower Topography) Land Use Descriptions Frequency Exposed Acreage Vac.Commercial Common Area (1555) 1 3.846081448 Vacant Acreage,Not Ag. 10+ Acres (1555),Vacant Acreage,Not Ag.10+ Acres(1555) 76 2221.95247 Vacant Commercial (1555) 29 28.24270136 Vacant Commercial w/Impv (1555) 2 0.231053557 Vacant Condominia Residential (1554) 66 3.097718193 Vacant Industrial (1555) 2 0.397413735 Vacant Institutional (1555) 16 57.97263094 Vacant Mobile Home Lot Platted (1554) 65 2.608556706 Vacant Non Residential/Unusable (1555) 1 0.923978532 Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 103 342.3773907 Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res . Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 99 296.6794216 Vacant Residential Platted (1554) 795 466.8952177 Vacant Residential Tract/Unusable (1554) 79 196.9908573 Vacant Residential w/Site Amen. (1554),Vacant Residential w/Site Amen (1554) 111 44.63523895 Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage AG R 18 1183.673941 CITY 717 788.2139329 CON 1 13.70236356 IH 1 33.63233219 IL 8 1.373722093 P/SP 1 1 1.538394858 RES 1 170 563.4058832 RES 16 7 6.936877158 RES 3 55 89.69159196 RES 6 136 255.6203707 RES 9 172 137.0028301 ROR 94 21.46361528 UF 3 65 570.5948758
70 Table 4 1 2 . Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 1 (Stillwater, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) with Sea Level Rise Potentiality (Higher Topography) Land Use Descriptions Frequency Exposed Acreage Vac.Commercial Common Area (1555) 10 37.88799091 Vacant Acreage,Not Ag. 10+ Acres (1555),Vacant Acreage,Not Ag.10+ Acres(1555) 178 1243.916538 Vacant Commercial (1555) 151 197.6641492 Vacant Commercial w/Impv (1555) 9 10.61644251 Vacant Condominia Residential (1554) 98 1.585025754 Vacant Industrial (1555) 31 301.4008053 Vacant Institutional (1555) 52 113.1348966 Vacant Mobile Home Lot Platted (1554) 159 5.518291684 Vacant Non Residential/Unusable (1555) 9 28.21541609 Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 306 460.6833109 Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 309 677.7862532 Vacant Residential Platted (1554) 1977 675.9160079 Vacant Residential Tract/Unusable (1554) 104 13.12416179 Vacant Residential w/Site Amen. (1554),Vacant Residential w/Site Amen (1554) 199 38.24676127 Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage AG R 4 15.28689893 CITY 789 853.116888 CON 2 27.19231485 IH 11 92.85140545 IL 26 272.6370142 MU 18 82.09857306 P/SP 1 9 79.91091791 RES 1 94 335.0259029 RES 16 61 73.4337713 RES 3 137 101.2604878 RES 6 274 382.9676157 RES 9 293 282.2717276 ROR 127 82.92906298 UF 3 302 1124.71347
71 Table 4 1 3 . Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 2(Half meter, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) Land Use Descriptions Frequency Exposed Acreage Vacant Commercial (1555) 53 47.34678111 Vacant Commercial w/Impv (1555) 1 0.689386089 Vacant Condominia Residential (1554) 9 2.909802924 Vacant Industrial (1555) 26 12.99374322 Vacant Institutional (1555) 14 2.894298758 Vacant Mobile Home Lot Platted (1554) 2 0.094867622 Vacant Non Residential/Unusable (1555) 1 1.26988388 Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 67 137.8147507 Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 70 112.5393104 Vacant Residential Platted (1554) 139 79.92683112 Vacant Residential Tract/Unusable (1554) 6 16.33483532 Vacant Residential w/Site Amen. (1554),Vacant Residential w/Site Amen (1554) 9 13.15813515 Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage AG R 2 32.87867519 CITY 104 32.56781404 IH 19 4.577130561 IL 15 8.587473907 MU 12 24.36815511 P/SP 1 2 0.714241723 RES 1 13 48.70276115 RES 16 2 0.681940887 RES 3 24 14.85831917 RES 6 78 67.72364164 RES 9 30 9.159963082 ROR 9 4.986188511 UF 3 87 178.1663213
72 Table 4 14 . Existing Vacant Acreages and Associated Future Land Use Designation in Scenario 3(Full meter, Mean Depth 1 Foot, Max Depth 4 Feet) Land Use Descriptions Frequency Exposed Acreage Vac.Commercial Common Area (1555) 1 0.902195122 Vacant Acreage,Not Ag. 10+ Acres (1555),Vacant Acreage,Not Ag.10+ Acres(1555) 29 229.3477194 Vacant Commercial (1555) 16 39.58581058 Vacant Commercial w/Impv (1555) 2 1.488737241 Vacant Condominia Residential (1554) 8 7.548374026 Vacant Industrial (1555) 13 22.59140908 Vacant Institutional (1555) 1 3.58842708 Vacant Non Residential/Unusable (1555) 1 1.727306606 Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 36 121.7963577 Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 40 106.1467932 Vacant Residential Platted (1554) 65 61.96456601 Vacant Residential Tract/Unusable (1554) 3 16.44420586 Vacant Residential w/Site Amen. (1554),Vacant Residential w/Site Amen (1554) 4 17.14075534 Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage AG R 2 32.87867519 CITY 36 78.26383237 CON 1 1.712046952 IH 10 42.36416116 IL 12 17.62074017 IU 1 2.078144196 MU 9 28.66662927 P/SP 1 1 6.581661971 RES 1 12 124.041256 RES 16 4 11.73988484 RES 3 16 16.84232758 RES 6 42 81.57193474 RES 9 22 10.8373603 ROR 5 7.369329681 UF 3 46 167.7046728
73 Figure 4 1 . Existing Land Uses Designated as Future Residential. Displayed By Scenarios Stillwater Mean1 Max4 Stillwater Mean2 Max4 Stillwater Mean3 Max4 Stillwater Mean4 Half-Meter Mean4 Full-Meter Mean4 Residential 4101.184797 3305.7320 3099.8891 2789.2012 3376.857423 4076.237839 Mixed-Use 195.051954 171.1698 168.9261 152.7655 173.4346434 178.1737147 Commercial 44.941703 32.6531 31.6450 24.3725 34.14374193 31.317499 Service/Retail 450.91926 278.3630 201.2422 140.8928 228.0673279 369.0760029 Institutional 67.722723 59.6253 45.2063 32.6101 47.01690644 78.53421713 Greenfields 1882.063908 1591.3908 1402.2851 1185.5918 1531.054494 1815.164553 Industrial 53.389973 33.1474 32.7587 19.3724 39.48147065 49.88575012 INFILL/VACANT 2764.365413 2364.8291 2292.0799 2197.9529 2346.520048 2856.445365 Others/Unclassified 593.647351 593.4618 573.7010 546.7555 582.8067569 391.4951395 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Future Residential Lands Exposures(Acreages) Existing Land Uses Designated as Future Residential Displayed By Scenarios
74 Figure 4 2 . Example: Exposed Future Residential Acreages in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1 Foot and Max Depth 4 Feet) Notice: There are 5 other Figures representing different scenarios. Figure 4 3 . Example: Exposed Existing Land Use Designated as Future Residential in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1, Max Depth 4 Notice: There are 5 other Figures representing different scenarios. 2.83% 3.55% 26.24% 4.46% 16.13% 29.01% 13.98% 3.80% Exposed Future Residential Acreages in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1, Max Depth 4) MU MU-C RES-1 RES-16 RES-3 RES-6 RES-9 ROR 40.39% 1.92% 0.44% 4.12% 0.32% 0.67% 18.54% 0.53% 27.23% 5.85% Exposed Existing Land Use Designated as Future Residential in Stillwater Scenario (Mean Depth 1, Max Depth 4) Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Service Retail Institutional Greenfields Industrial INFILL/VACANT
75 Figure 4 4 . Case 1: 887 Spanish D r. S Figure 4 5 . Case 2: 6303 S un E agle L n. Figure 4 6 . Case 3: 1394 Carlton A rms D r.
76 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIO N FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT Existing Residen t ial Lands Remain Residential In the Future According to the analysis in my study and official(State and County) designation about C HHAs and CPAs , the recommendation about adopting land use policy was mainly limited in the area where predicted average storm surge elevation exceeded 4 feet. Areas under discussion are consistent with areas impacted by HAZUS MH projected storm surges . Suggestions are made based on shoreline conservation, residential density designation, coastal hazard management elements, land use facilitation tools and a tentative integration of multiple principles listed above. Stillwater Scenario : Exposed Areas with Average Depth Gr eater Than 4 Feet Within the areas with the largest probability of being s struck by storm surge s ( without any sea level rise ) , there are locations where the predicted average storm surge depth is 4 feet , yielding location characteristics close to CHHA V zo ne definition. Considering the changes between existing land use and future land use, large quantities of land will be received by municipalities to prevent risky development. Apart from the existing residential structures, residential density must be lim ited at most 3 dwelling units per gross acre (3du/ga), net density increase in community redevelopment areas (CRA) should not be allowed . In order to meet these requirements , government should gradually cease operation of neighbor hood structures that represent or can generate actual values . The recommendation is that non industrial developments such as residential amenities, quasi public areas and water dependent residential amenities be prohibited. If necessary, temporary evacuation access, and health and safety structures are recommended for a clustered development in the land close to
77 communities . Reconstruction s or repairs of these structures are not otherwise recommended. It is suggested that the county should stop maintaining the roadways and ligh ting and stop raising funding opportunities for public infrastructures. W ithin the 4 foot storm surge area , regarding the designated CHHAs and vulnerable residential structures , the county should consider necessary Transfers of Development Rights (TDR) to have the vulnerable sites down zoned or to hold the right of control over development rights . Because of the substantial financial costs that a TDR or other conservation easement tool will need, a requirement of TDR will be the most extreme case that the county should consider . In this scenario, there are both pre FIRM and post FIRM buildings. T he impact of storm surge was revealed both visually and statistically , making stakeholders understand the limitations of development in these areas. T vernment, private developers, potential investors and citizens are all given chances to see the future hazard impact as a fact, and so as the private sectors of flood insurance. The county should strictly require purchasing flood insurance for housing cons tructions. Private insurers can perceive the storm surge cased flood hazard impact as an insurable risk. It is feasible to charge the private property owners adequate rates that reflect the risk of losses. The higher price of flood insurance would prevent owners to purchase large amount of insurance coverage. It is possible that the owners would not purchase flood insurance, which makes their rights of development go against with the county requirement. In this way, either the properties will become unaffordable, or the
78 Stillwater Scenario: Exposed Area with Average Storm Water Depth of 1 to 3 Feet and a 4 Foot Maximum Depth I f a projected sea level rise happens, areas exposed to storm water wit h average depth less than 4 feet will also not escape from the flood and wave damage. T he protection of existing private properties, beaches, dunes and shoreline systems should be parallel concerns. Land within this area tends to be sensitive when both pol icy tools and environmental protection strategies can be easily impeded by both spatial conflicts and planning ethical dilemmas. Hence, stabilization of coastal environments and ecological processes include concerns about not to violate against Coastal Con struction Control Line ( Florida Department of Environmental Protection , 2014) and to avoid litigations of Bert Harris Act ( Rupper t and Candiotti , 2011. p.3 ). Considering Bert Harris Act, the lands have already been designated foreseeable for residential use, they are compatible to adjacent lands and their market values are validated. The suitability conditions are perplexed . It would be recommended that the County should initiate an analysis program about whether the property pre regulati on costs exceeded the post regulation value. HAZUS MH provided economic losses estimation, which can be regarded as reference, the county could consider precise subtraction of the land area where HAZUS MH displays substantial damage (over 50% ground level damage). In these area s identified by both GIS suitability analysis and HAZUS MH, alteration of residential structures will mainly be prohibited but maintenance of the structures will be allowed because the county needs to allow time for the property owner s to cease economic related activities in the future . Local government needs to inspect the residential buildings located within or around a sufficient buffer zone of CCCL. According to the rules for CCCL, p ile -
79 foundation buildings, isolated wood structu res (such as elevated beams) and resident structures such as roadways, lots, walkways or paved structures that are considered under construction ( F DEP, 2014. p. 9) should be exempt from site plans and building permits , especially in the seaward direction that the structures are facing. P lacement of independent structures onto the existing foundational or walking surface will not be recommended . The county should take every effort to limit the possibility of construction until large amount of areas adjace nt to CCCL maintain a stable relationship between flood erosions and neighborhoods An in depth way to clarify the concerns about the Bert Harris Act is to identify whether the repair and maintenance fee would exceed 50% of the market value of the ground floor structure. If so, state and county government are needed to address possible relocation of the structures or facilities. The County is encourage d to initiate a system of grants or loans to assist the owners of the residential buildings and mobile homes. They should provide information about financial costs of maintenance, the recovery process and the sales . P rivate owners should know how to transf er development rights through covenants, agreements and a way where the county purchases easements to control over the lands. Basically, flood insurance will still act as one of the most important roles in controlling the development opportunities. Flood insurance are very complex programs with different amount of subsidy rates or risk premiums in terms of flood intensity, the affordability of owners and the extent of involvement of flood insurance companies. Flood insurance rate maps are clear and realis tically designed instructions about the distributions of hazards. In the scenarios with a 1 percent probability that a storm surge
80 will happen in the coming 26 years, it is feasible to use a higher insurance and reduced subsidies to guide the trend of deve lopment out of the dangerous zones. However, apart from adjusting the trend of development by a fiscal tool, with a long term consideration, land use policy design and construction codes should come into the first place to shape the county s future develop ment . Exposed Areas under a Half Meter Sea Level Rise induced Storm Surge with A 4 Feet Average Depth Outside the Scenario 1 area but inside the area where the structures are facing a half meter of sea level rise and associated storm surge, with the avera ge wave elevation reaching 4 feet , if the storm surge does not happen, there will be at least 1.64042 feet (0.5 meter) of sea level rise which exceeds the Base Foundation Elevation (BFE) of either slab foundation buildings or Crawl space buildings. If there is a 4 feet wave elevation of storm surge, the costal hazards are expected to be powerful enough to rip off the entire ground floor structure of residential buildings within this area. Lands within this scenario but outside the Stillwater Scenari o can be considered as possessing the characteristics of FEMA Zone A and the connection area between the A and V zone . Land within this area is equipped with more residential and mixed use community development opportunities. However, the county should min imize the possibility for community redevelopment. Considering the land use elements, future residential constructions of 1 du/ga are not recommended. Because this might cause low density single family dwellings scatter around residential area and these d wellings are the most easily exposed objects to be threatened by surge waves. Residential related land development within this spatial category will include urban residential with supportive infrastructures and semi public uses. Community
81 service institut ions, such as schools or child care centers, will be limited to a medium or small size. Larger sized health centers and medical research corporations should also be prohibited. It will be recommended that the county limit the formation of any large communi ty service system but only maintain a moderate level of service supply, road infrastructure and utility system in order not to override public interests. The county needs to conduct suitability analysis to locate and sustain proper amounts of public health care, emergency and safety infrastructure. With joint consideration from the county s future land use plan and the area categorization , lands that are intended for mixed use community development will be supported for maintaining current neighborhood reta il, light industrial uses and warehouses as the part of basic community service. Construction of r ecreational amenities are not recommended but will be allowed for maintenance and physical reconstruction. Basically, structural improvement should be support ively allowed within this land use category. But other than that, the local government should only maintain the existing public service structure but will not assist the property owner to execute their development rights. If the existing building structur e is located in a 6 to 9 du/ga area, the county must ensure where there are extra height added onto their first horizontal structural member. The county can consider flood resistant design such as drainable , dryable interior wall materials. Walls can be constructed with horizontal gaps between wallboard (FEMA, 2005 , p.6) Pressure treated framings can be used to strengthen the existing building structure, especially the ones that are facing windward directions or close to CCCL buffer zones.
82 Apart from the requirement which is consistent with the requirement for the lowest horizontal structure in the Stillwater Scenario, maintenance and reconstruction of Pile foundation structures are allowed. For the area where residential structures are intended or for th eir alternation or m aintenance, it is suggested that their first floor elevations be above the Designed Flood Elevation. Specifically, the county should work with design professionals to apply the Designed Flood Elevation to strengthen the precision of the height of the bottom horizontal structural member that must be raised and maintained. It is important to allow residents sufficient time to understand that there are probabilities for a flood to exceed the 100 year flood level during a certain period of time (FEMA, 2005. p. 3) . It is possible that a flood happen s within a time period sooner than 50 years will exceed the predicted highest level to reach a destructive wave height above the first floor elevation . Thus, a coastal flood with a wave crest over 3 to 4 feet above the bottom of the floor beam will lead to substantial damage to the light frame structure on the ground floor surface. The land use policy implementation needs to work closely with protection standards of Florida Building Codes to ensure that the lowest horizontal structure on the bottom floor is elevated above the Base Foundation Elevation . A freeboard equal to plus 2 to 3 feet over the base floor level can be used when it is possible. Exposed A reas under a F ull M eter S ea L evel R ise I n duced S torm S urge with a 4 F eet A verage D epth In my study area, this would be the land categor y with the least chance to be repetitively damage d by flood hazard, but the se areas still face the risk of being largely impacted among considerable acreages in terms of the magnitude and intensity of
83 predicted hazards. Concentrated residential and mixed use community development will occur in these areas because of the potential watershed development opportunities that these areas would possess curre ntly and in the future. The analysis showed that designation of future residential usage maintains stable percentages for each residential category, no matter what the predicted storm surge depth will be. The results demonstrate d that there is a scattered trend of future residential distribution. This is because of the inevitable uncertainty and incomplete analysis of the designation. In t hese areas , the county would still proceed to maintain lot s and any other access to the RES 1 single famil y dwellings . H owever, The County might have to consider adjusting the elevation of road infrastructures , if t hose infrastructures serve for concentrated existing residential areas. General community support of infrastructures, education, and health and safety institutions would still be maintained and be intended for quality improvement through community collected funds. But the county would not provide extra funds for community improvement for recreational and neighborhood retail services. This la nd category faces a variety of issues and opportunities ; in response, local government should present diverse land use planning tools to address the potential upcoming issues. Involvement of flood insurance programs will be mandated and executed in residen tial development projects to facilitate the construction of community related evacuation services, roadway elevation s and to strengthen utility systems and public building infrastructures. It would also be possible for local government to negotiate for ea sements for certain areas for a dedication or exactions for evacuation uses by specific designation of subdivision . T he county should prepare redevelopment
84 plans for areas that are suffering repetitive damage and should specify purchasing for elevating hab itable structures on the ground level for the redevelopment area. F oundation reconstructions are allowed by raising the Base Foundation Elevation, adding freeboard and interior/exterior water proof structures. All in all, the areas within the 100 year sea level rise induced storm surge area are loaded with both development and redevelopment opportunities, and the vulnerabilities of substantial building structural damage. Government need s to stabilize the control and release of the development rights throug h a multitude of land use decision s , site speculations and negotiation with private property owners. In the half meter and full meter scenario, the probability that the projected sea level rises happen with associated storm surges is very low (only at 0.01%). It will be difficult to convince the stakeholders solely with the modeled results about flood impacts. Flood insurance rate map can be introduced, especially to citizens and private insurers. The i nsurance rate varies because of the hazard intensities in different areas. The average zonal statistics of storm water depth can also assist the government to interpret the variation of insurance and subsidy rates. However, the county should still rely on the land use plan and the integration of land use tools to establish the rational connections between public interests and policy or strategy implementation processes. Because the plans and policies can be better monitored and assessed by the communities a nd other stakeholders to determine their effectiveness. And the approaches of stakeholder participation are the most radical and crucial factor to set the foundations for long term hazard mitigation approaches.
85 Vacant Lands for Future Capacity Vacant lands are the second largest future group for residential development, which means they are the primary future capacity for density development and relocation. However, being designated as vacant lands indicated that uncertainty is the largest chara cteristics of this land use group. T he uncertainty might result from insufficient adjacent spatial reference s , uncertain ecological process es , and scattered spatial location s away from urban and suburban area. Therefore, the government must categorize vaca nt lands through coastal hazards spatial categories summarized through hazard analysis, so that the they can tell which piece of land is truly equipped with development potential and whose rights of development needs to be held under strict regulation. Co mpared with the development strategies for existing residential lands , the government will mainly focus new strategies on limit ing the scale of unnecessary residential sprawl and maintain stable community operation s under the circumstance of coastal hazard adaptation . Va cant land residential development will focus on new building construction and the formation of residential communities and associated service systems and amenities. T he governments need to proactively apply building codes in terms of the joi nt consideration of land use categories, s pecial f lood h azard a reas (such as CHHA, CEA, CPA) in order to form a residential community resistant to potential hazards, and to improve the infrastructure and service system to ensure the capacity for recovery. Adaptation of Exposed Vacant Areas with Potential SLR O ccurrence This is different from the areas equipped with a storm surge caused by a 1 meter sea level rise. Although a 1 meter sea level rise may not happen around the
86 predicted time period, the low t opography would led to severe storm water inundation according to the scenario in my study. As the analysis showed , around 80% of the existing vacant properties (29.29% out of 36.91% of all the vacant parcels) had already been designated as residential use s in the future. Residential development on vacant properties should basically follow the future land use plan: to locate buildings 1 du/ga in suitable vacant area s , and to promote medium density residential development (RES 6 and RES 9). Lands are not rec ommended for urban infill redevelopment projects to prevent the possibility that affordable housing ends up being located in ecological ly sensitive area s . T he County would cease to initiate grants and loans for unnecessary public infrastructure improvement, but only provide basic public safety, public health and education systems, water dependent uses or community level recreational uses. The county might also have to consider purchasing and selling back strategies to ensu re the evacuation process for specific zones, if it is necessary to locate new evacuation access and special infrastructures areas would be required. The county can also take full advantage of the exemption area of CCCL buffer zones to locate vital infrast ructures. Specifically, for the new building construction area, crawl space foundations would be recommended outside Zone V. If the foundations are slab on grade, additional freeboard elevation (for instance, 1 to 3 feet according to a decision made after site specific inspection ) is encouraged . Strong and stable connection s between the foundation and elevated structural members would contribute to the longevity of buildings. Rigid and water resistant interior and exterior structure s (especially for wooden framing system s , if proposed) would help maintain the value of buildings and
87 protect buildings from substantial or repetitive losses through storm water destruction. Additionally, for concrete construction materials, government s have to ensure that the p roperty owner and the developer understand that proper water cement ratio of concrete mix will affect the extent of moisture resistance and stiffness of the building structures. In other words, any new construction must be confirmed as pressure preservati ve against the wind and water. Vacant properties within this category are about to be confronted with the highest level of hazard risk. The government must update strategies for supplying and satisfying the elementary levels of support for single family co mmunities. Current public interests should be protected. But the further consideration of improving living quality is not highly recommended . A similar strategy used for existing residential lands in the same spatial category can be adopted for this vacan t area . The county must specify the connection between the land exposure and flood insurance rates to stakeholders, especially the publics. Adaptation of Exposed Vacant Areas with out Potential SLR Occurrence A total of 3666 acres, which was the largest amount of land area, were categorized in this spatial location. Compared with the scenario above, this scenario will require more flexible adoption of land use tools consistent with coastal hazard adaptation s . Vacant lands within this area are still under the highest level of storm surge threa t . Local government s are able to initiate concentrated or continuous form s of residential area development, because land distribution in this category is more compatible with consistent development in building form, t he structure s of associated amenities, neighborhood related services and other activities that support a residential
88 environment. For example, lands located around the southeastern side of Manatee River are close to large amount s of agricultural lands. Sh ort term or special agricultural uses considered as potential uses in the future (Manatee County, 2005 A, p. 117 ) can be temporarily permitted along with residential development. Although the county allows clustered development in residential areas of 9 du /ga, it would be foreseeable that development should only be small scale and designed for residential daily activities. Large mixed use development projects, and integrated mobility system development will not be supported. Urban infill redevelopment proje cts are still not allowed in these areas . Despite the fact that the areas will be developed as residential land use, the county should focus on maintaining a steady community system and to elongate the building lifespan s . This will prevent unnecessary mo dification, restoration and developments. As high risk areas, local private insurance sectors might not be able to provide full flood insurance coverage. It might be possible that the federal government s flood insurance program can assist to provide a po rtion of subsidy or risk premiums. However, the overall insurance coverage for areas inside this scenario should be high, so that land value and property values can be raised to a level to phase out the developments that cannot meet the requirement of cons truction. Raised insurance can also possibly prevent local owners from purchasing the development in this area, which can avoid a pool of residential growth. However, both the insurance and the land planning strategies should came into work at the same tim e to reach a long term achievement: the release of residential concentration in these areas.
89 Adaptation of Vacant Exposure inside a Half Meter SLR Induced Storm Surge Vacant lands in this land category must co exist with residential, commercial, mixed use and other type s of land development in the future. H ence, the lands have to be well prepared to accept density development in terms of public interests. On one hand , land development in conformity with the future land use plan will be validated but not encouraged . On the other hand, vacant properties might serve for other land use purposes, such as being used as receiving zones, or planned unit development (PUD) which will accept partial or total density development rights temporarily or permane ntly . However, it is inappropriate for this area to support further residential development other than the current designation. Even the Incentive Zone , which spares spaces for placement of special infrastructure , will not be highly recommended. As 60% of the existing residential vacant lands have already been designated for future residential usage, the rest of the lands can take up t o 9du/ga residential development , and the county should enhance the infrastructure system and continue maintenance for the m edium density development. Adaptation of Vacant Exposure inside a Full Meter SLR Induced Storm Surge T he 630 acres of scattered vacant lands are loaded with larger development opportunities as they are adjacent to the lands that are out of special flood h azard areas. Residential development will be encouraged in this area in terms of compatibility to the land development in the adjacent area s . However , clustered development or PUDs can be allowed in order to set impedance for a sprawling urban development pattern. Summary My study explored how a projected 100 year storm surge would affect the lands, given three scenarios of sea level rise . It then sought answers about how to apply
90 current land use policies, coastal planning principles, and coastal hazard adaptation strategies in an integrated way to achieve the goals about maintaining land developments and to concurrently implement the coastal hazard adaptation process. To answer th e first question, the study used HAZUS MH to summarize storm surge induced property damages under three scenarios. 1. Stillwater Scenario. T his scenario stands for the situation where a 100 year storm surge happens at Stillwater elevation. 2. A Half Meter Scenar io. In this scenario, a 100 year storm surge happen s at Stillwater elevation, plus a half meter of sea level rise. 3. A Full Meter Scenario. In this scenario, a 100 year storm surge happens at Stillwater elevation, plus a full meter of sea level rise. The sum mary included estimation about dollar values of buildings exposed to the flood damage (Building Dollar Value Exposure), the number of buildings facing different levels of damage (General Building Stock Damage), and building related economic losses in dolla r values. HAZUS MH performed the analysis based on occupancy type (land use type, such as residential and commercial) and building type (structural type, such as wood and concrete ) . Apart from the summary report, HAZUS MH also generated storm surge depth g rids at three different scenarios. The depth grids were then processed by ArcGIS so that each parcel had zonal statistics information about storm wave depth. Future residential lands and their existing conditions were summarized according to different depth level s of projected 100 year storm water. With the HAZUS MH Hazard Event Reports and storm water depth grids , ArcGIS was introduced into the process to estimate the future residential land exposure and vacant capacities. For the sake of capturing a p roper sample size, the analysis summarized information generally following
91 the scenarios built in HAZUS MH , but it selected a specific range of average and maximum storm surge depth to control the sample sizes. More importantly, analysis performed in the l ight of varied average depth helped answer how land exposures vary through the changing depth, which showed the scale of the storm surge impact, and spatial differentiation of the distribution of future residential lands and vacant capacities. During the analysis, a particular GIS processing strategy was developed for the property data which were then prepared as stacked parcel polygons in case they need to be analyzed under projected coastal hazard impact. Three cases about stacked properties were studied to determine how they are going to be affected by a projected storm surge happening at Stillwater scenario. These case studies consider ed the land use type, building material and foundation type. It is a normal issue that the county and property appraiser s summarized multiple individual units into only one parcel according to their owners. These issues usually happened to parcels designated as when incorporating property data into coastal hazard impact estimation. Hence, this step helped solve a normal problem that the planning department has to face during their upcoming coastal planning stages. According to HAZUS MH Hazard Event Reports, the largest area of land exposed under projected storm surge s consists of residential buildings. From the perspective of land use, the following analysis done by ArcGIS shows that current residential lands constitute the largest proportion of future residential lands . And these lands wer e designated primarily for low or medium density residential land uses . Both HAZUS MH Hazard Event Reports and GIS based Analysis indicate that v acant lands
92 are the second largest group for future residential development . Vacant capacities were also categorized in terms of the depth of storm water. Based on the analysis, my study gave resolutions about future development for two land categories: existing residential lands remaining residential in the future, and vacant f uture capacities. Resolutions were broken down into details following the previous categorizations based on storm water depth and the elevation of sea level rise. Basically, recommendations were made about application of land use codes, building constructi on strategies and land use tools. It was suggested that areas within Stillwater scenarios should only follow the future land use designation but not pursue further land development or redevelopment opportunities. The government must provide basic residenti al service and infrastructures in order to avoid overriding public interest , but they can gradually withdraw the service and infrastructure in order to remove unnecessary development opportunities. Land use tools for site specific development should be cau tiously restricted to prevent residential density growth in potential flood areas. In the areas landward but still in potential sea level rise area s , the government must focus on properly applying building codes to meet the requirements of FEMA constructi on strategies. It is important to ensure the foundation types, building structures and materials are able to protect the residential community from substantial damage. These areas can be allowed for application of land use tools for site specific developme nt and density adjustment in order to capture development opportunities . However, these developments must not jeopardize the relationship between stable environmental process es and human activities. In these flood prone areas, land
93 regulatory tools should take predominant places when collaborating with flood insurance programs. Flood insurance program places mandatory purchase requirements for owners who intend to develop their properties. Within the protection of flood insurance program, residential develo pment were strictly required to meet the standards about base foundation elevation and first floor heights, and the standards about structure material. The Federal government has been considering eliminating the premium subsidy or charging full rates for repetitive loss properties or second homes (United States General Accounting Office, 2003 , p.2) . And the insurance programs are assets based, which means that the program can also address an amount of financial equity issues. This is a process that can pha se out improper development in the area s with certain probabilities of suffering catastrophic damages. However, the way that the land use policy design to react the placement of flood insurance and reduction of subsidies are not simply remap the flood insurance rates and bring more properties that should be nsideration. use planning is the means of gathering and analyzing information about the suitability of development of land exposed to natural hazards, so that the limitations of hazard prone area are understood by citizens, potential investors, an d government et al. , 2000, p. 99). As the foundation of coastal hazard mitigation strategy in the view of urban planning, land use plan or land regulatory tools factor spec ial flood hazard circumstances and to control the intensity of d evelopment. Land use ordinances can also manage the spatial distribution of developments by allocation of future development.
94 In the view of land use planning, m y study provide d one of the technical approaches to inform the stakeholders about the intensit y and location of coastal hazard My research process also offered a resolution to identify the imprecise ly recorded information in parcel data. The technical approaches in my study involved accurate storm water depth into a parcel level scale, and this is useful in a practical level that the county can capture sophisticated measurement for the intensity of the projected hazards. The strategy is hopefully bringing the governmen t officials more information and to build their commitment in hazard area management. Residential development and remaining future development capacities that are both exposed to coastal hazard prone locations. The key to build real commitment to change the way of hazard area management lies with local planning ( Burby and Beatly, 2007, p.10) . As FEMA has been focusing on adopting proper flood insurance rates, it means that it is local governments respo nsibility to prepare to cope with coastal management issues. With the help of the increasing advanced researches and growing sophisticated statistics , t he role of the local government officials and land use planning or land use controls in hazard adaptatio n process should be strengthened. Local government should also help improve the involvement of flood insurance private sectors, so that the federal issued programs can be specifically localized to adapt the real circumstances in certain areas. The Congres s put effort in charging the policyholders rates that reflect the actual coastal hazard risk, the private sector will be given more chances to identify the proper rates that a property owner should be charge d , and the owners without adequate affordability can get more assistance. My
95 study mainly focuse d on the local level land use planning. However, the models and t he categorization of future capacities for development will show the place that private insurers are willing to cover. The area that the private sectors are not able to be involved, such as high vulnerability area, can also be show n for local government and higher level municipalities in case of further steps of protections. Creating a coherent envi ronment for the implementation coastal planning based land use strategy is crucial for regional development . The public s awareness of coastal hazard, the developers and investors understanding about resilient and flood resistant constructions standards, the insurance companies understanding about the hazard s severity in the view of economic values are all contributing to a consistent hazard resilient policy design environment . The most important principle is that the government official should be fully aware of the facts about the coastal hazards , and the essence of implementation of land use planning and coastal mitigation strategies. Only by consensus and participations of stakeholders will make a long term plan adoptable and sustainable .
96 APPENDIX TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS Table A 1 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 1 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) Future Land Use Label F requency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 37 287.78 55.75502829 MU C 5 360.07 7.784422444 RES 1 974 2,664.65 213.7605616 RES 16 644 452.98 108.0426291 RES 3 1747 1,637.59 431.1673901 RES 6 4756 2,945.21 740.3676176 RES 9 2274 1,419.33 326.2320418 ROR 434 385.67 84.19214092 Table A 2 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 2 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) Future Land Use Label F requency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 28 208.471649 2.7219 MU C 4 194.316695 6.3139 RES 1 949 2329.305811 206.8903 RES 16 602 216.893997 82.3480 RES 3 1699 1412.547795 415.2016 RES 6 4455 2584.39808 700.4033 RES 9 2141 1196.616604 288.6395 ROR 394 287.821837 60.6010 Table A 3 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 3 foot, Max Depth 4 feet) Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 21 198.180729 2.5565 MU C 2 38.393827 0.6467 RES 1 913 2282.588132 202.0181 RES 16 597 211.349237 81.7456 RES 3 1596 1268.60949 390.7848 RES 6 4222 2442.791513 667.7435 RES 9 2125 ` 287.4236 ROR 378 231.112754 55.6151
97 Table A 4 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 2 ( Half m eter , Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum Depth Limitation) Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 18 183.640824 2.1701 MU C 3 152.265692 6.1240 RES 1 929 2303.139585 209.9172 RES 16 762 230.740967 89.8947 RES 3 1742 1385.423836 443.6139 RES 6 4765 2634.738621 744.7273 RES 9 2285 1213.369864 296.0230 ROR 401 256.063424 64.8814 Table A 5 . Future residential lands exposure in Scenario 3 ( Full meter, Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum Depth Limitation) Future Land Use Label Frequency Exposed Acreage Exposed Just Value(Million$) MU 35 237.592981 6.3638 MU C 5 375.256593 11.5209 RES 1 959 2419.54958 220.3575 RES 16 1203 289.043245 112.3485 RES 3 2154 1684.720935 541.2502 RES 6 6055 3164.599481 875.8849 RES 9 2533 1335.330603 316.3919 ROR 446 340.236662 77.6801
98 Table A 6 . Example: Exposed Existing Lands Designated as Future Residential in Scenario 1(Stillwater, Mean Depth 4 feet, No Maximum Depth Limitation ) Land Use Description s Frequency Land Use Category Exposed Acreage Exposed Values ($1000) NULL 5 Others/Unclas sified 1.5792 0 Acreage Improved for Condo (1555) 1 Others/Unclas sified 30.6992 0 Athletic Centers (1555)(New 2014) 1 Service 4.2950 1018.944 Church (1555) 15 Others/Unclas sified 28.2943 5619.04832 2 Clubs,Lodges,Union Halls (1555) 8 Service 69.1266 1589.49427 6 Commercial Boat Slip (1554) 2 Service 1.4174 260.372 Commercial Related Amenities(New 2014) 3 Commercial 7.1180 115.549637 5 Community Shopping Centers (1555) 1 Retail 0.6668 385.56 Condominium Header 3 Others/Unclas sified 5.29201 20.6819955 2 Convenience Store (1555)(New 2014) 3 Retail 0.9076 366.389 Convenience Store w/Gas(1555)(New 2014) 4 Retail 3.0696 1335.68252 9 Coop Owned Lot (1554) 104 Commercial 5.4145 1975.631 County (1555) 7 Others/Unclas sified 22.8562 204.923674 5 Cropland,Class II (1555) 2 Greenfields 2.3715 348.395 Double Wide MH/Condominia(1554)(New 14) 1 Residential 0.0972 59.708 Double Wide MH/Coop (1554)(New 2014) 91 Residential 7.4594 7675.67007 4 Double Wide Mobile Home (1554)(New 2014),Double Wide Mob.Home (1554)(New 2014) 159 Residential 23.0004 10039.2534 9 Duplex (1554) 10 Residential 9.5145 1387.751 Fast Food/Drive In Restaurants (1555) 3 Service 1.7085 781.028086 7 Financial Institutions (1555) 2 Commercial 2.3863 589.033 Garage/Auto Body/Paint Shop(1555)(2014) 5 Industrial 4.8514 912.181418 7 Golf Courses,Driving Ranges (1555) 5 Service 11.7257 4.67997804 5 Govt Owned Forest,Parks,Rec Area (1555) 1 Greenfields 3.4689 102.714200 2 Govt Owned Public County School (1555) 2 Institutional 9.5959 2423.48948 3 Govt Owned Vac Forest,Prks,RecArea(1555) 5 Greenfields 61.6292 446.228776 8
99 Table A 6 . Continue d Land Use Description s Frequency Land Use Category Exposed Acreage Exposed Values ($1000) Govt Owned Vac Public Cnty School(1555) 3 Institutional 2.3636 82.9695596 3 Govt Owned Vacant County (1555) 25 Others/Unclas sified 64.9654 720.763553 7 Govt Owned Vacant Municipal (1555) 2 Others/Unclas sified 0.4118 5.778 Govt Owned Vacant State (1555) 16 Others/Unclas sified 160.010 3 2063.84634 Grazing,Class I (1555) 16 Greenfields 493.161 2 14639.3127 3 Grazing,Class I Improvements (1555) 9 Greenfields 91.1190 3120.11876 4 Half Duplex (1554) 39 Residential 5.6027 4118.625 House Plus Duplex (1554) 2 Residential 2.6858 796.626 Imp.Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 23 Mixed Use 146.186 1 6.88737572 4 Light Industrial (1555) 2 Industrial 1.4879 423.647 Limited Service Hotel (1555)(New 2014) 2 Service 1.6444 941.206759 3 Lumberyards,Sawmills (1555) 1 Industrial 1.4391 298.202 Marinas/Piers (1555)(New 2014) 7 Others/Unclas sified 33.3874 4401.92087 8 Mixed Use Comm./Res.(1555)(New 2014) 1 Mixed Use 3.4163 97.7632192 8 Mixed Use Commercial (1555) 1 Mixed Use 3.1631 139.339 Mobile Home Parks (1555) 3 Residential 78.0953 1086.77627 4 Mortuaries,Cemeteries (1555) 1 Service 28.9815 446.296773 2 Motel (1555)(New 2014),Motels (1555)(New 2014) 4 Service 3.7082 1439.68764 4 Multi Family (3 to 9 Units) (1554) 5 Residential 2.2096 463.713857 2 Municipal (1555) 3 Others/Unclas sified 2.3833 913.525 Night Clubs,Lounges,Bars (1555) 3 Service 1.3181 520.484 Office Buildings One Story(1555) 9 Commercial 8.8300 2341.37226 3 Open Storage,Supply/Junkyards (1555) 1 Industrial 1.2463 45.431 Orchard,Groves,Citrus (1555) 4 Greenfields 2.0418 125.947
100 Table A 6 . Continue d Land Use Description s Frequency Land Use Category Exposed Acreage Exposed Values ($1000) Orchard,Groves,Citrus Imprv (1555) 4 Greenfields 21.9421 1700.72316 2 Ornamentals,Misc (1555) 22 Greenfields 121.217 7 3936.28782 3 Ornamentals,Misc Improvements (1555) 23 Greenfields 450.157 5 15011.6239 9 Orphanages,Other Services (1555) 1 Institutional 0.7279 143.537 Parking Lots,Commercial (1555) 1 Commercial 0.6237 114.078 Poultry,Bees,Fish Improve (1555) 1 Greenfields 2.3953 328.358 Produce and Fishhouses Whole (1555) 1 Greenfields 1.1857 329.995 Rec.Vehicle/MH Sales(1555)(2014) 1 Service 1.8198 198.982 Repair Service Shops (1555) 2 Industrial 3.0759 760.827070 1 Res. Related Amenities(1554)(New 2014),Res. Related Amenities (1554)(New 2014) 10 Residential 23.7571 1567.12428 9 Res.Amenities on 10+ Ac.(1554)(New 2014),Res. Amenities on 10+ ac.(1554)(New2014) 2 Residential 40.1585 628.007023 8 Restaurants,Cafeterias (1555) 8 Service 7.5246 2802.32349 9 Rights of Way (1555) 12 Institutional 19.9227 6.53803536 7 Rivers,Lakes,Submerged Lands (1555) 58 Others/Unclas sified 194.684 9 95.0057297 Service Stations (1555) 1 Service 1.2625 387.049 Single Fam. Res./10+ Ac.(1554)(New 2014) 1 Residential 10.4050 189.431 Single Family Homes/Condominia (1554) 13 Residential 2.5341 2488.30805 7 Single Family Residential (1554) 5193 Residential 2404.07 11 1230196.41 1 Single Wide MH/Condominia( 1554)(New 14) 1 Residential 0.0804 49.899 Single Wide MH/Coop (1554)(New 2014) 980 Residential 57.8282 41579.3135 1 Single Wide Mob.Home (1554)(New 2014),Single Wide Mobile Home(1554)(New 2014) 311 Residential 26.8686 14248.8232 State (1555) 1 Others/Unclas sified 2.1916 387.61 Stores,One Unit (1555) 4 Retail 1.7167 658.554
101 Table A 6 . Continue d Land Use Description s Frequency Land Use Category Exposed Acreage Exposed Values ($1000) Triple Wide MH/Coop (1554)(New 2014) 21 Residential 1.9284 3013.182 Triple Wide+ Mob.Home (1554)(New 2014),Triple Wide+ Mobile Home(1554)(New 2013) 32 Residential 5.1635 3199.03602 5 Two or More Houses (1554) 58 Residential 87.7415 21389.3842 9 Utilities (1555) 2 Industrial 0.9149 246.2 Vac.Commercial Common Area (1555) 4 Vacant/Infill 18.2417 0.018 Vacant Acreage,Not Ag. 10+ Acres (1555),Vacant Acreage,Not Ag.10+ Acres(1555) 77 Vacant/Infill 996.042 5 10329.5860 6 Vacant Commercial (1555) 46 Vacant/Infill 86.6450 4584.08103 6 Vacant Commercial w/Impv (1555) 1 Vacant/Infill 0.6636 230.692 Vacant Condominia Residential (1554) 97 Vacant/Infill 4.2000 10224.2481 6 Vacant Industrial (1555) 2 Vacant/Infill 3.0923 35.19 Vacant Institutional (1555) 15 Vacant/Infill 53.3585 2417.29539 Vacant Mobile Home Lot Platted (1554) 75 Vacant/Infill 3.9033 1350.01 Vacant Non Residential/Unusable (1555) 3 Vacant/Infill 1.0550 5.59259215 3 Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 94 Vacant/Infill 164.637 8 0.26445970 3 Vacant Res.Common Area (1554)(New 2014),Vacant Res. Common Area (1554)(New 2014) 94 Vacant/Infill 214.382 0 26.1395539 5 Vacant Residential Platted (1554) 847 Vacant/Infill 512.687 1 61983.2308 7 Vacant Residential Tract/Unusable (1554) 22 Vacant/Infill 47.0049 202.040479 4 Vacant Residential w/Site Amen. (1554),Vacant Residential w/Site Amen (1554) 99 Vacant/Infill 26.9411 7685.21097 8 Warehousing Ministorage (1555) 2 Industrial 4.3405 3214.235 Warehousing,Distribution (1555) 3 Industrial 2.0163 617.782
102 Figure A 1. Expected r esidential b uilding d amage (Level of Damage) in Stillwater s cenario Figure A 2. Expected residential building damage (Level of Damage) in Half meter s cenario Figure A 3 . Expected residential building damage (Level of Damage) in Full meter s cenario 0.10% 3.98% 14.81% 8.57% 45.10% 27.45% Stillwater 1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 Substantial 0.01% 3.55% 13.53% 6.69% 44.68% 31.53% Half Meter 1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 Substantial 0.02% 3.17% 11.80% 5.71% 32.70% 46.59% Full Meter 1 10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 Substantial
103 Figure A 4 . Building Exposure ($1000) by Occupancy Type b y Scenarios Residential Commercial Industrial Stillwater 7,271,879 1,302,548 298,962 Half-Meter 8,084,509 1,521,345 341,972 Full-Meter 8,832,215 1,688,104 389,500 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 Exposed Dollar Value Building Exposure ($1000) by Occupancy Type for the Scenario
104 Figure A 5 . Future Residential Land Use Exposure By Scenario Stillwater Mean1 Max4 Stillwater Mean2 Max4 Stillwater Mean3 Max4 Stillwater Mean4 4(Mean) with a Half-meter SLR 4(Mean with a Full-meter SLR RES-Low Density (1&3) 4,302.24 3,741.85 3,551.20 3,333.33 3,688.56 4,104.27 RES-Medium Density(6&9) 4,364.54 3,781.01 3,617.50 3,265.38 3,848.11 4,499.93 RES-(High Density(16) 452.98 216.89 211.35 192.18 230.74 289.04 Mixed Use 1,033.53 690.61 467.69 298.62 591.97 953.09 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 Land Exposures (Acreage) Future Residential Land Use Exposure By Scenario (in Unit Density)
105 Figure A 6 . Vacant Lands Categorizations by Scenarios
106 Figure A 7 . Vacant Lands exposed to 100 yr Stillwater based SS and a potential 1 meter SLR
107 Figure A 8 . Vacant Lands exposed to 100 yr Stillwater based SS without a potential 1 meter SLR
108 Figure A 9 . Vacant Lands exposed to a half meter SLR induced SS
109 LIST OF REFERENCES Barnett, T. P. (1983). Recent changes in sea level and their possible causes. Climatic change, 5(1), 15. Broadus, J. M. (1996). Economizing human responses to subsidence and rising sea level. In Sea Level Rise and Coastal Subsidence 313 325. Springer Netherlands. Burby, R. J., Deyle, R . E., Godschalk, D. R., & Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land use planning. Natural hazards review , 1 (2), 99 106. Church, J. A., & White, N. J. (2011). Sea level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics , 32 (4 5), 597. Climate Central. (2013). Florida and the surging sea: a vulnerability assessment with projections for sea level rise and coastal flood risk. Surging Seas: Sea Level Rise Analysis by Climate Central. Retrieved April 12, 2014 from http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/ssrf/FL Report.pdf . CUTR, (2008), Manatee County Transit Development Plan FY 2008 FY 2017 Major Update . ES 25, 5 5. Daniels, R. C., Gornitz, V. M., Mehta, A. J., Lee, S., & Cushman, R. M. (1992).Adapting to sea level rise in the US Southeast: The influence of built infrastructure and biophysical factors on the inundation of coastal areas. Environmental Sciences Division Publicat ion , 3915 , ORNL/CDIAC 54. El Raey, M. (1997). Vulnerability assessment of the coastal zone of the Nile delta of Egypt, to the impacts of sea level rise. Ocean & coastal management , 37 (1), 29 40. Etkins, R., & Epstein, E. S. (1982). The rise of global mean sea level as an indication of climate change. Science , 215(4530), 287 289. Florida Division of Emergency Management, (2013). Section 3.0: State Risk Assessment. State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Pla n , 3.36 3.67, 3.83 3.100. land use planning strategies and best development practices for minimizing vulnerability to flooding and coastal storms. Retrieved September 2, 201 4 from http://www.floridajobs.org/fdcp/dcp/hazardmitigation/files/Protecting_FL_Comm.p df Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (2012). Exemptions fr om Permit Requirements. DEP 2012 Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation. 62B 33(004).
110 FEMA, (2005). Design and construction in coastal A Zones. Hurricane Katrina Recovery Advisory. Retrieved September 20, 2014 from https://www.fema.gov/pdf/rebuild/mat/coastal_a_zones.pdf FEMA, (2009). Recommended residential construction for coastal areas: building on strong and safe foundations. 2 (P 550). Washington, D.C. FEMA, (2011). Flood Insurance Study: Manatee County, Florida and Incorporated Areas. 23 24 FEMA, (2012). Multi hazard loss estimation methodology Flood Model. HazusÂ® MH Technical Manual, Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency M itigation Division, Washington, D.C. FEMA, (2014). The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) methodology for estimating potential losses from disasters. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from https://www.fema.gov/h azus Frank, K. (2014). Planning for sea level rise in the Matanzas basin. PowerPoint Presentation at the American Planning Association 2014 Annual Conference Presentation, Jacksonville, Florida. Retrieved September 4, 2014 from http://www.floridaplanning.org/wp content/uploads/2014/09/Planning for Sea Level Rise Matanzas Basin Kathyrn Frank.pdf Gamb olati, G., Teatini, P., & Gonella, M. (2002). GIS simulations of the inundation risk in the coastal lowlands of the Northern Adriatic Sea. Mathematical and Computer Modelling , 35 (9), 963 972. Georgia Department of Community Affairs, (2013). Land use planni ng for hazard mitigation. Community Report for Glynn County and the City of Brunswick. 2 16 Gornitz, V. (1991). Global coastal hazards from future sea level rise. Global and Planetary Change , 3 (4), 379 Gleick, P. H., & Maurer, E. P. (1990). Assessing the c osts of adapting to sea level rise. A case study of San Francisco Bay. Oakland, California: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. Heberger, M., Cooley, H., Herrera, P., Gleick, P. H., & Moore, E. (2011). Potential impacts of increased coastal flooding in California due to sea level rise. Climatic change, 109(1), 229 249 Kousky, C., Olmstead, S. M., Walls, M. A., Stern, A. & Macauley, M. K. (2011). The Role of Land Use in Adaptation to Increased Precipitation and Flooding: A Case 1 65. Manatee County, (2005) A . Summary of future land use classification system, Future Land use Elements. Manatee County Comprehensive Plan . 94 217.
111 Manatee County, (2005) B . Coastal Elements. Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. 326 352 Maryland Climate Change Commission. (2013). level rise projections. Retrieved April 15, 2010 from https://www.pwrc.usgs .gov/SeaLevelRiseProjections.pdf Moser, S. C., & Tribbia, J. (2006). Vulnerability to inundation and climate change impacts in California: coastal managers' attitudes and perceptions. Marine Technology Society Journal , 40 (4), 35 44. National Geography News . (2007) Coastal Warming Fast Facts. Retrieved August 12, 2014 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warmin g.html Puszkin Chevlin, A., Hernandez, D., & Murley, J. (2006). Land use planning and its potential to reduce hazard vulnerability: Current practices and future possibilities. Marine Technology Society Journal , 40 (4), 7 . Ruppert. T and t and Candiotti. M., (2011). Analysis and update on the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. Retrieved September 23, 2014 from https://www.flseagrant.org/wp content/uploads/2012/01/BertHarrisAct_analysis_FSG web_1.11.pdf Smith, S. K., & Rayer, S. (2013). Projections of Florida Population by County, 2015 2040, with Estimates for 2012. Florida Population Studies, Bulletin, 46 (165). 4 8 Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group. (2012). Analysis of the Vulnerability of Southeast Florida to Sea Level Rise. United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA), Impacts of changes in storm surge and precipitation, Coastal Areas Impacts. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts adaptation/ coasts.html#ref6 United States General Accounting Office, (2003). Flood Insurance: challenges facing the National Flood Insurance Program. GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on housing and Community opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives. U.S Global Change Program. (2009). Executive Summary. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Retrieved May 1, 2014 from http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/executive summary.pdf Zhang, K., Dittmar, J., Ross, M., & Bergh, C. (2011). Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human population and real property in the Florida Keys. Climatic Change , 107(1 2), 129 146.
112 Zou, Y. (2011). GIS based Future Land Use Hurricane Storm Surge Hazard Analysis: A Case Study for Volusia County, Florida (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
113 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jingru Zhang is currently pursuing a Master of Arts degree in U rban and Regional Planning in University of Florida (UF) in Gainesville, Florida. She has a Bachelor of Science in Resource and Environment, City Planning and Management focused on the use of geographic information systems (GIS) in spatial analysis of land experience include d urban design and most recently, she has worked with Regional Transit Sys tem in Gainesville, Florida on GIS based transit research projects. Jingru working in the field of land development, coastal planning and integrated application S of GIS techniques.