Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

November 2021

Prepared for:

Funded by:

Prepared by:

In partnership with:

This report was funded through a grant agreement with the Tampa Bay Partnership. The views, statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the study participants AECOM Sustainable Economics Practice Buildings + Places, Design and Consulting Services 300 California Street San Francisco, CA, 94104 USA aecom.com

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9 Study Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Hazard Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Key Study Concepts & Global Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 11

2. Economic Consequences of No Action .............................................................. 14 Primary Economic Consequences Overview .................................................................................................... 14 Event-Based Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results ............................................................. 15 Cumulative Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results................................................................ 19 Secondary Economic Consequences Overview ............................................................................................... 19 REMI No Action Framework....................................................................................................................... 20 REMI Control ............................................................................................................................................ 21 REMI No Action Results ............................................................................................................................ 22 Case Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Port Manatee and Port Tampa Bay............................................................................................................. 26 Downtown Tampa ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Clearwater Beach ...................................................................................................................................... 32

3. Investing in Adaptation ....................................................................................... 35 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Adaptation ................................................................................................................. 36 Adaptation Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Adaptation Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 37 Adaptation Benefit-Cost Ratios .................................................................................................................. 37 Regional Economic Benefits of Adaptation ....................................................................................................... 38 Community-Wide Adaptation Funding Assumptions .................................................................................... 38 Building-Level Adaptation Funding Assumptions ......................................................................................... 40 REMI Adaptation Framework ..................................................................................................................... 41 REMI Adaptation Results ........................................................................................................................... 42 Additional Adaptation Benefit Considerations ................................................................................................... 44 Property Value Considerations ................................................................................................................... 44 Property Tax Fiscal Impacts .................................................................................................................... 45 Insurance Premiums.................................................................................................................................. 45 Tourism and Beaches ................................................................................................................................ 46

4. Strategies for Advancing Economic Resilience .................................................. 48 1. Prioritize Social Equity in Planning and Response ........................................................................................ 48 Town N’ County, Hillsborough County - Socio-Economic and Minority & Language Status Focus ............... 50 Palmetto, Manatee County - Housing Type & Transportation Focus .......................................................... 51 New Port Richey, Pasco County - Household Composition & Disability and Housing Type & Transportation Focus ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 Bartlett Park, Pinellas County - Socio-Economic, Minority & Language Status and Housing Type & Transportation Focus .............................................................................................................................. 53 2. Mitigate Flood Risk through Land Use and Infrastructure Planning................................................................ 54 3. Increase Awareness about Climate Risk to Inform Real Estate Investment Decisions .................................... 55 4. Focus Adaptation Measures on Key Sectors of the Economy........................................................................ 56 5. Engage with and Provide Support to the Small Business Community ............................................................ 57 6. Establish a Roadmap to a Resilient Workforce ............................................................................................. 58 7. Develop Strategic Implementation Plans and Monitor Effectiveness Over Time ............................................. 59 8. Take Local Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 60

5. References ........................................................................................................ 62 Appendix A – Selection of Coastal Water Level Conditions ...................................... 72 Daily and Storm Tide Levels – Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 72

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Daily and Storm Tide Levels – Future Conditions ............................................................................................. 74

Appendix B – Exposure Analysis Mapping ............................................................... 76 Exposure Maps............................................................................................................................................... 77 Exposure Analysis Tabular Results .................................................................................................................. 96 Parcel Exposure ........................................................................................................................................ 96 Roadway Exposure ................................................................................................................................... 99 Critical Facilities Exposure ....................................................................................................................... 101 Glossary of Exposure-Related Terms............................................................................................................. 105 Parcels ................................................................................................................................................... 105 Roads ..................................................................................................................................................... 107 Critical Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 107

Appendix C – Primary Economic Consequence Methods ...................................... 109 Temporary Coastal Storm Impacts ................................................................................................................. 109 Direct Property Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 109 Displacement Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 110 Business and Employment Impacts.......................................................................................................... 110 Fiscal Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................111 Permanent Sea Level Rise Impacts ............................................................................................................... 112 Direct Property Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 112 Business and Employment Impacts.......................................................................................................... 112 Fiscal Impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix D – Detailed Primary Economic Consequence Results of No Action ......115 Property Impacts........................................................................................................................................... 115 Business and Employment Impacts ............................................................................................................... 125

Appendix E –Secondary Economic Job Consequence Results of No Action by Industry (REMI) ...................................................................................................... 145 Appendix F – Additional Case Study Maps and In-Focus Areas ............................ 147 Port Manatee and Port Tampa Bay ................................................................................................................ 147 Downtown Tampa ......................................................................................................................................... 151 Clearwater Beach ......................................................................................................................................... 153 Bradenton..................................................................................................................................................... 154 MacDill Air Force Base .................................................................................................................................. 157 New Port Richey ........................................................................................................................................... 160 Tampa International Airport............................................................................................................................ 163

Appendix G – Adaptation Strategy Modeling .......................................................... 166 Identifying Adaptation Strategy Applicability ................................................................................................... 166 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 166 Detailed Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 167 Caveats and Assumptions to Adaptation Applicability Analysis .................................................................. 169 Community-Wide Strategy Cost Information................................................................................................... 170 Building-Level Cost Information ..................................................................................................................... 172

Appendix H – Job Benefits of Adaptation by Industry (REMI) ................................ 175 Appendix I – REMI Model Framework .................................................................... 177 Appendix J – County-Level Social Equity & Flood Index Results ........................... 181 Citrus County................................................................................................................................................ 182 Hernando County.......................................................................................................................................... 184 Hillsborough County...................................................................................................................................... 186 Manatee County ........................................................................................................................................... 188 Pasco County ............................................................................................................................................... 190 Pinellas County............................................................................................................................................. 192

General Limiting Conditions ................................................................................... 194 4

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figures Figure 1. Historical and Projected Sea Level Rise Trends at Saint Petersburg Tide Station................................ 10 Figure 2. Historical and Projected Sea Level Rise Trends at Cedar Key Tide Station ......................................... 10 Figure 3. Flow Chart of Primary Consequence Analysis ................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Relationship between Primary Consequence and Secondary Consequence (REMI) Modeling ............ 20 Figure 5. 10-Year Tide Event: Port Manatee..................................................................................................... 28 Figure 6. 10-Year Tide Event: Port Tampa Bay ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 7. 10-Year Tide Event: Downtown Tampa .............................................................................................. 31 Figure 8. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW) and 10-Year Tide Event: Clearwater Beach..................... 32 Figure 9. Businesses impacted in a 10-year tide event in 2070 in Clearwater Beach ......................................... 33 Figure 10. Town N' County, Hillsborough County Census Tract 117.06 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ............. 50 Figure 11. Palmetto, Manatee County Census Tract 14.03 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event .............................. 51 Figure 12. New Port Richey, Pasco County Census Tracts 314.06 and 314.08 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event . 52 Figure 13. Bartlett Park, Pinellas County Census Tract 205 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ............................. 53 Figure 14. St. Petersburg Tide Station ............................................................................................................. 72 Figure 15. Cedar Key Tide Station ................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 16. Citrus County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) ........................................................... 78 Figure 17. Citrus County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) ................................................................. 79 Figure 18. Citrus County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ................................................................................ 80 Figure 19. Hernando County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) ..................................................... 81 Figure 20. Hernando County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) ........................................................... 82 Figure 21. Hernando County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event .......................................................................... 83 Figure 22. Hillsborough County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) ................................................. 84 Figure 23. Hillsborough County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) ....................................................... 85 Figure 24. Hillsborough County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ...................................................................... 86 Figure 25. Manatee County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) ...................................................... 87 Figure 26. Manatee County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) ............................................................ 88 Figure 27. Manatee County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ............................................................................ 89 Figure 28. Pasco County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) .......................................................... 90 Figure 29. Pasco County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) ................................................................ 91 Figure 30. Pasco County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ................................................................................ 92 Figure 31. Pinellas County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW) ........................................................ 93 Figure 32. Pinellas County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide) .............................................................. 94 Figure 33. Pinellas County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event ............................................................................. 95 Figure 34. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Port Manatee ............................................................ 147 Figure 35. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Port Manatee ................................................................................. 148 Figure 36. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Port Tampa Bay ........................................................ 149 Figure 37. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Port Tampa Bay ............................................................................. 150 Figure 38. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Downtown Tampa ..................................................... 151 Figure 39. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Downtown Tampa .......................................................................... 152 Figure 40. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Clearwater Beach .......................................................................... 153 Figure 41. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Bradenton ................................................................ 154 Figure 42. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Bradenton ..................................................................................... 155 Figure 43. 10-Year Tide Event: Bradenton ..................................................................................................... 156 Figure 44. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): MacDill Air Force Base .............................................. 157 Figure 45. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): MacDill Air Force Base ................................................................... 158 Figure 46. 10-Year Tide Event: MacDill Air Force Base ................................................................................... 159 Figure 47. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): New Port Richey ....................................................... 160 Figure 48. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): New Port Richey ............................................................................ 161 Figure 49. 10-Year Tide Event: New Port Richey ............................................................................................ 162 Figure 50. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Tampa International Airport........................................ 163 Figure 51. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Tampa International Airport ............................................................ 164 Figure 52. 10-Year Tide Event: Tampa International Airport............................................................................. 165 Figure 53. Adaptation Applicability Analysis: Identification of Impacted Development Density .......................... 168 Figure 54. Example of Wet Floodproofing Measures ...................................................................................... 173 Figure 55. Example of Dry Floodproofing Measures ....................................................................................... 174 Figure 56. REMI Model Linkages................................................................................................................... 177 Figure 57. Economic Geography Linkages..................................................................................................... 178 Figure 58. Trade and Commuter Flow Linkages ............................................................................................. 179 5

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 59. Citrus 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ......................................................... 182 Figure 60. Citrus 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ......................................................... 182 Figure 61. Hernando 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ................................................... 184 Figure 62. Hernando 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ................................................... 184 Figure 63. Hillsborough 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ............................................... 186 Figure 64. Hillsborough 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ............................................... 186 Figure 65. Manatee 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ..................................................... 188 Figure 66. Manatee 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ..................................................... 188 Figure 67. Pasco 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index......................................................... 190 Figure 68. Pasco 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index......................................................... 190 Figure 69. Pinellas 2020 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ....................................................... 192 Figure 70. Pinellas 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ...................................................... 192

Tables Table 1. Consequence Categories and Indicators Evaluated ............................................................................ 15 Table 2. Event-Based Direct Property Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) ............................................ 16 Table 3. Event-Based Business and Employment Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) .......................... 17 Table 4. Event-Based Fiscal Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) .......................................................... 18 Table 5. Cumulative Primary Consequence Impacts for the No Action Scenario (2020-2070) (2021 Dollars) ...... 19 Table 6. REMI Model Variables for the No Action Scenario ............................................................................... 21 Table 7. REMI 2020 Regional Control for Tampa Bay Counties and the Rest of Florida (2021 Dollars, Rounded to the nearest thousand) ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 8. REMI 2070 Regional Control for Tampa Bay Counties and the Rest of Florida (2021 Dollars, Rounded to the nearest thousand) ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 9. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2020 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars)........ 23 Table 10. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2045 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars) ...... 24 Table 11. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2070 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars) ...... 25 Table 12. Gradual Sea Level Rise REMI Results (Millions of 2021 Dollars) ....................................................... 25 Table 13. Port Tampa Bay Wages for One Day of Disrupted Operations............................................................ 27 Table 14. Port Manatee Wages for One Day of Disrupted Operations ............................................................... 27 Table 15: Port Tampa Cruise Disrupted Wages from Decreasing Cruise Traffic by One Vessel........................... 31 Table 16. Adaptation Strategy Types Evaluated................................................................................................ 35 Table 17. Order of Magnitude Adaptation Costs (2021 Dollars) ......................................................................... 36 Table 18. Cumulative Primary Consequence Impacts Avoided from Adaptation (2021-2070) (2021 Dollars) ....... 37 Table 19. Adaptation Strategy Benefit-Cost Ratios for Direct Property Primary Consequences (Net Present Value) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 20. Funding Assumptions for Community-Wide Adaptation ...................................................................... 39 Table 21. Costs by Funding Source for Community-wide Adaptation (2021 Dollars)........................................... 40 Table 22. Funding Assumptions for Building-Level Adaptation........................................................................... 40 Table 23. Costs by Funding Source for Building-Level Adaptation (2021 Dollars)............................................... 41 Table 24. REMI Variables for Adaptation Scenario ............................................................................................ 42 Table 25. Economic Indicators for Community-wide Adaptation Scenario Shown in Two Phases (Millions of 2021 Dollars)........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 26. Cumulative Property Tax Impacts from Permanent Sea Level Rise (MHHW) (2021 Dollars) ................ 45 Table 27. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLP) Claims and Damage Payments in the Tampa Bay region .................................................................................................... 55 Table 28. Tampa Bay Firms by Age (Years in Business) ................................................................................... 57 Table 29. Businesses in the Six-County Region by Firm Size and Employment ................................................. 58 Table 30. Representative Tide Stations for the Tampa Bay Counties ................................................................. 72 Table 31. Tampa Bay Local Sea Level Rise Projections for NOAA Intermediate-High Scenario .......................... 74 Table 32. Existing and Future Tide Conditions for the Saint Petersburg Tide Station .......................................... 74 Table 33. Existing and Future Tide Conditions for the Cedar Key Tide Station ................................................... 74 Table 34. Equivalent Water Level Matrix for the Saint Petersburg Tide Station .................................................. 75 Table 35. Data Sources Incorporated into the Exposure Analysis ...................................................................... 77 Table 36. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County ........................................................ 96 Table 37. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County .................................................. 96 Table 38. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County .............................................. 97 6

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 39. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County.................................................... 97 Table 40. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County ....................................................... 98 Table 41. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County ..................................................... 98 Table 42. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County ............................................. 99 Table 43. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County ....................................... 99 Table 44. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County ................................. 100 Table 45. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County ...................................... 100 Table 46. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County .......................................... 100 Table 47. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County ........................................ 101 Table 48. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County ......................................... 101 Table 49. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County ................................... 102 Table 50. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County ............................... 102 Table 51. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County .................................... 103 Table 52. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County ........................................ 104 Table 53. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County ...................................... 104 Table 54. Land Use Code Classifications ....................................................................................................... 105 Table 55. Functional Class Descriptions......................................................................................................... 107 Table 56. Critical Facility Classifications ......................................................................................................... 108 Table 57. Average County-Wide Property Tax rates ........................................................................................ 114 Table 58. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) .......... 115 Table 59. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) .......... 115 Table 60. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) .......... 116 Table 61. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) .... 117 Table 62. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) .... 117 Table 63. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) .... 118 Table 64. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) 118 Table 65. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) 119 Table 66. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) 119 Table 67. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars)...... 120 Table 68. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars)...... 120 Table 69. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars)...... 121 Table 70. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ......... 122 Table 71. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ......... 122 Table 72. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ......... 123 Table 73. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) ....... 123 Table 74. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) ....... 124 Table 75. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) ....... 124 Table 76. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars)...................... 125 Table 77. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars)...................... 126 Table 78. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars)...................... 127 Table 79. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) ............... 128 Table 80. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) ............... 129 Table 81. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) ............... 130 Table 82. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) ........... 131 Table 83. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) ........... 132 Table 84. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) ........... 134 Table 85. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) ................. 135 Table 86. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) ................. 136 Table 87. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) ................. 137 Table 88. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ..................... 138 Table 89. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ..................... 139 Table 90. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) ..................... 140 Table 91. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) .................. 141 Table 92. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) .................. 142 Table 93. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) .................. 143 Table 94. Employment Impacts by Industry for Event-Based Storms ............................................................... 145 Table 95. Datasets used for Adaptation Strategy Modeling ............................................................................. 167 Table 96. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Citrus County ................................................................................ 170 Table 97. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Hernando County .......................................................................... 170 Table 98. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Hillsborough County ...................................................................... 170 Table 99. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Manatee County ............................................................................ 171 7

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 100. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Pasco County .............................................................................. 171 Table 101. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Pinellas County ........................................................................... 171 Table 102. Tampa Bay Sediment Needs ........................................................................................................ 171 Table 103. Direct Costs for Community-Wide Adaptation Strategies (2021 Dollars) ......................................... 172 Table 104. Additional Community-Wide Adaptation Cost Components ............................................................ 172 Table 105. Order of Magnitude Costs to Implement Building-Level Adaptation Strategies (2021 Dollars, $per Square Foot of Building Footprint) ................................................................................................................. 174 Table 106. Employment Impacts from Systemic Adaptation Scenario Shown in Two Phases (Shown in Job Years) .................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Table 107. Citrus County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index.................... 183 Table 108. Hernando County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ............. 185 Table 109. Hillsborough County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ......... 187 Table 110. Manatee County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ............... 189 Table 111. Pasco County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ................... 191 Table 112. Pinellas County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index ................. 193

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

1. Introduction Study Overview The Tampa Bay region is among the most vulnerable regions in the U.S. and the world to sea level rise and coastal flooding associated with climate change (Climate Central, 2017; World Bank, 2013). The Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) found that the region can expect to see an additional 2 to 8.5 feet of sea level rise by 2100, on top of the approximately 7.8 inches that has already occurred since 1946 (Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel, 2019). The Tampa Bay region, under the auspices of the Tampa Bay Partnership, undertook this study to answer key questions and close identified gaps in the regional economic evaluation of flood risk and exposure, with the specific inclusion of sea level rise. Brizaga was selected to guide the development of this study, with additional technical support from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) and AECOM. Understanding the economics of sea level rise, flooding, and resilience is essential to encouraging continued action to address the challenges facing communities in the Tampa Bay region. Beyond the physical implications of rising seas, the economic implications of these impacts are an essential component of making informed decisions on how to invest in adaptation and resilience. To further understand the economic case for resilience in the Tampa Bay region, this study explores the following: •

the economic consequences of flooding and the augmentation of those consequences due to rising sea levels;

•

the economic benefits of adaptation as a function of risk reduction and avoided economic losses and the opportunities associated with resilience investments; and

•

strategies to advance economic resilience.

Given the large and varied geography of the Tampa Bay region, replicable analysis techniques and generalized assumptions were incorporated into the analysis, accounting for readily available and regionally standardized physical and economic data. As such, this study represents a high-level evaluation of economic consequences that could occur if no action is taken mitigate coastal hazard risks, as well as the costs and benefits that could result from investment in a subset of adaptation and resilience strategies. The findings are intended to show the importance, both locally and regionally, of continuing efforts to build broad public and private sector support for investment in strategies to confront the economic risks posed by current and future coastal hazards.

Hazard Scenarios A series of high-frequency coastal conditions, accounting for water levels in 2020, 2045 and 2070 were selected based on recommendations from the Project Team and dialogue with stakeholders in the Tampa Bay region. Coastal conditions modeled include the average daily high tide or mean higher high water (MHHW), the 1-year tide or king tide, and the 10-year tide. The additive effect of sea level rise in the years of 2045 and 2070 was informed by projections recently released by the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (2019). Specifically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Intermediate High scenario was selected to align with State requirements under Section 161.551, F.S.(Sea Level Impact Projection [SLIP] studies) (Florida Statute: Public Financing of Construction Projects within the Coastal Building Zone, 2021) and Section 380.093, F.S. (Statewide Flooding and Sea Level Rise Resilience Plan) (The Florida Senate, 2021). To account for the spatial variability of water levels along the coastline in the Tampa Bay region, average tide levels were obtained for the locations of two tide stations (i.e., Saint Petersburg, Cedar Key) and assigned to the counties based on their proximity to each tide station. Water levels for the selected high-frequency coastal conditions, and comparative sea level rise scenarios, are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Additional details on the process undertaken for selecting water level conditions can be found in Appendix A.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Exposure mapping for these coastal conditions was conducted across parcels and core community infrastructure assets that are necessary for life safety or public and private service continuity, or that could pose a significant social consequence if compromised. Asset exposure was evaluated using the Flood Master Tool Suite and the Sea Level Rise Value Tool, both of which are GIS-based tools developed by the TBRPC. Full results from the exposure analysis can be found in Appendix B. Figure 1. Historical and Projected Sea Level Rise Trends at Saint Petersburg Tide Station

Figure 2. Historical and Projected Sea Level Rise Trends at Cedar Key Tide Station

Note: Tide data at the Cedar Key station was not available from 1926 to 1938.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Key Study Concepts & Global Assumptions Key concepts and global assumptions that support interpretation of the analysis and results detailed in this report are described below. Impact Geography: This analysis is focused on evaluating economic outcomes to communities in the Tampa Bay region and the rest of the State of Florida. Citrus County, Hernando County, Hillsborough County, Manatee County, Pasco County and Pinellas County make up the Primary Impact Area, while the rest of the State of Florida represents the Secondary Impact Area. Primary economic consequences are modeled for the Tampa Bay counties, the results of which are introduced to the REMI model platform to produce separate secondary economic consequence results for each Tampa Bay county (i.e., Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas) and rest of the State of Florida. Focus on Developed Areas: This analysis focuses on the economic consequences and benefits of protecting buildings and critical facilities. Vacant, non-critical facility parcels are not captured in the analysis. Static Built Environment: This analysis superimposes current and future coastal conditions on the existing built environment in the Tampa Bay region. While it is likely that the built environment in this region of Florida will undergo changes between the present year and the end year of analysis in 2070, it is challenging to accurately model those changes without detailed information on future development plans at the building scale. Incorporating this information into the analysis was not feasible due to data and resource limitations. Effectiveness and Useful Life of Adaptation Strategies: Each of the adaptation strategies were modeled to provide protection from expected coastal conditions in 2020, 2045 and 2070. These community-wide and buildinglevel strategies were modeled using a phased approach whereby the design features meet the specified modeled conditions in future years. For example, constructing a seawall now that will provide benefits through 2045 and that can be further elevated in 2045 to provide protection through 2070. In this example, the benefits provided by the seawall are assumed to begin accruing the first year of adaptation investment (2021) and continue to accrue until the end year of the analysis (i.e., 2070). It is possible that adaptation strategies could provide some level of benefits after 2070 but this would require additional analysis to quantify. The type of adaptation strategies evaluated provide different levels of protection from the modeled coastal conditions. For example, community-wide strategies (e.g., seawalls) are expected to neutralize most damages from average daily high tide and the modeled tide events, while the building-level strategies (e.g., floodproofing) are expected to neutralize most damages only of the modeled tide event damages. The effectiveness of each strategy modeled is accounted for in the cumulative assessment of costs and benefits of adaptation. Adaptation Strategy Costs: Only the capital investment costs to implement each adaptation strategy are incorporated into this analysis. Additional life cycle costs for maintenance are not included. Prior Damage: The analysis assumes no cumulative damage from prior coastal hazard events. Risk Model Types: There are two primary model types for evaluating hazard risk: deterministic models and probabilistic models. Deterministic risk models generally account for the effects of a single or event-based scenario; for example, a 10-year tide event in a defined year, such as 2050. Probabilistic risk models account for uncertainty in physical and economic inputs, and include a wide range of scenarios, their likelihood, and the related effects. A deterministic model was primarily used to generate results for this report in part because of the limited number of scenarios and supporting data as well as the structure of the REMI economic impact modeling platform that was used. Primary Consequence vs Secondary Consequence Modeling: A multi-step modeling process was undertaken to estimate results. To distinguish between these two modeling phases, this study refers to direct impacts to property and assets that are exposed to the modeled coastal hazards as primary consequences, while secondary consequences is used to account for economy-wide direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. Primary and secondary consequences in some cases can overlap to a degree and should not be added together. For example, lost output associated with a business that is subject to storm damage and has to temporarily close to undergo

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

repairs is a primary consequence metric that is incorporated into the REMI model to estimate lost GDP, which accounts for both output and intermediate inputs in a defined economic geography. Business Recapture: This study incorporates the assumption that a portion of the business-related losses resulting from the modeled coastal hazards can be recaptured. Industry-specific recapture factors developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for use in natural hazard assessments were incorporated, accounting for the ability of businesses to shift their operations offsite and/or find ways to increase productivity at a later date. Additionally, there is the potential for other businesses within the same industry that are not directly exposed to the modeled hazards to increase their output to offset losses experienced by impacted firms that are not able to adjust their operations. Assignment of Temporary vs Permanent Impacts: Results are organized in this report to avoid double counting of impacts. To do this, property and assets exposed to tidal inundation from sea level rise are considered to be permanently impacted and taken out of the assessment of temporary event-based storm impacts, even if the same property and asset may be exposed to event-based storm conditions simultaneously. Permanent impacts captured in this report can include both one-time and recurring annual impacts. For example, a home vulnerable to daily high tides is assumed to have a one-time loss equivalent to the market value of the property, and recurring annual property tax losses. Results Reporting: Multiple reporting metrics are used to present the findings of the analysis, including: •

Event-Based Impacts: This metric reflects the amount of impacts that could be expected if the modeled hazard events were to occur in the Tampa Bay region today. Essentially these results reflect the superimposition of future environmental conditions on the existing built environment and economy. These results are not adjusted to account for the probability of an event (e.g., 10-year tide) occurring in the discrete time horizon years (i.e., 2020, 2045, 2070). Event-based impacts presented here are limited to parcels whereby a building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions, unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility (e.g., an airport) in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed.

•

Cumulative Impacts: The estimated impacts for each year in the period of analysis, which account for the likelihood of the modeled coastal hazards occurring, are summed to develop an estimate of cumulative impacts.

•

Avoided Impacts: This value represents the difference between the estimated impacts under a no action scenario to the estimated impacts for the modeled adaptation scenarios. This metric reflects the amount of impact mitigated as a result of investment in adaptation.

•

Net Impacts: The net impacts are calculated by subtracting the cumulative present value costs of adaptation from the cumulative present value of benefits (or impacts avoided) conveyed by investing in adaptation. Financial discounting is used to estimate the expected present value costs and benefits.

•

Benefit-Cost Ratio: The economic justification for the modeled scenarios is presented in the form of a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) whereby the total present value of benefits conveyed by adaptation are divided by the total present value costs of adaptation. When the ratio of benefits to costs is greater than one, an investment can be considered economically justified. For instance, a project would be considered economically justified if the present value benefits are $100,000 and the present value costs are $90,000. The BCR in this context would be 1.1 (i.e., $100,000/$90,000).

Discount Rates: Federal guidance generally prescribes that a discount rate ranging from 3 percent to 7 percent can be used in an economic analysis of this type. The specific determination of what discount rate to use requires consideration of the nature of the project and how it affects private investment and consumption. For this analysis, a 5 percent discount rate is used to calculate the present value of the costs and benefits associated with modeled scenarios unless noted otherwise. Price Level: All costs and benefits have been normalized and are presented in 2021 dollars, unless noted otherwise.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Emphasis on Regional Flood Protection: Adaptation strategies evaluated for this study focused on high-level actions that are repeatable and able to provide regional scale protection from sea level rise and high frequency coastal storms. Although the strategies described offer several alternatives for regional flood protection, the study does not address potential flood pathways that may originate at a local scale, such as through local stormwater networks. In general, stormwater systems represent a key vulnerability to sea level rise resilience because the network’s capacity to collect, convey, and discharge flows will be reduced by higher sea levels. There is also often a lack of key data available (e.g., elevation of inlets and outfalls) and modeling capacity (e.g., dynamic modeling to show the interaction of stormwater conveyance and ocean water levels), making it difficult to fully understand the vulnerability of the stormwater system to future sea level conditions. Without action, sea level rise may partially or completely inundate stormwater outfalls, affecting the efficiency of stormwater drainage. Backflow of high tides into open outfalls may also cause surface flooding in low-lying areas that sit at elevations below the hydraulic grade line, even if shoreline protection systems are high enough to prevent overland flooding at the shoreline. In addition to considering the regional flood protection strategies described in this study, counties and cities in the Tampa Bay region may benefit from a developing a comprehensive adaptation plan that also considers the influence of stormwater networks on flood risk for the area.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

2. Economic Consequences of No Action Economic consequences of not taking action were evaluated through a lens of primary and secondary consequence analyses. The primary consequences evaluated in the assessment are static in nature, and do not account for the dynamic ways that economies respond to shocks and stresses, both human and nature induced. To account for these complicated economic responses, additional secondary consequences are modeled using the REMI economic impact modeling platform, accounting for direct as well as downstream indirect (e.g., supply chain) and induced effects (e.g., worker and household spending) to the economies of Tampa Bay. While the secondary consequence results provide additional context for decision-makers, they can overlap to a degree with some of the primary consequences and should not be added together. For example, lost output associated with a business that is subject to storm damage and has to temporarily close to undergo repairs is a primary consequence metric that is then incorporated into the REMI model to estimate lost GDP, which accounts for both output and intermediate inputs in a defined economic geography. As such, these economic consequence analysis results should not be aggregated.

Primary Economic Consequences Overview The monetized primary consequence analysis was conducted based on the steps outlined in Figure 3. Based on the hazard analysis, the exposure analysis identified the parcels and buildings at risk, as well as other key infrastructure assets. For the complete results from the exposure analysis, see Appendix B. Exposure analysis results also included flood depths at the building- and parcel- level. From this, the asset’s vulnerability was determined, and monetary values were assigned to the assets analyzed. Monetized primary consequences were evaluated for the average daily high tide or mean higher high water (MHHW) (captured in “tidal” in the figure), and the 1-year tide or king tide and the 10-year tide (captured in “storm” in the figure). Results from this analysis demonstrate the primary impacts under a no action scenario to the developed areas and critical facilities (e.g., Ports and hospitals) of the six-county region. Secondary economic consequences were evaluated separately, as discussed in the Secondary Economic Consequences Overview. Figure 3. Flow Chart of Primary Consequence Analysis

To inform the assessment of primary economic consequences, the Project Team selected indicators that are commonly evaluated in natural hazard assessments and could reasonably be assessed with the time, resources and

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

data available to support this study. Core to this analysis is the assumption that different types of consequences would occur from temporary storm events (i.e., 1-year tide, 10-year tide) compared to permanent progressive sea level rise (i.e., MHHW or average daily high tide). As such, separate consequence assessment methodologies and indicators were evaluated for these different types of coastal hazard conditions, as shown in Table 1. The methodologies used to assess primary consequences are detailed in Appendix C and primarily draw upon technical guidance documents and economic and planning memoranda developed by federal agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA. Much of this technical guidance has been developed to support the considerations of costs and benefits relevant to decision-making around infrastructure investments, specifically actions designed to mitigate the risks from natural hazards. Table 1. Consequence Categories and Indicators Evaluated Consequence Category Direct Property Impacts

Business and Employment Impacts

Fiscal Impacts

Consequence Indicators: Temporary Coastal Storms Structure damage Content damage Relocation costs Sales output loss Wage loss Job loss Sales tax loss Tourist development tax loss

Consequence Indicators: Permanent Sea Level Rise Property value loss Sales output loss Wage loss Job loss Property tax loss Sales tax loss Tourist development tax loss

Event-Based Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results Primary consequence results are shown in Table 2 – Table 4. Results are representative of event-based impacts that could be expected if the modeled hazard events were to occur in the Tampa Bay region today. Essentially these results reflect the superimposition of modeled coastal conditions on the existing built environment and economy. Results are organized so as to avoid double counting of impacts. To do this, property and assets exposed to tidal inundation from sea level rise are considered to be permanently impacted and taken out of the assessment of temporary event-based storm impacts, even if the same property and asset may be exposed to storm conditions simultaneously. Tidal inundation results (i.e., MHHW or daily high tide) account for one-time damages to property and one calendar year of business, employment, and fiscal revenue losses. Storm flooding results (i.e., 1-year tide, 10year tide) represent the losses from a single storm and are not adjusted to account for probability of the modeled storm conditions occurring. Permanent sea level rise results are not reported for 2020 model conditions, based on the assumption that a majority of assets do not currently face measurable risks daily from these coastal conditions. Note that results for future condition impacts can include assets that are determined to be vulnerable in the prior time horizons. However, in some cases, impacts for a similar coastal condition scenario (e.g., 1-year tide) are greater in an earlier time horizon compared to a future time horizon. This is explained by the way in which property or assets that may be at risk to a 1-year tide under 2020 conditions, for example, can become exposed to MHHW under 2045 conditions. While impacts can transfer across the coastal hazard scenarios evaluated over-time, the total impacts for each time horizon would be expected to grow over time. Further, while results are reported as event-based impacts for the modeled daily high tide conditions, both one-time and annual recurring impacts would be expected. For example, a residential property would result in one-time impacts in the form of lost market value, as well as annually recurring property tax losses. More detailed primary economic consequence results are provided in Appendix D.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 2. Event-Based Direct Property Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) 2020 Conditions County

2045 Conditions

2070 Conditions

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Citrus

$13,000,000

$126,000,000

$205,000,000

$7,000,000

$204,000,000

$602,000,000

$13,000,000

$335,000,000

Public

$4,000,000

$187,000,000

$1,000,000

$8,000,000

$566,000,000

$12,000,000

Private

$13,000,000

$122,000,000

$18,000,000

$6,000,000

$196,000,000

$36,000,000

$13,000,000

$323,000,000

Hernando

$3,000,000

$38,000,000

$28,000,000

$3,000,000

$70,000,000

$191,000,000

$3,000,000

$102,000,000

Public

$27,000,000

$173,000,000

Private

$3,000,000

$38,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$70,000,000

$18,000,000

$3,000,000

$102,000,000

Hillsborough

$27,000,000

$106,000,000

$737,000,000

$2,000,000

$543,000,000

$2,769,000,000

$41,000,000

$1,585,000,000

Public

$2,000,000

$324,000,000

$97,000,000

$1,947,000,000

$35,000,000

Private

$27,000,000

$104,000,000

$413,000,000

$2,000,000

$446,000,000

$822,000,000

$41,000,000

$1,550,000,000

Manatee

$20,000,000

$510,000,000

$1,079,000,000

$43,000,000

$850,000,000

$5,059,000,000

$38,000,000

$771,000,000

Public

$1,000,000

$1,045,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,958,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Private

$20,000,000

$509,000,000

$34,000,000

$43,000,000

$847,000,000

$101,000,000

$37,000,000

$769,000,000

Pasco

$8,000,000

$47,000,000

$49,000,000

$3,000,000

$149,000,000

$498,000,000

$20,000,000

$387,000,000

Public

$48,000,000

$494,000,000

Private

$8,000,000

$47,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$149,000,000

$4,000,000

$20,000,000

$387,000,000

Pinellas

$74,000,000

$301,000,000

$793,000,000

$16,000,000

$1,097,000,000

$7,807,000,000

$118,000,000

$3,293,000,000

Public

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$527,000,000

$10,000,000

$6,980,000,000

$1,000,000

$39,000,000

Private

$71,000,000

$296,000,000

$266,000,000

$16,000,000

$1,087,000,000

$827,000,000

$117,000,000

$3,254,000,000

Tampa Bay (Total)

$145,000,000

$1,128,000,000

$2,891,000,000

$74,000,000

$2,913,000,000

$16,926,000,000

$233,000,000

$6,473,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. Results account for structure, content, land, and relocation impacts. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storms occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 3. Event-Based Business and Employment Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) County

2020 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year Tide Tide

2045 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year MHHW Tide Tide

2070 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year MHHW Tide Tide

Citrus County Output Loss

$5,000,000

$24,000,000

$8,000,000

$44,000,000

$48,000,000

Income Loss Job Loss

$0 0

$1,000,000 40

$6,000,000 210

$0 0

$2,000,000 70

$13,000,000 430

$0 0

$5,000,000 130

Output Loss

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

$3,000,000

Income Loss

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Job Loss

100

Output Loss

$9,000,000

$11,000,000

$90,000,000

$20,000,000

$857,000,000

$89,000,000

Income Loss

$2,000,000

$37,000,000

$17,000,000

$250,000,000

$25,000,000

870

330

4,910

610

Output Loss

$1,000,000

$14,000,000

$60,000,000

$14,000,000

$130,000,000

$31,000,000

Income Loss

$4,000,000

$18,000,000

$4,000,000

$46,000,000

$11,000,000

Job Loss

120

510

100

1,200

250

$0 $1,000,000

$0 $2,000,000

$10,000,000 $2,000,000

$0 $0

$0 $10,000,000

$32,000,000 $8,000,000

$0 $0

$0 $11,000,000

240

$4,000,000 $2,000,000

$10,000,000 $4,000,000

$61,000,000 $23,000,000

$3,000,000 $1,000,000

$67,000,000 $16,000,000

$342,000,000 $244,000,000

$5,000,000 $1,000,000

$158,000,000 $48,000,000

110

560

420

5,250

1,300

Output Loss

$14,000,000

$41,000,000

$250,000,000

$3,000,000

$110,000,000

$1,410,000,000

$5,000,000

$329,000,000

Income Loss

$5,000,000

$13,000,000

$86,000,000

$1,000,000

$49,000,000

$563,000,000

$1,000,000

$101,000,000

180

390

2,250

1,000

12,130

2,400

Hernando County

Hillsborough County

Job Loss Manatee County

Pasco County Output Loss Income Loss Job Loss Pinellas County Output Loss Income Loss Job Loss Tampa Bay (Total)

Job Loss

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Businesses impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 4. Event-Based Fiscal Impacts, No Action Scenario (2021 Dollars) County

2020 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year Tide Tide

2045 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year MHHW Tide Tide

2070 Conditions 1-Year 10-Year MHHW Tide Tide

Citrus County Sales Tax Loss

$7,000

$216,000

$1,042,000

$1,000

$314,000

$1,742,000

$5,000

$2,633,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$6,000

$180,000

$869,000

$262,000

$1,451,000

$4,000

$2,195,000

Property Tax Loss

$1,003,000

$3,086,000

Sales Tax Loss

$17,000

$18,000

$44,000

$19,000

$44,000

$27,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$13,000

$14,000

$34,000

$25,000

$34,000

$21,000

Property Tax Loss

$183,000

$1,166,000

Sales Tax Loss

$678,000

$799,000

$4,080,000

$2,000

$782,000

$51,459,000

$2,000

$3,531,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$542,000

$639,000

$3,264,000

$2,000

$626,000

$41,167,000

$1,000

$2,824,000

Property Tax Loss

$3,249,000

$14,667,000

Sales Tax Loss

$53,000

$661,000

$2,088,000

$221,000

$4,291,000

$493,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$41,000

$508,000

$1,606,000

$170,000

$3,301,000

$380,000

Property Tax Loss

$7,722,000

$36,982,000

Sales Tax Loss

$54,000

$141,000

$174,000

$5,000

$372,000

$1,071,000

$3,000

$545,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$31,000

$81,000

$99,000

$3,000

$213,000

$612,000

$2,000

$312,000

Property Tax Loss

$308,000

$3,042,000

Sales Tax Loss

$227,000

$545,000

$2,214,000

$202,000

$3,611,000

$15,040,000

$282,000

$7,632,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$195,000

$467,000

$1,897,000

$173,000

$3,095,000

$12,892,000

$242,000

$6,542,000

Property Tax Loss

$3,552,000

$45,894,000

$1,036,000

$2,380,000

$9,642,000

$210,000

$5,319,000

$73,647,000

$292,000

$14,861,000

Tourism Tax Loss

$828,000

$1,889,000

$7,769,000

$178,000

$4,391,000

$59,457,000

$249,000

$12,274,000

Property Tax Loss

$16,017,000

$104,837,000

Hernando County

Hillsborough County

Manatee County

Pasco County

Pinellas County

Tampa Bay (Total) Sales Tax Loss

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 thousand. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Business and parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Sales and tourism tax losses account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. NA = Impacts not applicable based on methodological framework. In particular, storm flooding is assumed to not result in significant property tax impacts. If property owners are able to secure a deferral in property tax payments while their structures undergo repair, this freeze on payments would be temporary and the amount of deferral could be based on the time that is required to undertake repairs. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Cumulative Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results The above results show event-based economic consequences but in order to develop an understanding of impacts over time, it is necessary to calculate cumulative economic consequences that account for the probability of the event occurring and aggregate losses over the timeframe of analysis (2020-2070). Event-based storm impacts were adjusted to account for the likelihood of the modeled hazards occurring1, while MHHW impacts were assigned based on the year in which they are modeled to occur.2 Property value losses from MHHW are assumed to occur one-time while sales output and property tax impacts for properties impacted are assumed to continue year after year. Table 18 shows the cumulative primary economic consequences under a no action scenario in which all impacts are summed for the period of analysis. Table 5. Cumulative Primary Consequence Impacts for the No Action Scenario (2020-2070) (2021 Dollars) Property Impacts

Sales Output Impacts

Sales and Tourism Tax Impacts

Property Tax Impacts

Citrus

$5,832,000,000

$1,567,000,000

$130,000,000

$54,000,000

Hernando

$1,876,000,000

$176,000,000

$5,000,000

$15,000,000

Hillsborough

$19,197,000,000

$7,916,000,000

$730,000,000

$205,000,000

Manatee

$22,928,000,000

$3,410,000,000

$179,000,000

$496,000,000

County

Pasco

$4,926,000,000

$751,000,000

$34,000,000

$29,000,000

Pinellas

$42,489,000,000

$6,277,000,000

$492,000,000

$396,000,000

$97,248,000,000

$20,097,000,000

$1,570,000,000

$1,195,000,000

Tampa Bay (Total) Notes:

Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Secondary Economic Consequences Overview Modeling the primary consequences of sea level rise and high-frequency coastal storm conditions only tells part of the story of how coastal hazards can impact the economies in the Tampa Bay region. The interconnectedness of regional economies and the way in which these economies will respond to coastal hazard risks is myriad and difficult to predict. For example, business closure or displacement due to property damage can result in an increased cost of goods, decreased worker productivity, and/or a decline in the regional labor force. Or, after a coastal storm, money will likely be directed to rebuilding damaged property, which would result in positive gains to the construction industry. To account for these broader regional dynamics, the REMI PI+ modeling platform was used to evaluate secondary consequences, including direct as well as indirect and induced effects (e.g., supply chain) to the economies in the Tampa Bay region and the rest of Florida. The REMI model is a robust economic analysis tool that integrates features of econometric, input/output, and computable general equilibrium models to estimate the impact of policy measures on local economies throughout the U.S. The REMI model is a useful tool because it can be used to understand the cascading effects of a particular change in the economy with multiple feedback loops (e.g., a change is modeled many times as it impacts additional economic sectors). This economic impact modeling platform is particularly robust

Consider, for example, a 10-year tide event, which has 10 percent chance of occurring in any given year. If the estimated impacts are $100,000, then this value is multiplied by 0.1 (10 percent chance), resulting in an expected annual impact of $10,000. Eventbased storm impacts were interpolated linearly between the three time horizons (2020, 2045, and 2070). 2 The year in which properties become subject to exposure from daily high tides was estimated by accounting for the modeled dai ly high tide inundation depths in 2045 or 2070 and the expected rate of sea level rise between these years. For example, a parcel with an impacted building that has a mean flood depth of 6 inches of inundation for the 2045 daily high tide modeled conditions wo uld be expected to be subject to daily high tide inundation in a prior year. Based on the sea level rise rates incorporated into the analysis, about 9 inches of sea level rise is expected to occur from 2028 to 2045. In this example, the property is assumed to no longer be a viable asset in 2028. This equilibrium-based approach of adjusting stillwater elevations according to accrued rates of sea level rise provides an approximation of when property tax losses would begin to accrue and serves as a basis for estimating cumulative yearover-year MHHW losses throughout the analysis (2020 to 2070).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

as it accounts for the common functions of an input-output model in addition to price elasticities and changes in consumer or industry behavior. To conduct the assessment of secondary consequences, key outputs of the primary consequence modeling were integrated into the REMI modeling platform. For example, to determine broader supply chain impacts, business output loss by industry estimated in the primary consequence modeling was incorporated into the REMI model. Figure 4 provides a general overview of the relationship between the primary and secondary consequence modeling. REMI staff provided guidance on how to best include the primary consequence outputs into the secondary consequence modeling. Figure 4. Relationship between Primary Consequence and Secondary Consequence (REMI) Modeling

REMI No Action Framework Table 6 shows the primary REMI variables used for the no action scenario. Separate model runs were undertaken to account for the different dynamics between the temporary shock of a coastal storm compared to the gradual impacts of daily high tides (i.e., MHHW) from sea level rise. The temporary no action scenarios show the impacts to the economy from a single storm event – a 1-year tide event or 10-year tide event in 2020, 2045, and 2070. The probability of the storm is not accounted for nor are damages distributed year over year based on probability. Immediate recovery within the year is captured – such as immediate responses to repair damages to structures. This can cause an increase in economic activity, such as an increase in construction jobs. However, long-term recovery efforts related to rebuilding are not shown. For gradual sea level rise, impacts are evaluated annually, accounting for the year in which a property is first expected to be impacted by daily high tides. For example, a business operating in a building that is impacted by sea level rise in 2030 will result in sales losses in that year as well as in each subsequent year of the period of analysis (i.e. through 2070). Since the REMI model forecasts end in 2060, gradual sea level rise inputs were truncated to fit model parameters.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

The variables modeled closely parallel the modeling framework that AECOM implemented in the Business Case for Resilience in Southeast Florida study (2020). Additional information on the REMI model framework can be found in Appendix I. Table 6. REMI Model Variables for the No Action Scenario REMI Model Variables

Input for Each County Temporary Storm Events Permanent Sea Level Rise (MHHW) (1-Year and 10-Year Tide)

Capital Stock (Actual for Storm Events, Optimal for gradual Sea Level Rise)

If a building was impacted by the storm event, structure damages were estimated as the damages to buildings on that parcel from a single storm. For storms, actual capital stock was used to recognize that damages estimated to the structures on parcels would be repaired post event. No adjustments were made for repetitive loss properties based on number of times a parcel is subject to storm damages. Modeled for the 1-Year Tide and 10-Year Tide damages calculated for 2020, 2045, and 2070 conditions and inputted into REMI in those respective years. Assume that the structures will be repaired starting immediately after the storm.

Output (Industry-Exogenous Production, Investment nullified)

Sales loss due to disruption from a single storm by industry. Modeled for the 1-Year Tide and 10-Year Tide damages calculated for 2020, 2045, and 2070 conditions and inputted into REMI in those respective years.

Consumer Price Net Household Insurance

Production Cost (Lagged Market Share Response)

Increase in home insurance for residential properties impacted by storm damages equivalent to their losses from structure damages in addition to damages to the contents within their home. Modeled for the 1-Year Tide and 10-Year Tide damages calculated for 2020, 2045, and 2070 conditions and inputted into REMI in those respective years. Increase in production costs for non-residential properties impacted by storm damages equivalent to their losses from structure damages in addition to damages to the contents within their business. Modeled for the 1-Year Tide and 10-Year Tide damages calculated for 2020, 2045, and 2070 conditions and inputted into REMI in those respective years.

If a building was impacted by MHHW, or a critical facility parcel was exposed to permanent sea level rise, complete loss of value of property is inputted in the year that the property is lost. This is equivalent to the full just value of the property and therefore accounts for both structure and land value. For gradual sea level rise, optimal capital stock was used to model that these properties would not be rebuilt. Impacts are inputted every year as they are assumed to occur with gradual sea level rise. Annual sales of properties impacted by MHHW by industry assuming recapture for all years that the business cannot operate. Impacts are inputted every year as they are assumed to occur with gradual sea level rise.

Not applicable

REMI Control All REMI results are shown as they compare to the baseline, also referred to as the regional control. The regional control accounts for population and employment changes anticipated in the regions through 2060, the end year parameter of REMI. The University of Michigan’s Regional Seminar in Quantitative Economics published monthly updates to the control forecasts in Q2 and Q3 of 2020. These updated forecasts are incorporated into the 2020 controls. The regional control values are shown for each county and the rest of Florida for the beginning and end period of analysis: 2021 and 2060 in Table 7 and Table 8. Note that job-years represent one person in one position for one year e.g. one person working the same job for five years, or five people working one job each year are both considered five total job-years. Gross Regional Product (GRP) is an equivalent indicator to Gross Domestic Product but addressing the regional rather than the national economy.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 7. REMI 2020 Regional Control for Tampa Bay Counties and the Rest of Florida (2021 Dollars, Rounded to the nearest thousand)

Population

2020 Regional Control Economic Indicators Jobs

GRP

152,000 198,000 1,505,000 414,000 571,000 985,000 3,825,000 18,017,000

47,000 64,000 964,000 185,000 187,000 586,000 2,033,000 9,938,000

$4,962,900,000 $5,138,900,000 $103,745,817,000 $16,772,849,000 $15,267,157,000 $58,788,073,000 $204,675,696,000 $950,691,110,000

Geography Citrus County Hernando County Hillsborough County Manatee County Pasco County Pinellas County Tampa Bay (Total) Rest of Florida

Table 8. REMI 2070 Regional Control for Tampa Bay Counties and the Rest of Florida (2021 Dollars, Rounded to the nearest thousand)

Population

2060 Regional Control Economic Indicators Jobs

GRP

202,000 307,000 1,986,000 621,000 949,000 1,228,000 5,293,000 23,191,000

64,000 97,000 1,264,000 257,000 280,000 781,000 2,743,000 13,039,000

$10,665,324,000 $12,540,085,000 $223,269,390,000 $37,892,046,000 $37,836,690,000 $126,063,589,000 $448,267,124,000 $2,031,464,372,000

Geography Citrus County Hernando County Hillsborough County Manatee County Pasco County Pinellas County Tampa Bay (Total) Rest of Florida

REMI No Action Results Temporary Event-Based Storm Results Results for the temporary event-based storms are shown below. Results for the Tampa Bay region counties and the rest of Florida (all counties besides the six included in the primary geography for this study) are shown as they compare to the regional control in the year of the modeled storm (e.g. a 2045 storm event shows the percent change from the 2045 regional control). See Appendix E for more detail on employment impacts by industry for the no action scenario. All figures are rounded to the nearest one million dollars, or ten job-years/people as applies.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 9. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2020 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars) Economic Indicators Citrus County Job-years GRP Hernando County Job-years GRP Hillsborough County Job-years GRP Manatee County Job-years GRP Pasco County Job-years GRP Pinellas County Job-years GRP Tampa Bay (Total) Job-years GRP Rest of Florida Job-years GRP Notes:

1-Year Tide % Change from Results Baseline

10-Year Tide % Change from Results Baseline

-350 -$29

-0.70% -0.54%

-3,210 -$276

-6.51% -5.22%

-100 -$8

-0.15% -0.17%

-1,160 -$92

-1.73% -1.68%

-811 -$85

-0.08% -0.08%

-8,220 -$878

-0.83% -0.81%

-40 -$3

-0.02% -0.02%

-16,140 -$1,582

-8.43% -8.97%

-380 -$33

-0.20% -0.21%

-2,190 -$190

-1.13% -1.17%

-2,260 -$220

-0.37% -0.35%

-10,640 -$1,054

-1.75% -1.70%

-3,941 -$378 -150 -$15

-41,560 -$4,072 0.00% 0.00%

-5,600 -$585

-0.05% -0.06%

Job years are rounded to the nearest ten. Monetized results are rounded and presented in millions. Job years is equivalent to one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts two years will equate to two job years. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 10. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2045 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars) Economic Indicators Citrus County Job-years GRP Hernando County Job-years GRP Hillsborough County Job-years GRP Manatee County Job-years GRP Pasco County Job-years GRP Pinellas County Job-years GRP Tampa Bay (Total) Job-years GRP Rest of Florida Job-years GRP Notes:

Results

1-Year Tide % Change from Baseline

10-Year Tide % Change from Results Baseline

-390 -$44

-0.66% -0.53%

-7,700 -$937

-13.09% -11.17%

-150 -$16

-0.18% -0.17%

-4,200 -$435

-4.93% -4.66%

-600 -$86

-0.05% -0.05%

-48,090 -$6,720

-4.14% -3.90%

-350 -$7

-0.02% -0.02%

-28,350 -$3,928

-11.86% -13.16%

-350 -$40

-0.14% -0.14%

-11,870 -$1,346

-4.73% -4.75%

-3,150 -$411

-0.45% -0.43%

-68,300 -$8,614

-9.68% -9.03%

-4,990 -$604 -150 -$49

-168,510 -$21,980 0.00% 0.00%

-14,290 -$2,025

-0.12% -0.13%

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 11. Temporary Event-Based Storm REMI Results, 2070 Coastal Conditions (Millions of 2021 Dollars) Economic Indicators Citrus County Job-years GRP Hernando County Job-years GRP Hillsborough County Job-years GRP Manatee County Job-years GRP Pasco County Job-years GRP Pinellas County Job-years GRP Tampa Bay (Total) Job-years GRP Rest of Florida Job-years GRP Notes:

Results

1-Year Tide % Change from Baseline

10-Year Tide % Change from Results Baseline

-580 -$75

-0.91% -0.70%

-10,100 -$1,508

-15.80% -14.14%

-180 -$22

-0.19% -0.17%

-5,650 -$663

-5.82% -5.29%

-1,850 -$312

-0.15% -0.14%

-97,780 -$15,617

-7.74% -6.99%

-160 -$22

-0.06% -0.06%

-28,090 -$4,278

-10.94% -11.29%

-1,300 -$168

-0.46% -0.44%

-22,650 -$2,904

-8.09% -7.67%

-8,790 -$1,291

-1.13% -1.02%

-94,110 -$15,079

-12.06% -11.96%

-12,860 -$1,890 -770 -$131

-258,380 -$40,049 -0.01% -0.01%

-19,170 -$3,283

-0.15% -0.16%

Job years are rounded to the nearest ten. Monetized results are rounded and presented in millions. 2070 storm impacts are shown relative to 2060 REMI baseline. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

REMI Gradual Sea Level Rise Results Results for gradual sea level rise are shown below for two time periods: 2020 through 2045 and 2045 through 2070. Employment is shown as job years over the two phases of investment. Job years is one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts the duration of the investment phase of five years will equate to five job years. Impacts are not shown as percent change relative to the regional control given that the control changes on an annual basis. As such, results are shown only as the total difference from the regional control. Table 12. Gradual Sea Level Rise REMI Results (Millions of 2021 Dollars) Economic Indicators Citrus County Job-years GRP Hernando County Job-years GRP Hillsborough County Job-years GRP Manatee County Job-years GRP Pasco County Job-years

2020-2045

2045-2070

-11,120 -$1,173

-8,000 -$1,265

-3,920 -$383

-8,560 -$991

-62,220 -$7,671

-164,990 -$27,315

-37,340 -$4,832

-36,910 -$8,053

-8,870

-31,430

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Economic Indicators

2020-2045

2045-2070

-$894

-$4,061

-58,710 -$6,379

-133,550 -$23,700

-182,180 -$21,332

-383,440 -$65,385

-24,300 -$2,983

-40,740 -$6,778

GRP Pinellas County Job-years GRP Tampa Bay (Total) Job-years GRP Rest of Florida Job-years GRP Notes:

Case Studies Case studies were conducted for three areas: Clearwater Beach, Downtown Tampa, and Port Manatee and Port Tampa Bay to better understand, at a more localized level, the impacts of a storm event, and to bring in other information specific to economic impacts of key destinations. Additional maps for these areas and in-focus maps for other areas important to the regional economy – Bradenton, MacDill Air Force Base, New Port Richey, and the Tampa International Airport – are also presented in Appendix D.

Port Manatee and Port Tampa Bay Both Port Tampa Bay and Port Manatee represent major infrastructure assets, important global hubs, and strategic economic drivers in the Tampa Bay region. Port Tampa is Florida’s largest port by both size and tonnage. In fiscal year 2020, Port Tampa Bay processed 140,000 TEUs (over 37 million tons) including bulk cargo and containerized cargo. The Port of Tampa supports over 16,000 on-site jobs and 85,000 in the region. It generates over $17 billion in total economic output in addition to over $600 million in state and local taxes (Port Tampa Bay, 2016). In the fiscal year 2020, Manatee Port processed over 88,000 TEUs (over 9 million tons) including almost 400 million gallons of fuel. Port Manatee supports over 3,500 on-site jobs and over 27,000 jobs in the region (Port Manatee, 2019). Port Manatee’s contribution to the regional economy totals $3.9 billion in economic output and $153 million in state and local taxes. Both Port Tampa Bay and Port Manatee are particularly susceptible to flooding and high winds due to their location and the fact that a majority of their operations occur outdoors. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the flood maps for 10-year tide events for Port Tampa Bay and Port Manatee respectively. Both maps show that while the container terminals are safe from flooding even during a 10-year tide event in 2070, the access control center and several access roads are susceptible to flooding, thereby affecting the ability of workers to access the container terminals and disrupting the intermodal cargo operations. In a recent longitudinal study, Verschuur et al (2020) looked at 141 incidences of weather-related port disruptions across the US and Australia. They found that the median disruption was six days with the duration increasing in relation to the severity of the event at a rate of two additional days of disruption for every three feet of storm surge or wind speed increase of 30 feet per second (Verschuur et al., 2020). These numbers, however, may overstate the economic consequences of the disruption since freight may be rerouted during a climate event or expedited in the days immediately after the disaster. The following analysis quantifies the productivity losses associated with one day of disrupted operations that could not be recovered through productivity recapture practices. Two major productivity loss indicators are included: business revenue lost from one day of disrupted operations and lost wages that could not be mitigated. Note that these two impacts should not be added together as that would double count (e.g., wages are paid based on sales). Business revenue consists of total business receipts by firms

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

providing services in support of the marine cargo activity, ship repair activity, and other economic activities at the port terminals. Activities such as real estate transaction management and office administration, which are not directly disrupted by climate events, are not included in these costs. The cost of one day of disrupted operations in the Port of Tampa Bay is $4.4 million (Port Tampa Bay, 2016). Respectively, one day of disruption in Port Manatee results in a revenue loss of $2.4 million (Port Manatee, 2019). Table 13 and Table 14 pertain to the second economic indicator, lost wages, during one day of operation disruption at the two ports. Lost wages include both direct and indirect wages. Disrupted direct wages are for jobs that would happen directly on port grounds such as cargo handling and vessel services, including trucking companies, and terminal operators. Administration and real estate management jobs are excluded from these numbers. Disrupted indirect wages refer to jobs created by the purchases of goods and services by the firms directly impacted by port activity, including the ship repair facilities and the firms providing services to cargo operations. Table 13 and Table 14 show the disrupted direct and indirect wages Table 13. Port Tampa Bay Wages for One Day of Disrupted Operations Category of Wages

One Day of Disrupted Operations

Direct Wages

$2,162,509

Indirect Wages

$1,194,721

Total Disrupted Income

$3,357,230

Source: Port Tampa Bay 2016 Table 14. Port Manatee Wages for One Day of Disrupted Operations Category of Wages

One Day of Disrupted Operations

Direct Wages

$475,160

Indirect Wages

$328,654

Total Disrupted Income

$803,813

Source: Port Manatee 2019 Note that economic consequences outlined in the sections above include only those directly associated with the productivity of the ports and the jobs induced by the port operations. These numbers exclude negative economic consequences that result in delays and losses ripple down the supply chain. The complexity of the port’s supply chain makes it difficult to define the scope of influence. The ecosystem of affected parties and industries is staggering and growing. The maritime transportation industry in the United States supports over 99 percent of the volume of overseas trade and the total economic impact of ports (direct and indirect) exceeds $4.5 trillion annually (American Association of Port Authorities, 2019). Downstream sectors and stakeholders include domestic manufacturing, shipping, and distribution (road and rail transportation), domestic consumers, and governmental agencies (Wendler-Bosco & Nicholson, 2018). Domestic manufacturers and distributors experience delays that translate into lost sales, expediting costs, loss of reputation, and impacts to the company’s cash ﬂow (Figliozzi & Zhang, 2009). Consumers experience delays as increased shipping costs for imported goods or delays on merchandise. Finally, governmental agencies experience costs as emergency response costs and recovery costs for investments required to bring essential facilities back to operational conditions (Wendler-Bosco & Nicholson, 2018).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 5. 10-Year Tide Event: Port Manatee

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 6. 10-Year Tide Event: Port Tampa Bay

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Downtown Tampa Downtown Tampa is a growing economic center in the region and a destination for many out-of-region and out-ofstate visitors. Economic landmarks include the Tampa Bay Convention Center as well as several Port Tampa Bay Cruise terminals. Additionally, downtown Tampa Bay houses iconic landmarks with public and civic relevance including the Tampa Bay History Center, Cotanchobee Fort Brooke Park, and Tampa General Hospital, a level I adult and child trauma center with 957 beds (American Hospital Directory, 2021). Downtown Tampa is also an epicenter for real estate investment with over $3 billion (9 million square feet) under construction in 2022 (Tampa Bay Economic Development Council, 2020). Figure 7 shows a 10-year tide event at different time horizons. The projections show a 10-year tide event flooding the Southwest portion of the Tampa Bay Convention Center, a majority of the area surrounding the Tampa Marriott Water Street hotel, including the adjacent Cotanchobee Fort Brooke Park and Terminal 2 and 3 of the Tampa Bay Cruise Terminal. Additionally, while the facilities of the northern portion of the Tampa Bay Cruise Terminal are not projected to undergo flood damage, one of its three main access roads is projected to flood in a 10-year tide event by 2070. Temporary closure of Tampa Bay Cruise Terminals and the Tampa Convention Center could have cascading effects to the local economy, and in particular, to the hospitality industry. Three indicators of economic losses are highlighted below: business revenue losses, wage losses, and decreased consumer spending in the region as a result of fewer out-of-region visitors. Note that impacts should not be added together so as to avoid double counting (e.g., wages are paid based on sales). Tampa Bay Convention Center In 2019 the Tampa Bay Convention Center held 429 events with a total attendance of over 430,000 guests (City of Tampa, 2021b). While the volume of events and visitors decreased during the years 2020 and 2021, the Tampa Bay Convention Center’s importance is likely to remain central to the economic health of Downtown Tampa Bay. As the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic continues, the Tampa Bay Convention Center may, indeed, become a competitive advantage for the region. In the months between June and October of 2021, the Tampa Bay Convention Center held four major events relocated from other destinations (City of Tampa, 2021b). Based on 2019 and 2020 figures, an average major event consists of 4,100 attendees supporting an average of 4,700 room nights. The cancellation of one major event due to flooding costs the Tampa Bay Convention Center about $60,000 in booking revenue (City of Tampa, 2021b). However, the reduction in visitors for a major event also costs the regional economy $755,000 in retail spending and $574,000 in hotel revenue (Visit Tampa Bay, 2019). Therefore, the cancelation of a single major event represents a loss of $1.39 million in direct spending in the region. The cost outlined above includes the loss of a single isolated event. They do not include the potential repair costs associated with flood damage during a 10-year tide event or, perhaps, more importantly, the loss in reputation. If flood events and event cancellations become common, Tampa Bay Convention Center may not keep its reputation as a premier destination for major events. Port Tampa Bay Cruise Terminal in Downtown Tampa Both in the years 2018 and 2019 the Tampa Bay Port Cruise Terminal received over 1 million passengers per year. This passenger volume represents an annual regional economic impact of $248 million in revenue for Port Tampa, $17 million in local purchases by cruise passengers, and $8 million in local and state taxes (Port Tampa Bay, 2019). As mentioned in the case studies looking specifically at Port Tampa and Port Manatee, weather-related disruptions last on average six days, but the duration may be mitigated by rerouting ships or anchoring somewhere else (Verschuur et al., 2020). Therefore, the following estimates present the losses over a day of disruption that could not be mitigated assuming the Port Tampa Bay Cruise Terminal received one less ship during a season due to a 10-year tide event. A disruption in cruise terminal operations has three economic consequences to the region. First, by stopping operations, Port Tampa does not receive revenue from the ship. Revenue categories include docking fees, services to assist with docking and undockings, garbage disposal, and security. The revenue lost per ship (assuming the average ship size of 4,200 passengers) totals $1.2 million (Port Tampa, 2019). The second component is the loss of

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

the direct and indirect wages associated with the docking ship. Direct wages refer to jobs performed on-site and indirect wages are for jobs related to the ship but performed off-site such as travel agency commissions or land transportation. Table 15 shows the disrupted wages associated with decreasing cruise traffic by one boat. The last economic consequence is the loss of consumer spending that would occur if passengers of the boat had visited downtown Tampa Bay. For an average vessel, this loss amounts to $445,000 in local purchases (Port Tampa Bay, 2019). As with the convention center, the costs outlined here represent a single event. Repeated disruption and cruise operations could cause a loss of loss in reputation, gradually decreasing the cruise terminal traffic long term. Table 15: Port Tampa Cruise Disrupted Wages from Decreasing Cruise Traffic by One Vessel Category of Wages

One Vessel-Related Disrupted Operations

Direct Wages

$91,636

Indirect Wages

$81,432

Total Disrupted Income

$173,068

Source: Port Tampa Bay 2016

Figure 7. 10-Year Tide Event: Downtown Tampa

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Clearwater Beach Clearwater Beach is home to over 5,400 people and 5,000 jobs (US Census Bureau, 2019a). It is one of the premier beach destinations in the United States and an important tourism destination for the region. A 2017 study found that tourism has an annual economic impact of over $10.3 billion in Pinellas County and that St. Pete / Clearwater was the leading destination on the Gulf Coast, with over 6.5 million overnight visitors drawn to the region (Tourist Development Council, 2021). COVID-19 resulted in significant impacts to the tourism economy– it was estimated that the annual impact of tourism decreased by more than $2 billion (from $9 to $6.6 billion) in the fiscal year 2020 for the county (DiNatale, 2021). Given the high concentration of tourism-serving industries in Clearwater Beach, these impacts were likely felt acutely. Figure 8. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW) and 10-Year Tide Event: Clearwater Beach

Results from the exposure analysis conducted for this study demonstrate significant flooding anticipated under both storm and tidal scenarios (see Figure 8). In 2070, a 10-year tide will impact nearly all businesses in the region (see Figure 9).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 9. Businesses impacted in a 10-year tide event in 2070 in Clearwater Beach

Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2019

Flooding will result not only in direct impacts to property and businesses, but also to key transportation assets. As noted in the Coastal Vulnerability Assessment for the City of Clearwater, the Clearwater Memorial Causeway could start to experience issues of nuisance flooding and passability impacts with two feet of sea level rise (Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, 2016). Accessibility disruption could have significant ripple effects to the economy – as nearly 86 percent of residents that live in the area work elsewhere, and 94 percent of workers in the area live outside and commute in (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2018). Workers in Clearwater Beach are highly vulnerable not only due to transportation-related challenges but also given the high-dependency on tourism. Nearly 85 percent of the jobs in the region are in tourism-dependent serving

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

industries (ESRI, 2019b).3 Examples include Clearwater Marine Aquarium, the Hilton at Clearwater Beach, the Hyatt Regency, the Sandpearl Resort, Starlite Cruises, and popular eating establishments such as Frenchy’s South Beach Café and Island Way Grill. Furthermore, over a quarter of workers in the area earn $1,250 per month or less in a region where the monthly budget on essential costs is $2,292 for the average adult in Pinellas County (United for ALICE, 2018). Looking to 2045, a 10-year tide is anticipated to affect nearly $1 million in daily sales and 3,600 employees. The high flood depths of the flooding and associated structural damages anticipated could close businesses for up to a year. When accounting for the total duration of business closure and the ability to recapture lost sales at a later date due to factors such as extra working shifts, it is anticipated that a 10-year tide will result in nearly $5 million in direct sales losses. The tourism-serving industries will comprise a significant proportion of these losses. In 2045, a 10-year tide will impact nearly 120 businesses in tourism-serving industries and 3,000 employees, with $3.4 million in direct sales losses, representing nearly 70 percent of the total direct losses in output for this storm event. The analysis team modeled this storm in REMI to capture the cascading impacts of this storm. The REMI policy variable used to model this impact is Consumer Spending on general merchandise, purchased meals/beverages, accommodations, and other recreational services. It was estimated that the $3.4 million in direct sales losses for the tourism-serving industries results in $6.3 million in total output loss to the Pinellas County economy.

Based on ESRI Business Analyst using NAICS codes: 71 (Arts, entertainment, and recreation), 72 (Accommodation and food services), and 44-45 (Retail trade).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

3. Investing in Adaptation The selected adaptation strategies fall into two primary buckets: (1) community-wide adaptation strategies that provide a primary form of defense at the shoreline to minimize coastal hazard impacts; and (2) building-level adaptation strategies that modify physical assets to lessen the consequences of coastal hazards. In general, community-wide strategies are intended to mitigate impacts from both temporary coastal storms and permanent sea level rise to all landward assets while building-strategies are designed to mitigate impacts for individual assets that are exposed to temporary coastal storms and not permanent sea level rise. Table 16 below summarizes the adaptation strategies considered. Table 16. Adaptation Strategy Types Evaluated Adaptation Type

Strategy

Description

Community-Wide Adaptation

• Beach nourishment/dune restoration • Seawall construction / raising • Berm construction

This scenario involves a combination of soft and hard engineering investments at the shoreline. These strategies were applied to areas with higher density of impacted development and a subset of critical facilities.

Building-Level Adaptation

• Dry and wet floodproofing • Elevating structures

This scenario involves a combination of structural improvements to property, the application of which is dependent on building type and FEMA principles and procedures. These strategies were applied to impacted buildings in areas of low-density impacted development.

Notes: Density of impacted development was based on exposed footprint area and is explained further in Appendix G. The critical facilities tagged to receive community-wide adaptation are noted in Table 56.

Given the large and varied geography of the Tampa Bay region, simplifying assumptions and generalized and repeatable analysis techniques were used to model the selected adaptation strategies. Key considerations made in modeling the adaptation strategies are described thematically below. •

Adaptation Strategies Selected: Adaptation strategies evaluated were not detailed in design, but rather, were descriptive options to demonstrate the order of magnitude benefits of proactive investment to the costs of inaction. As such, approximated and averaged unit costs were incorporated into the analysis, drawing from publicly available data from published reports, with an emphasis on literature that best reflects economic conditions in the Tampa Bay region; where national research was relied upon, costs were adjusted for local prices.

•

Scaling of Strategies: Adaptation strategies were scaled to mitigate the majority of modeled impacts under a no action scenario; conceptually this results in the benefits of adaptation being close to the estimated costs of inaction. For example, community-wide strategies were scaled to mitigate impacts for the 10-year tide event (and respective rates of sea level rise) in 2020, 2045, and 2070. The building-level strategies were scaled to protect from the 100-year coastal storm in 2045 and 2070 (and associated rates of sea level rise), a threshold that can affect flood insurance requirements and costs for properties subject to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

•

Phasing of Strategies: This study assumes that sea level rise will continue to occur over the next decades, through the coming century, and beyond. While the Tampa Bay region will face risks from high tides and coastal storm events, it is not necessary, nor likely financially feasible, to adapt all at once to the most extreme hazard scenarios evaluated in this study (i.e., 10-year tide). Both community-wide and building-level strategies were modeled using a phased investment approach informed by both economic and engineering feasibility constraints and considerations. Conceptually, investments made in 2021 are intended to effectively address the modeled hazard risks out to 2045, and the investments made in 2045 are intended to effectively address the modeled hazard risks out to 2070.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Adaptation In order to develop an understanding of benefit-cost ratio of adaptation, it is necessary to estimate the cumulative costs and benefits associated with taking action to mitigate the modeled coastal conditions over the period of analysis. The steps taken to estimate the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of adaptation are described below: (1) Estimate the consequences to assets directly exposed to the modeled coastal conditions in a no action scenario; (2) Estimate the costs of adaptation; (3) Estimate the residual consequences after investments in adaptation are made; (4) Subtract the estimated consequences with adaptation from the estimated consequences in a no action scenario to calculate net benefits; (5) Apply financial discounting to net benefits and costs and compare a subset of net benefits suitable to BCAs with the costs of adaptation. As the economic consequences of no action are described in the preceding chapter, this chapter focuses on steps two through five.

Adaptation Costs High level costs for the community-wide and building-level adaptation strategies evaluated in this study are provided in Table 17. The costs, presented by county, include a breakdown of individual strategies (e.g., seawall replacement, elevate structure). The community-wide and the building-level strategies were modeled as phased investments – investments implemented in 2021 were costed to protect through 2045 hazard conditions, while actions implemented in 2045 will help to mitigate impacts from 2070 hazard conditions. The table below shows the total estimated costs, undiscounted, for each of the two phases. More information on the adaptation strategies and costing is provided in Appendix G. Table 17. Order of Magnitude Adaptation Costs (2021 Dollars) Adaptation Strategy

Citrus

Hernando

Hillsborough

Implementation Start Year = 2021, Level of Protection = 2045 $323,000,000 $277,000,000 $682,000,000 Seawall Replacement $0 $0 $0 Seawall Raising $575,000,000 $108,000,000 $839,000,000 Berm Construction $0 $0 $0 Berm Raising $0 $0 $3,000,000 Nourishment $38,000,000 $9,000,000 $23,000,000 Elevate Structures Floodproof $1,000,000 $0 $0 Structures $937,000,000 $394,000,000 $1,547,000,000 Total Implementation Start Year = 2045, Level of Protection = 2070 $3,000,000 $14,000,000 $177,000,000 Seawall Replacement $239,000,000 $205,000,000 $505,000,000 Seawall Raising $38,000,000 $0 $0 Berm Construction $93,000,000 $18,000,000 $117,000,000 Berm Raising $0 $0 $0 Nourishment $63,000,000 $5,000,000 $49,000,000 Elevate Structures Floodproof $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 Structures $438,000,000 $242,000,000 $850,000,000 Total $1,375,000,000 $636,000,000 $2,397,000,000 TOTAL COSTS Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million.

Manatee

Pasco

Pinellas

Tampa Bay (Total)

$610,000,000

$533,000,000

$1,820,000,000

$4,244,000,000

$875,000,000

$306,000,000

$751,000,000

$3,455,000,000

$12,000,000

$16,000,000

$31,000,000

$22,000,000

$7,000,000

$16,000,000

$116,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,519,000,000

$846,000,000

$2,604,000,000

$7,848,000,000

$717,000,000

$79,000,000

$78,000,000

$366,000,000

$452,000,000

$369,000,000

$1,349,000,000

$3,120,000

$291,000,000

$127,000,000

$441,000,000

$896,000,000

$142,000,000

$50,000,000

$122,000,000

$544,000,000

$12,000,000

$16,000,000

$28,000,000

$44,000,000

$15,000,000

$49,000,000

$225,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$7,000,000

$1,021,000,000

$639,000,000

$2,345,000,000

$5,537,000,000

$2,540,000,000

$1,485,000,000

$4,949,000,000

$13,385,000,000

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Nourishment refers to Beach Nourishment. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Adaptation Benefits The community-wide strategies would provide broader economic benefits than the building-level strategies as they would mitigate impacts to both property and infrastructure that are critical for economic activity (e.g., transportation network), and would also help to maintain the profiles of beaches that support a vibrant tourism-related economy. The building-level strategies, because they are focused on providing protection to individual structures, would not convey benefits to broader regional infrastructure nor would they help to maintain the counties’ coastal resources that provide significant recreational and aesthetic benefits and economic value. As such, only a subset of the no action economic consequences were included in the benefits provided by the building-level adaptation strategies. Furthermore, while both community-wide and building-level strategy types will help to mitigate the modeled coastal hazards, they are not expected to neutralize all of the impacts from the no action scenario. It was assumed that the community-wide strategies would mitigate 85 percent of the modeled storm and MHHW impacts, while building-level strategies would mitigate 85 percent of the modeled storm impacts only (not MHHW impacts), to account for residual impacts that could occur such as those documented in published literature (Aerts et al., 2014). The benefits conveyed by investments in adaptation are not limited to the discrete time horizon model conditions evaluated (i.e., 2020, 2045, 2070) for the anticipated protection years (2021-2070); once adaptation strategies are implemented, they will provide recurring benefits year-over-year. Similar to the process to evaluate the cumulative primary economic consequences for the no action scenario described in the Cumulative Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results, cumulative avoided losses were estimated for the community-wide and buildinglevel adaptation strategies. Table 18 shows the cumulative primary consequence impacts avoided, undiscounted, from implementation of a hybrid of community-wide and building-level adaptation actions. These values reflect the degree of protective benefits conveyed by the adaptation scenarios evaluated. Table 18. Cumulative Primary Consequence Impacts Avoided from Adaptation (2021-2070) (2021 Dollars) Property Impacts

Sales Output Impacts

Sales and Tourism Tax Impacts

Property Tax Impacts

Citrus

$4,828,850,000

$1,317,500,000

$108,800,000

$38,250,000

Hernando

$1,566,550,000

$148,750,000

$4,250,000

$11,900,000

Hillsborough

$16,200,150,000

$6,525,450,000

$595,000,000

$162,350,000

Manatee

$19,170,050,000

$2,869,600,000

$151,300,000

$416,500,000

County

Pasco

$4,152,250,000

$629,000,000

$28,050,000

$23,800,000

Pinellas

$35,688,100,000

$5,151,850,000

$406,300,000

$330,650,000

$81,605,950,000

$16,642,150,000

$1,293,700,000

$983,450,000

Tampa Bay (Total) Notes:

Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Adaptation Benefit-Cost Ratios To develop an understanding of the costs and benefits of adaptation, impact metrics commonly incorporated in federal agency BCAs (e.g., USACE, FEMA) were evaluated. In particular, primary avoided consequences associated with property impacts were estimated and compared to the costs of community-wide and building-level adaptation strategies. Modeling conducted for the BCA assumes that the adaptation expenditures occur in two time periods (2021 and 2045) and applies a 5 percent discount rate to account for the “opportunity cost” or the time value of money, allowing for the comparison of future costs and benefits in present dollars.4 Table 19 shows, in net present 4

From a financial perspective, discounting is used to reflect that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar in the future due to the ability to invest now and create more wealth than a dollar invested in a future year. Or, extended to a social perspective as it relates to this study, the benefits provided by adaptation are more valuable in the near-term than they are in the longer-term.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

value terms, the estimated cumulative costs of inaction and adaptation, net impacts and resulting benefit-cost ratios for the modeled adaptation strategies. Note that these results are discounted and presented in net present value, whereas Table 18 results are shown undiscounted. Results could be considered conservative as they reflect the high-level model assumptions, non-exhaustive impact categories evaluated, and financial discount rate incorporated. Given these considerations, future analysis should be conducted on a project-by-project basis to better design and optimize the benefits that can result from investment in adaptation. Table 19. Adaptation Strategy Benefit-Cost Ratios for Direct Property Primary Consequences (Net Present Value) Cumulative Impacts Avoided

Cumulative Adaptation Costs

Net Impacts

Benefit-Cost Ratio

$1,501,000,000

$1,047,000,000

$454,000,000

1.43

$473,000,000

$458,000,000

$15,000,000

1.03

Hillsborough

$3,945,000,000

$1,767,000,000

$2,178,000,000

2.23

Manatee

$6,001,000,000

$1,792,000,000

$4,209,000,000

3.35

Pasco

$1,025,000,000

$1,019,000,000

$6,000,000

1.01

Pinellas

$8,225,000,000

$3,251,000,000

$4,974,000,000

2.53

$21,170,000,000

$9,334,000,000

$11,836,000,000

2.27

County Citrus Hernando

Tampa Bay (Total) Notes:

Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Results account for structure, content, land and relocation impacts. Results are presented in net present value terms using a 5 percent discount rate over the period of the analysis from 2021 to 2070.

Regional Economic Benefits of Adaptation Investments in adaptation can provide benefits beyond the avoided losses documented in this report. For example, monies used to construct a seawall will result in direct gains in jobs for the construction industry, as well as indirect (e.g., supply chain) and induced (e.g., worker and household spending) job gains. These cascading economic effects were modeled using REMI PI+, accounting for adaptation cost estimates and public and private spending assumptions. Below is a discussion of the assumptions regarding who will be expected to pay as well as the results showing the investment impacts for both community-wide and building-level adaptation strategies.

Community-Wide Adaptation Funding Assumptions The community-wide adaptation scenario, which involves a combination of soft (e.g., nourishment) and hard (e.g., seawalls) engineering investments, is assumed to prevent the modeled temporary storm and permanent sea level rise impacts through 2070. Table 20 identifies the general funding breakdown assumptions by adaptation strategy for the community-wide adaptation scenario. Local, County, and State government spending are anticipated to only pay for protection to public properties. Federal and private property owners are assumed to pay for portions of protection to private properties.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 20. Funding Assumptions for Community-Wide Adaptation Adaptation Strategy

Seawall Replacement

Seawall Raising

Berm Construction

Berm Raising

Nourishment

Federal 50% of all costs associated with public properties 25% of all costs associated with private properties 50% of all costs associated with public properties 25% of all costs associated with private properties 50% of all costs associated with public properties 25% of all costs associated with private properties 50% of all costs associated with public properties 25% of all costs associated with private properties 50% of all costs

State

Local/County

Private Property

25% of all costs associated with public properties

75% of all costs associated with private properties

25% of all costs associated with public properties

75% of all costs associated with private properties

25% of all costs associated with public properties

75% of all costs associated with private properties

25% of all costs associated with public properties

75% of all costs associated with private properties

25% of all costs

To determine what costs are associated with public and private properties, parcel data was used to assign the portion of exposure area that was public vs private. Further analysis was conducted to identify the portion of the private property that is residential and non-residential given their different treatment within REMI. The community-wide adaptation strategy is assumed to be a phased approach, whereby the first phase provides protection for all buildings and critical facilities under the 10-year tide in 2045, and the second phase provides protection for all buildings and critical facilities subject to impacts under the 10-year tide in 2070. Because the 10-year tide is the greatest magnitude event modeled, investments would also provide protection to parcels subject to daily high tides and the 1-year tide. Table 21 shows the results from this analysis and the breakdown of adaptation costs associated with each relevant party for both the first and second phase of the adaptation investment.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 21. Costs by Funding Source for Community-wide Adaptation (2021 Dollars) Funding Source

Citrus

Hernando

Hillsborough

Manatee

Pasco

Pinellas

Tampa Bay (Total)

Implementation Year = 2021, Level of Protection = 2045 Federal State County/Local

$232,000,000

$97,000,000

$417,000,000

$376,000,000

$211,000,000

$659,000,000

$1,991,000,000

$8,000,000

$36,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$12,000,000

$59,000,000

$8,000,000

$36,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$12,000,000

$59,000,000

Private: Residential

$516,000,000

$270,000,000

$667,000,000

$1,006,000,000

$508,000,000

$1,647,000,000

$4,614,000,000

Private: NonResidential

$134,000,000

$18,000,000

$368,000,000

$111,000,000

$118,000,000

$258,000,000

$1,006,000,000

Total

$898,000,000

$385,000,000

$1,524,000,000

$1,497,000,000

$839,000,000

$2,588,000,000

$7,730,000,000

Implementation Year = 2045, Level of Protection = 2070 Federal

$98,000,000

$59,000,000

$201,000,000

$245,000,000

$157,000,000

$584,000,000

$1,345,000,000

State

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$18,000,000

County/Local

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$18,000,000

Private: Residential

$184,000,000

$168,000,000

$565,000,000

$649,000,000

$376,000,000

$1,470,000,000

$3,412,000,000

Private: NonResidential

$84,000,000

$10,000,000

$32,000,000

$78,000,000

$89,000,000

$220,000,000

$512,000,000

Total

$374,000,000

$237,000,000

$800,000,000

$974,000,000

$624,000,000

$2,294,000,000

$5,304,000,000

$1,272,000,000

$622,000,000

$2,324,000,000

$2,471,000,000

$1,463,000,000

$4,882,000,000

$13,034,000,000

TOTAL COSTS

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Building-Level Adaptation Funding Assumptions In the building-level adaptation scenario, parcels with structures that are subject to storm damages are assumed to be protected through strategies such as elevating and floodproofing. This strategy will not protect from permanent inundation. Instead, the strategy focuses on properties that are subject to the 10-year tide but not subject to MHHW. Table 22 identifies the general funding breakdown by adaptation strategy within the building-level scenario. Similar to the community-wide adaptation scenario, it was assumed that the public would pay for the costs associated with public parcels. Private property owners are assumed to pay for half of the costs associated with private parcels, with federal funding paying the gap. Table 22. Funding Assumptions for Building-Level Adaptation Adaptation Strategy

Elevate

Federal 50% of all costs associated with public properties 50% of all costs associated with private properties

Floodproof

50% of all costs associated with public properties 50% of all costs associated with private properties

State

Local/County

Private Property

25% of all costs associated with public properties

50% of all costs associated with private properties

25% of all costs associated with public properties

50% of all costs associated with private properties

Similar to the community-wide adaptation scenario, parcel data was used to identify public vs private ownership. Further analysis was conducted to identify the portion of the private property that is residential and non-residential for

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

properties that would be subject to the building-level adaptation investment given their different treatment within REMI. The building-level adaptation strategy is assumed to be a phased approach. The first phase provides a level of protection to the 100-year flood level in 2045, and the second phase provides a level of protection to the 100-year flood level in 2070. Note that the protection level is designed to the 100-year storm, though benefits calculated were based on the modeled storms (e.g., 10-year tide). As such, the benefits presented are may understate total anticipated benefits. Table 23 shows the results from this analysis and the breakdown of adaptation costs associated with each relevant party for both the first and second phase of the adaptation investment. Table 23. Costs by Funding Source for Building-Level Adaptation (2021 Dollars) Funding Source

Citrus

Hernando

Hillsborough

Manatee

Pasco

Pinellas

Tampa Bay (Total)

Implementation Year = 2021, Level of Protection = 2045 Federal

$20,000,000

$5,000,000

$12,000,000

$11,000,000

$4,000,000

$8,000,000

$59,000,000

State

County/Local

Private: Residential

$19,000,000

$4,000,000

$11,000,000

$4,000,000

$7,000,000

$57,000,000

Private: NonResidential

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Total

$40,000,000

$9,000,000

$23,000,000

$22,000,000

$8,000,000

$16,000,000

$119,000,000

Implementation Year = 2045, Level of Protection = 2070 Federal State County/Local

$33,000,000

$2,000,000

$26,000,000

$22,000,000

$8,000,000

$26,000,000

$116,000,000

Private: Residential

$31,000,000

$2,000,000

$25,000,000

$22,000,000

$8,000,000

$23,000,000

$110,000,000

Private: NonResidential

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$5,000,000

Total

$65,000,000

$4,000,000

$52,000,000

$44,000,000

$16,000,000

$51,000,000

$232,000,000

TOTAL COSTS

$105,000,000

$13,000,000

$75,000,000

$66,000,000

$24,000,000

$67,000,000

$351,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million.

REMI Adaptation Framework Within REMI, all private residential adaptation costs are inputted as an increase in personal taxes5, as it is assumed that the costs property owners will need to bear will increase their personal expenditures. Conceptually, as personal taxes increase, people have less real disposable personal income, which can lead to a decrease in consumption, output, and value added. All private non-residential adaptation costs are inputted as an increase in production costs for all industries. The increase in production costs can increase the cost of living and the cost of doing business within the Tampa Bay region, which can decrease local economic activity. It is possible that construction associated with adaptation would result in business closure, but these losses have not been modeled given uncertainty around government payback programs or other financial assistance. The construction industry is assumed to benefit from the investment, so an increase in final demand for the construction industry equivalent to the costs of the investment is assumed. This major increase in construction spending can result in increased employment in the area for the construction industry as well as supporting industries. Finally, the portion of payment made by local and state government is inputted as a negative amount of government spending. A reduction in government spending shows that money that is dedicated to this investment cannot be spent on other local and state government expenditures. For state spending, only a portion of the spending is assumed to come from the impacted counties based on population. The remainder of the spending comes out of 5

Personal taxes include taxes paid on income, including realized net capital gains, and on personal property.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

the rest of the state’s government expenditures. All costs are distributed over a five-year period – from 2020 through 2024 and 2045 through 2049; the spreading of costs was required within REMI given that the amount of spending was beyond expected annual model parameters. This modeling exercise is also more similar to a likely implementation of the actions – rather than the investments all happening in one year, it is more likely that construction would happen over a multi-year period. Table 24. REMI Variables for Adaptation Scenario Impact Type Personal Taxes Production Cost (Lagged market share response)

Exogenous Final Demand

Local Government Spending State Government Spending

Input for Each County

Frequency

Increase in personal tax spending equivalent to residential costs to pay for community-wide and building-level protection Production cost increase to all industries equivalent to the nonresidential costs to pay for community-wide and building-level protection. Increase in exogenous final demand for construction industry equivalent to cost of community-wide and building-level protection. Exogenous final demand was used for this scenario instead of output to account for increased leakage. Only the proportion of the demand usually supplied locally is added to local production, while the remainder is assumed to be produced elsewhere and imported to the region. Enter in as a negative amount the cost assumed to be paid for by the local government for community-wide and building-level protection. Enter in as a negative amount the cost assumed to be paid for by the state government for community-wide protection.

Distributed over 5 years for two phases of investment Distributed over 5 years for two phases of investment

Distributed over 5 years for two phases of investment

Distributed over 5 years for two phases of investment Distributed over 5 years for two phases of investment

REMI Adaptation Results The results for the two phases of the adaptation scenario are shown in Table 25 by region as compared to the baseline. The table shows the primary impacts on GRP and job years. Job years is one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts the duration of the investment phase of five years will equate to five job years. Overall, the adaptation scenario has a general positive impact to GRP and employment for the six counties over the two investment phases. See Appendix H for more detail on employment impacts by industry for the adaptation scenario. Table 25. Economic Indicators for Community-wide Adaptation Scenario Shown in Two Phases (Millions of 2021 Dollars) Economic Indicators Citrus County Job Years GRP Hernando County Job Years GRP Hillsborough County Job Years GRP Manatee County Job Years GRP Pasco County Job Years GRP Pinellas County Job Years

Investments in First Phase (2020 through 2024) Combined Difference from Baseline

Investments in Second Phase (2045 through 2049) Combined Difference from Baseline

3,060 $154

3,020 $221

670 $11

710 $28

12,860 $1,176

7,820 $890

3,270 $257

2,930 $247

1,730 $90

1,360 $72

4,820

850

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Economic Indicators

Investments in First Phase (2020 through 2024) Combined Difference from Baseline

Investments in Second Phase (2045 through 2049) Combined Difference from Baseline

$227

($219)

26,410 $1,915

16,690 $1,239

GRP Tampa Bay (Total) Job Years GRP Notes:

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Additional Adaptation Benefit Considerations Investing in adaptation provides direct benefits in the form of avoided losses to property, as well as the potential for indirect benefits such as reductions in insurance premiums, stabilization and/or enhancement of property values, and their associated tax revenues. Increasing risks from sea level rise and tidal flooding has the potential to undermine the strength of Florida’s real estate market. The devaluation of real estate prices could have cascading effects, including foregone property taxes, the cost and/or access to insurance coverage and mortgage financing, and loss of wealth and/or income for property and business owners. This in turn could affect municipal bond ratings and the ability of local governments to fund and finance investment in adaptive and resilience community infrastructure and services (McKinsey Global Institute, 2020). The cascading effects from real estate devaluation and beach erosion could fundamentally alter the desirability of living and working in coastal communities, which in turn could result in the redistribution of populations and public and private investment all of which can have significant impacts to local, regional, and state economies.

Property Value Considerations Much that has been written about the consequences to the coastal real estate market and additional knock-on effects from growing coastal hazard risk is illustrative of potential future outcomes. Bernstein et al. (2019) examined how markets price long-term risks from sea level rise. The authors show that coastal properties in the continental U.S. that face exposure to sea level rise sell at a nearly 7 percent discount compared to similar properties. Additionally, this price discount is strongly driven by properties that will not be exposed to sea level rise for over 50 years, showing that investors are internalizing risks far out into the future. The authors note that this price discount is most acute in markets with sophisticated investors (i.e., non-owner occupied properties) and is correlated to perceptions of future sea level rise risks. Building on a peer-reviewed methodology developed in 2018 by McAlpine and Porter using Miami-Dade County data, First Street Foundation, a nonprofit research group focusing on flood risk in the United States, analyzed property transactions from the county recorder rolls across Florida in relation to tidal flooding. First Street Foundation found that high probability tidal flooding created a "market stressor" which slowly eroded the property value appreciation of at-risk properties over this period due to increasing awareness and decreasing quality of life. In relation, lower probability hurricanes and tropical storms created "market shocks" from which the housing market quickly recovered. In the Tampa Bay area, First Street Foundation found that between 2005 and 2016, the total value of single-family residential sales lost over $1.1 billion due to accruing loss of property values. Recent research has found evidence for a phenomenon called ‘climate gentrification,’ in which consumer preferences are driving the prices of higher elevation housing in Miami-Dade County higher because those homes have a lower risk of flooding with sea level rise. Keenan, Hill and Gumber (2018) found that from 1971 to 2017 there was price appreciation in homes and the rate of appreciation in homes was faster at higher elevations than at lower elevations. The results from the research cited above (First Street Foundation, 2021; Keenan et al., 2018; McAlpine & Porter, 2018) must be considered carefully. The findings do not represent a decline in property prices in absolute terms, rather they account for lost appreciation. Simply put, the prices of tidally exposed properties appreciated at a lower rate than comparable property not exposed to tidal flooding. This does not rule out that property values could decline in absolute terms in the future. However, the potential for this to occur is difficult to predict at this time and will depend on a myriad of factors including market sentiments, activity in the mortgage and insurance sectors, and measures taken to adapt (MGI, 2020) The reduction in property value may not be limited to properties that are directly affected by the flood. A recent analysis of property values in New York City before and after the floods caused by Hurricane Sandy found that singlefamily homes near the storm surge sold for 6-7 percent less than similar homes one mile further from the storm surge even if neither home was flooded (Cohen et al., 2021).This price decrease is notable because it suggests that housing markets may be affected even by the implicit threat of flood damage. Furthermore, this property price reduction decreased over time as the collective memory of the flood incident faded.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

There have been relatively few studies of the impacts of sea level rise on Tampa Bay area property values and sales. In one study, Fu et al., (2016) analyzed the lost property values inherent in lost sales values due to the loss of coastal amenities with sea level rise in 2050 in Pinellas County. In that analysis, property losses would amount to up to $7.27 billion—with no discounting—under a six-foot sea level rise scenario. Under a four-foot sea level scenario, lost real estate value would be approximately $2.5 billion.

Property Tax Fiscal Impacts Several speculative assumptions and uncertainties would be included in any attempt to quantify the timing and degree of absolute declines in asset values as well as the cascading effects resulting from price devaluation. To this end, analysis was undertaken to estimate the tangible financial impacts for properties subject to future daily high tides from sea level rise. Once a property is subject to daily high tides, this study assumes that it is no longer a functionally safe asset and would need to be abandoned. In effect, this would result in a reduction in capital stock on local government tax rolls, and as such a quantifiable loss in property tax revenues. Cumulative property tax losses were estimated for each county by estimating the approximate year in which properties will be subject to daily high tides in the future as described in Cumulative Primary Economic Consequences No Action Results. The findings, shown in Table 26 can help to inform an understanding of the return on investment of public funds intended to mitigate long-term property tax losses. These results do not discount the possibility for an absolute decline in property values in the future, and the cascading consequences of this outcome. Yet to date there are too many unknowns concerning when consumers and the insurance industry will capitalize on these risks in their decision-making and rate structures to speculate about these impacts. Table 26. Cumulative Property Tax Impacts from Permanent Sea Level Rise (MHHW) (2021 Dollars)

County

Property Tax Impacts by Decade 2020 - 2030

2030 - 2040

2040 - 2050

2050 - 2060

2060 - 2070

Cumulative

Citrus

$3,000,000

$6,000,000

$9,000,000

$12,000,000

$24,000,000

$54,000,000

Hernando

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$9,000,000

$15,000,000

Hillsborough

$18,000,000

$23,000,000

$31,000,000

$36,000,000

$98,000,000

$205,000,000

Manatee

$4,000,000

$13,000,000

$67,000,000

$121,000,000

$291,000,000

$496,000,000

Pasco

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$19,000,000

$29,000,000

Pinellas

$19,000,000

$26,000,000

$37,000,000

$51,000,000

$262,000,000

$396,000,000

Tampa Bay (Total)

$46,000,000

$70,000,000

$149,000,000

$228,000,000

$703,000,000

$1,195,000,000

Insurance Premiums It is common knowledge that coastal property is priced at a premium compared to similar property not located by the coast. However, living near the coast comes with the risk of being subject to the impacts of coastal hazards. Hazard risks have been shown to be capitalized in the value of property; in particular, properties subject to hazard risks are often sold at a discount compared to similar properties not subject to these risks, all else considered equal. For example, a property with a government-backed mortgage in a FEMA special flood hazard area is generally required to purchase insurance. Consider a rational consumer that is faced with the decision of purchasing one of two identical properties. One property is in a flood hazard area that requires the owner buy insurance, while the other property is not in a flood hazard area and, as such, the owner is not required to buy insurance. The rational consumer would be expected to place a lower value on the former property, accounting for the added cost of ownership associated with ongoing insurance premiums.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

One of the most important and unknown factors in the pricing of real estate property with flood risks is the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) update of the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) Risk Rating in October 1, 2021. The update, or Risk Rating 2.0, is major overhaul of its risk assessment metrics. The cornerstone of the change is a shift from a flood zone-based approach to a parcel-by-parcel analysis and risk distribution (R. Elliott, 2021). This shift in focus will allow the NFIP to account for resiliency investments at a regional, local and parcel basis when calculating flood insurance premiums for new homebuyers. Since the new system is not yet in place as of the completion of this report, projections regarding the increase or decrease of insurance premiums are still speculative. First Street Foundation estimates insurance premiums to increase from $900 to up to $3,500 annually for properties sold within a designated Special Zone Hazard Area (First Street Foundation, 2021). While increases in premiums for existing properties are still capped at a maximum of 18 percent per year (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2021), this could still represent an increase of 64 percent in three years. As of July 2021, FEMA’s official projections state that the premiums of two thirds of all households will increase by less than $10 per month. Another unknown factor concerning this NFIP’s pending update is the federal government’s response to the increase in insurance premiums. In 2018 FEMA published a report outlining the flood insurance gap of low-income communities. The report outlined that one-third of NFIP policyholders (1.7 million households) had an income of less than 85 percent of the area median income (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018). Furthermore, the report stated 51 percent of non-policyholder households in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) are low income, as defined by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Increasingly, there is pressure to accompany the NFIP update with a federally funded affordability program targeting the households that may struggle to pay the increased premiums as well as the households that cannot afford the current premiums (Kousky, 2021). In 2019, the House Financial Services Committee passed legislation allocating flood insurance subsidies for low-income households. While the measure did not make it to the floor for a vote, it represents a potential legislative vehicle that may shift the effects of the new NFIP program (US House Committee on Financial Services, 2019).

Tourism and Beaches Florida’s ocean economy, which accounts for ocean tourism, ocean transportation, marine industries, ocean recreation and living resources, directly contributed to over $37 billion in GDP in 2018 (Florida Ocean Alliance (FOA), 2020). This value doubles to nearly $74 billion in GDP when accounting for indirect contributions from the suppliers that support ocean-related industries and induced contributions that account for the spending by employees, directly and indirectly, participating in the ocean economy. Ocean tourism, a measure of monies spent on lodging and eating, accounted for over 65 percent of direct GDP contributions (~$24.7 billion) and over 70 percent of total jobs (~395,000) in 2018 (FOA, 2020). The foundational role that ocean tourism plays in Florida’s coastal regions is closely linked to the presence of worldclass beaches. The recreational and leisure opportunities provided by the state’s beaches have been documented as being the most significant draw for out-of-state tourists (Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR), 2015). As of 2018, 63 percent of all registered lodging establishments in Florida happened in coastal counties (EDR), 2019). This is of relevance as out-of-state tourists inject new money that overwhelmingly stays with the local economy where it is spent, and much of this spending is subject to taxes that local and state government rely upon to fund their operations and service provisions. Beach erosion is a long-term phenomenon risking Florida’s most important tourist attractions. While erosion is a naturally occurring phenomenon for beaches, storms of increasing frequency and/or magnitude and sea level rise and increased storm intensity can further accelerate beach erosion in the state. USACE projects that that, given current erosion rates, by 2050 the beaches in Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas counties will need over 62 million cubic yards of sand to maintain the current beach quality (US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2020). Furthermore, the regional supply of off-shore beach quality sand in the Tampa Bay region falls short by about 11 million cubic yards. These projections suggest that under the current beach erosion rate, maintaining the current beach quality will require mining local sand resources and procuring more sand outside of the region.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Historically, the state has invested in beach nourishment and other forms of beach management practices to maintain the size and quality of beaches. In particular, the Department of Environmental Protection’s Beach Management Funding Assistance Program was created to partner with local, state and federal entities to support the protection, preservation, and restoration of beaches (EDR, 2015). To determine the economic benefits provided by state monies directed to local beach management and restoration activities, a return on investment analysis was undertaken by the State Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR, 2015). The assessment was focused on tangible financial gains or losses associated with state investments rather than broader social and environmental outcomes. In particular, the return on investment analysis accounted for tax revenues resulting from out-of-state visitor spending attributable to the state’s beach management and restoration programmatic activities (contributions from local and federal spending were not included). The analysis, which evaluated state beach-related spending for the 2010/2011 – 2012/2013 fiscal years, showed a positive return on investment of 5.4. This implies that for every $1.00 invested by the state, they secured $5.40 in revenues. The findings of EDR’s return on investment analysis are important to consider in the context of the community-wide adaptation strategies modeled in this study. Beach nourishment and dune restoration were included as part of this adaptation strategy bucket. It was not feasible to quantify the return on investment for these beach management related investments due to a paucity of data on beach visitation across the region. However, there is little debate that these investments will provide co-benefits in the form of mitigating some of the damages from the modeled coastal conditions while also maintaining the quality of beaches that are key draw for visitors that make significant contributions to local and state economies. Another economic factor not calculated by EDR’s study is the property value increase attributed to real estate properties with beach access. The study of beach erosion on property prices is still a very limited field of study but researchers are using hedonic modelling techniques to quantify the price differentiation of residential properties adjacent to eroded beaches.6 A recent study looking at properties in Hilton Head Island in South Carolina found that the implicit price of a property located close to an eroded beach was approximately 26 percent of the price of an oceanfront property with the negative impact decreasing for properties away from the shoreline (Catma, 2020).

A hedonic regression is a statistical technique for parsing how change in any one characteristic will change the price of a good – for example, how distance to the shoreline would impact the value of a home when other variables are held constant. 6

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

4. Strategies for Advancing Economic Resilience Economic resilience in the context of this study refers to the ability of communities to: (1) prepare for and withstand coastal hazard risks, and (2) respond and recover when natural disasters occur. As discussed in this report, it is critical that the Tampa Bay region invest now in measures to reduce coastal hazard risk and adapt to changing climate conditions given the significant vulnerabilities faced by the public and private sectors. Significant loss of fiscal revenues (see Property Value Considerations) could limit the ability of local and regional governments to invest in core infrastructure and community services that businesses and residents rely on. A primary goal of investing in economic resilience is to ensure that when coastal hazard events do occur, the shocks are manageable. Not all forms of coastal hazard risk can be fully mitigated. For instance, to prevent a majority of the impacts from a higher category hurricane would likely require a level of investment that could not be met by local communities, even with support from state and federal government. However, risk can be planned for and mitigated to a degree that meets the tolerance of residents and decision-makers, while accounting for relevant engineering and economic constraints. Protective investments can help to minimize the shocks from coastal hazards, but they will not address underlying chronic stresses present in local and regional economies (e.g., social equity, poverty, unemployment, lack of industry diversification) that will affect the capacity of communities to respond to and recover from immediate and more distant coastal hazard risks. Communities should attempt to identify the underlying structural factors that will affect their ability to be resilient to changing conditions. This includes developing an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of local and regional economies, and the opportunities for improving business-as-usual practices so communities do not just survive but are best positioned to thrive. This will require investment in strategic policies, programs, and projects that can enhance the quality of life in communities, including improved access to housing and jobs and the strengthening of institutions that can facilitate these gains. This chapter provides an overview of seven key strategies to evaluate and advance the Tampa Bay region’s capacity for economic resilience, based on best practices from around Florida and the U.S. As discussed below, a successful economic resilience strategy requires the participation of and partnerships among many actors, including local, regional and statewide agencies, civic and philanthropic groups, community-based organizations, and the private sector.

1. Prioritize Social Equity in Planning and Response Coastal hazards often impact certain communities and populations disproportionately, especially communities of color, low-income individuals, people with disabilities, youth, elderly, and incarcerated individuals. The literature on natural hazard impacts (e.g., Kroll et al., 2020) demonstrates that higher-income households are better equipped to address the shocks of a disaster compared to lower-income households, and that natural disasters can further exacerbate economic and racial inequality (J. R. Elliott & Pais, 2006). Recent research suggests that FEMA assistance is significantly biased against communities of color throughout the assistance process, including application, damage inspection, and average funding issuance (Flavelle, 2021). Research also finds that homeowners in neighborhoods with more nonwhite residents or lower income and credit scores tend to have lower approval rates for FEMA grants (Billings et al., 2019). Furthermore, conventional methods for project evaluation, such as benefit-cost analysis (BCA), can perpetuate inequality by ignoring patterns of economic and social difference (Ackerman & Heinzerling, 2002). In BCAs, higher income areas tend to have higher value land, structures, and businesses when compared to lower income areas. As a result, a traditional BCA will treat higher income areas as having more value and, thus, assign a higher value to risk reduction measures implemented in these areas (Adler, 2016).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

There are a myriad of approaches to build equity into adaptation planning, such as focusing on local outreach and community engagement, prioritizing projects in vulnerable communities, investing in technical assistance programs and capacity building, and establishing equity-oriented project goals (The Greenlining Institute, 2019). Key to building equity into adaptation planning is developing an underlying understanding of vulnerability, which can be done with a vulnerability assessment. The California Adaptation Planning Guide outlines five key steps for conducting a vulnerability assessment to support climate adaptation strategy development: 1) an exposure analysis that identifies climate-related hazards, 2) a sensitivity analysis that identifies key community assets and populations that may be susceptible to these hazards 3) an assessment of potential impacts to evaluate how communities will be affected 4) an assessment of adaptive capacity to understand the ability of a population to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impacts of climate-related hazards, and 5) an adjustment for risk and onset considerations relating to uncertainty, timing, and adaptive capacity (California Emergency Management Agency, 2012). Understanding vulnerability can provide helpful insights for both proactive investments in adaptation as well as more effective emergency response in case of an event. For example, knowing which neighborhoods have a high percentage of non-native English speakers can affect outreach and communication for planning and evacuation efforts. It can also help to develop equitable funding and financing strategies – such as identifying areas that would benefit from increased public spending / grant support and avoiding regressive payment approaches (e.g., sales taxes). To begin to understand the vulnerability of different communities in the Tampa Bay region to the modeled coastal hazards, AECOM developed a social equity and flood index ranking for each census tract with exposure in the six counties of the primary economic consequence analysis. This analysis is a high-level approach to gain insight into the exposure and sensitivity of populations to the modeled coastal conditions and inform future more in-depth adaptation strategy development. This index is comprised of three main inputs: a social vulnerability index (SVI), the census tract total population, and the percent of the census tract that is inundated for the modeled coastal conditions. This process is explained with the below formula: AECOM Social Equity & Flood Index = SVI x Census Tract Total Population x Percent of Tract Inundated for Modeled Coastal Conditions First, using the coastal inundation flood maps as identified in the exposure analysis, a percent inundation was calculated for each census tract. This information was then overlaid with the SVI. For purposes of this study, social vulnerability has been identified using an existing SVI developed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The CDC/ATSDR index is comprised of fifteen variables from the ACS 5-year data for 2014-2018. These fifteen variables fit into four larger themes: 1) socioeconomic status, 2) household composition & disability, 3) minority status & language background, and 4) housing & transportation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2021). These themes can be helpful for understanding communities’ adaptive capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recovery from storm events and permanent inundation. It is important to note that the CDC/ATSDR SVI is presented as a percentile relative to the State of Florida data, not regional or local. Finally, each tract was weighted by total population to create a single index using population data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data for 2015-2019. Tracts were ranked based on their calculated index relative to other tracts in the county. The results for several tracts are highlighted below. These tracts were chosen due to their significant anticipated inundation in a 2070 10-year tide event and/or high percentiles in individual SVI themes or variables. For each, a map showing the 10-year tide event inundation is presented. Census tracts are based on the ACS 2015-2019.7 Countylevel spatial and tabular results are presented in Appendix J.

Note these tracts may vary with the 2020 Census.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Town N’ County, Hillsborough County - Socio-Economic and Minority & Language Status Focus This snapshot examines Hillsborough County Census Tract 117.06. This tract had the second highest AECOM Social Equity and Flood Index ranking for the 2070-10 year tide event in Hillsborough County. This neighborhood, with general boundaries of Hillsborough Avenue, Eisenhower/Veterans Expressway, Memorial Highway and Kelly Road, is in the 64th percentile for social vulnerability, primarily driven by concentrations of Housing and Transportation (63rd percentile) and Minority Status and Language (88th percentile). In particular, this neighborhood is home to a significant share of residents who speak English “less than well”. The 2070 10-year tide event is estimated to result in nearly 40 percent inundation. Figure 10. Town N' County, Hillsborough County Census Tract 117.06 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Palmetto, Manatee County - Housing Type & Transportation Focus This snapshot examines Manatee County Census Tract 14.03 in the City of Palmetto. This tract had the eighth highest AECOM Social Equity and Flood Index ranking for the 2070-10 year tide event in Manatee County. This neighborhood includes the manufactured housing community of Palmetto Mobile Home Club and falls in the 91st percentile for concentration of mobile homes as a share of all housing units. Mobile homes are typically more vulnerable to coastal hazards compared to non-mobile homes as a lack of a strong basement can increase flooding and geographic isolation can limit transportation accessibility (Bathi & Das, 2016). In the 2070 10-year tide event this tract would suffer over 30 percent inundation. Figure 11. Palmetto, Manatee County Census Tract 14.03 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

New Port Richey, Pasco County - Household Composition & Disability and Housing Type & Transportation Focus This snapshot examines two Pasco County Census Tracts (314.06 and 314.08) to the north and south of the Pithlachascotee River in inland New Port Richey. These tracts had the ninth and twelfth highest AECOM Social Equity and Flood Index ranking for the 2070-10 year tide event, respectively, in Pasco County. These areas are in the roughly 78th and 83rd percentiles of social vulnerability for Household Composition & Disability (ranking high in terms of the share of population older than age 65) and 94th and 88th percentiles Housing Type & Transportation (ranking high with respect to low vehicle access among residents). These socially vulnerable neighborhoods would experience roughly 33 percent and 28 percent inundation in the 2070 10-year tide event. Figure 12. New Port Richey, Pasco County Census Tracts 314.06 and 314.08 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Bartlett Park, Pinellas County - Socio-Economic, Minority & Language Status and Housing Type & Transportation Focus This snapshot examines Pinellas County Census Tract 205, which is part of the Bartlett Park neighborhood and its eponymous park. This tract was ranked sixth for the AECOM Social Equity and Flood Index ranking for the 2070-10 year tide event in Pinellas County. Social vulnerability in this neighborhood is driven by the share of population living in group quarters (89th percentile), living in poverty (98th percentile), and percent minority (all people except white, non-Hispanic) (89th percentile). In the 2070 10-year tide event, inundation from the rising waters of Salt Creek (which connects Tampa Bay to Lake Maggiorie) results in nearly 57 percent inundation of this socially vulnerable neighborhood. Figure 13. Bartlett Park, Pinellas County Census Tract 205 Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

2. Mitigate Flood Risk through Land Use and Infrastructure Planning Cities and regions can reduce the exposure and vulnerability of households, businesses, and properties during a flood by carefully considering and addressing the risk of flood damage in land use and infrastructure planning decisions, as well as in zoning, building codes, and other local regulations. The recent collapse of the Chaplain Tower South condominium in Surfside, Florida has highlighted the urgency of reexamining local land use and building regulations to ensure safety. While the cause of the collapse has not yet been established, the event has led local governments and the State to reevaluate their building codes, building code enforcement, and the State’s condominium laws (for example, see The Florida Bar, 2021) . Because flooding is not limited by jurisdictional boundaries, regional partnerships are critical to mitigating flood risk. In the Tampa Bay region, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) is leading regional coordination on resilience planning, including through the Tampa Bay Regional Resilience Coalition (TBPRC). The TBRRC is comprised of members from Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties and the 21 municipalities, who come together to develop shared regional resilience goals and strategies. TBRPC is in the early stages of developing a Regional Resiliency Action Plan, and recently received a grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to develop coordinated shoreline planning across the region (TBRPC, 2021). At the local level, effective land use and infrastructure planning should consider flood risk under future sea level rise scenarios. Agencies throughout the state are currently developing tools and policies to meet this need. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is in the process of developing the first comprehensive, statewide sea level rise assessment. As required by Senate Bill 1954, DEP will use this assessment to develop a statewide inventory of vulnerable infrastructure, geographic areas, and communities, and to develop an annual investment plan for addressing the risk (The Florida Senate, 2021). The City of Tampa’s recently released Resilient Tampa plan recommends that the City regularly evaluate the vulnerability of its critical infrastructure assets based on the latest natural hazard and climate risk models (City of Tampa, 2021a). In Southeastern Florida, Broward County has updated its 100-year Flood Map to account for the effects of future climate change, with the intention of using the map to adjust the City’s planning priority areas, establish requirements for finished floor elevations for new construction and major redevelopment projects, and inform planning for future infrastructure investments. The Flood Map will not be used to set insurance rates. However, it is anticipated that it will help reduce flood insurance costs by raising properties above the FEMA flood plain (Broward County, 2021; Southeast Florida Regional Compact, 2019). Another approach is to use incentive zoning to encourage developers to build in lower-risk areas and take actions to improve resilience. For example, the City of Norfolk, Virginia requires all new development to meet a “resilience quotient.” Developers can earn points towards the quotient by adopting flood risk reduction, stormwater management, and energy resilience measures from a menu of options offered by the City. The City’s zoning ordinance also designates a Coastal Resilience Overlay zone where development must meet additional elevation and stormwater requirements, and an Upland Resilience Overlay located outside of flood hazard zones where development is encouraged. Developers building in the Upland Resilience Overlay zone can earn points towards their resilience quotient by acquiring open space easements and extinguishing development rights in the Coastal Resilience Overlay zone (NOAA, n.d.). In areas where adaptation is not sufficient to protect people and properties, managed retreat can help facilitate transitions away from vulnerable areas. Tools for helping residents, businesses, and property owners move to safer locations within a city or region can include voluntary buyouts, open space acquisitions, conservation land trusts, leasebacks, land swaps, and – in rare cases – the use of eminent domain. For example, after Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut implemented voluntary buyout programs to relocate residents in high-risk flood zones. New York State’s NY Rising buyout program strengthens community resiliency by purchasing eligible homeowners’ properties at pre-storm values, and provides incentives for communities to join the program together so that the state can consolidate parcels for climate mitigation (Freudenberg et al., 2016; New York

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

State, n.d.). New Jersey’s Blue Acres program focuses on properties with repetitive losses to maximize the economic benefit from the buyout program (Freudenberg et al., 2016). Local goals for a managed retreat program can vary, but may include minimizing future disaster response and recovery costs, assisting households that have suffered from a recent disaster, assisting low-income and minority populations living in vulnerable areas, and/or restoring natural floodplains (Siders, 2019). To prioritize properties for voluntary buyouts, cities and regions should establish targeted criteria that reflect their specific goals. Data on properties that have suffered repetitive losses from flooding can help identify the most at-risk properties. Table 27 summarizes the number of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims and total damage payments by county, as well as claims and payments made to Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLP) that have been identified as having the highest frequency of loss or greatest claim values. For example, in Pinellas County, SLRPs account for just 1 percent of total National Flood Insurance claims, but 16.4 percent of payments. Prioritizing SLRPs could therefore be an effective way to reduce future damage and costs. Whatever the goals of a managed retreat program, program design must carefully consider implications for social equity. Researchers have raised concerns that buyout programs may reinforce existing social inequities by either displacing low-income and minority communities, or by failing to provide equitable access to relocation resources. Best practice recommendations for incorporating social justice considerations into program design include: establishing transparent criteria for deciding which properties are eligible for buyout; intentionally considering where residents will relocate to; and involving low-income and minority communities in participatory planning processes (Siders, 2019). Table 27. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLP) Claims and Damage Payments in the Tampa Bay region Total Number of NFIP Claims

Total NFIP Damage Payments

Number of SRLP Claims

SRLP Damage Payments

SLRP claims as % of Total Claims

SLRP Payments as % of Total Payments

Citrus

4,467

$113,865,952

$9,119,735

1.1%

8.0%

Hernando

8,531

$39,639,934

$1,608,924

0.2%

4.1%

Hillsborough

7,825

$184,923,980

$10,783,610

0.9%

5.8%

Manatee

4,616

$35,991,723

$5,365,123

0.9%

14.9%

Pasco

8,531

$134,388,067

105

$14,456,337

1.2%

10.8%

Pinellas

22,064

$184,923,980

216

$30,353,193

1.0%

16.4%

Tampa Bay (Total)

56,034

$693,733,636

503

$71,686,922

0.9%

10.33%

County

Note: Natural Resources Defense Council, published 2020. SRLP data as of May 31, 2018, NFIP claims data as of September 30, 2019 (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2020)

3. Increase Awareness about Climate Risk to Inform Real Estate Investment Decisions Information about climate change risks has not yet been fully incorporated into the policies and regulations that govern real estate transactions, lending, or insurance. As a result, risky real estate investments are often incentivized and/or subsidized. At some point in the future, economic and financial realities will demand that climate risk is better accounted for in investment decision-making. To avoid significant shocks to the economy and communities in the Tampa Bay region, it will be important to introduce mechanisms that account for climate change-related risk in an orderly manner. One way the public sector can help is by establishing uniform tools and standards for assessing risk. Some of the tools discussed above in recommendation 2, such as the Florida DEP’s statewide sea level rise assessment that is currently under development, have the potential to serve as a common resource for local jurisdictions, investors, real

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

estate agents, and homebuyers. The public sector can also encourage investors to consider climate-related risks by requiring or incentivizing flood risk disclosure in real estate transactions. Because climate-related risk disclosures could result in a change in consumer behavior, there may be a disincentive for private sector actors to advocate for disclosure. For example, realtors may be hesitant to discuss flooding risks for fear of dissuading potential homebuyers. Therefore, it may fall on the public sector to either educate residents and businesses on coastal hazards and/or require disclosure. In a national analysis of state flood risk disclosure laws conducted in 2018, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) gave Florida an "F" rating because the state currently has no statutory or regulatory requirements for sellers to disclose the flood risks of their property or past flood damages to a potential buyer (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2018). In contrast, in Mississippi (which was given an “A” in national study) the Real Estate Commission has developed a mandatory seller disclosure form that requires the seller to divulge if any portion of a residence has experienced water damage , what steps have been taken to mitigate the risk, and if the property is in a FEMAdesignated flood hazard zone. If flood insurance is required, the current cost and the last premium adjustment must be indicated (National Association of Realtors, 2019). Even in the absence of state guidance, counties can take the initiative to encourage or mandate flood-risk disclosure. For example, in March 2020, Broward County adopted an ordinance that requires specific language to be included in contracts for the sale of real estate located in tidally influenced areas in the county. The required language informs buyers that the property is located in a tidally influenced area and that there may be required obligations on behalf of the property owner to address nuisance flooding (Broward County, 2020). In Pinellas County, the Pinellas Realtor Organization and the County have collaborated to develop the Real Estate Flood Disclosure program, which provides voluntary training to real estate agents about flood hazards and allows agents to generate customizable flood information brochures to provide to prospective buyers (Pinellas County, n.d.). Beyond the public sector, other actors in the real estate industry can also take action to increase climate risk awareness and price this risk into consumer decision-making and broader market transactions. Some leading real estate websites, such as Realtor.com, provide property risk information for listings. Websites such as the First Street Foundation’s site incorporate both FEMA flood zone data and other datasets to inform buyers of property-level flood risk (Hersher & Sommer, 2020). Insurers could provide consumers with forecasts of how premiums might change in the future as climate risks intensify to encourage informed and responsible investment. Lenders could explicitly state in their loan terms that if a property becomes uninsurable due to hazard risk, the loan may go into default, or that the mortgage holder will have the option to purchase insurance on behalf of the borrower and add this cost to the recurring mortgage payment.

4. Focus Adaptation Measures on Key Sectors of the Economy Industry vulnerabilities to climate hazards can stem both from location (e.g., for firms that operate near the coast) and from the interdependencies among industries. For example, in the Tampa Bay region many hotels, resorts, and cultural attractions that support tourism are located directly on the coast and may be directly vulnerable to storm surges associated with sea level rise. Businesses located further inland may be less vulnerable to coastal flooding but may still be at risk of inland flooding or dependent on tourists who come to the region primarily because of coastal and ocean attractions. Other industries depend on complicated supply chains and regional infrastructure that may be vulnerable to coastal hazards. Recent events have already shown how these vulnerabilities can translate to economic losses both to specific industries and the economy as a whole. For example, it was estimated that Hurricane Irma cost Florida 1.8 million out-of-state visitors with a total economic loss of $2.5 billion in 2017 (Tourism Economics, 2018). Tampa's high level of dependency on hospitality, food service, and recreation resulted in estimated temporary and permanent closures of more than 1,200 business between March and July 2020, while small business revenue decreased by nearly 50 percent between March and April 2020 (USF Muma College of Business, 2021; WFLA News Channel 8, 2020). While many businesses have reopened since that time, the financial impacts on small business owners and employees from the disruption in the spring of 2020 are likely to be long-lasting. To minimize the cascading impacts of a future natural disaster on the economy, cities and regions should consider focusing adaptation measures to protect

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

industries that are particularly vulnerable to disaster, major employers and other economic anchors, and emerging businesses and industries. As noted in Appendix D of this report, some of the industries that are most vulnerable to direct impacts from major storm events include health care, accommodation and food services, wholesale, and retail. In addition, there are clusters of office-based industries (finance and insurance, real estate, and professional services) located within areas that are particularly at risk of storm surge. Health care, retail, and accommodation and food services are also the three largest industries by employment in the six-county region, suggesting that these should be high priorities for adaptation planning (US Census Bureau, 2019b). At the level of individual firms and institutions, economic anchors (e.g., large corporations, hospitals, universities, sports franchises, leisure and culture institutions) play an outsized role in the economy through their employment, spending and investment, employment, generation of knowledge and incubation, and support for new businesses. For example, the Tampa metropolitan area has 35 corporate headquarters of Fortune 1000 companies, ranking 16 th among all 917 U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (US Cluster Mapping, n.d.). These employers are essential to the local and regional economy and can also play a leadership role in developing plans, such as business continuity plans, to minimize operational disruption. Focusing on emerging industries and the supportive infrastructure that they require is also important. For example, in 2020, the Tampa Bay Economic Development Council identified the distribution and logistics sector as one of the fastest-growing sectors in Hillsborough County (Economic Development Council, 2020). The I-4 corridor ranks one of the fastest-growing industrial markets in the U.S. TBRPC’s Resilient Tampa Bay report points out that a severe hurricane on the area's critical arteries, such as U.S. 41 and U.S. 19 in north Pinellas and Pasco County, would result in significant loss to business distribution and national logistic networks (TBRPC, 2019). Special attention should also be paid to attract and retain newer businesses. Overall, just less than 40 percent of firms in the Tampa Bay region have been around for less than six years (US Census Bureau, 2019b). Young firms contribute significantly to regional job growth and play a key role in knowledge creation and innovation but may be especially vulnerable to economic loss caused by disaster because they often have limited managerial capacities, supply chain inventories, and operating reserves. Table 28. Tampa Bay Firms by Age (Years in Business) County

< 6 years

6-10 years

11+ years

Citrus

33%

16%

51%

Hernando

37%

17%

47%

Hillsborough

40%

18%

42%

Manatee

42%

17%

41%

Pasco

40%

18%

41%

Pinellas

38%

17%

45%

Tampa Bay (Total)

39%

18%

43%

Note: Business Dynamic Statistics: Firm Age by Firm Size for 2019. (US Census Bureau, 2019b)

5. Engage with and Provide Support to the Small Business Community Small businesses are foundational to local, regional, and state economies, employing on aggregate nearly half of the workforce of the United States. In the six-county Tampa Bay region, 83 percent of the businesses have fewer than 20 employees, while 86 percent of businesses employ fewer than 500 employees (US Census Bureau, 2019b).8 Given the importance of small businesses to the economy, the impacts will be felt broadly if small businesses in Tampa The Census Bureau defines a “firm” as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common ownership or control and an “establishment” as a single physical location at which business is conducted or services or industrial operations are performed. 8

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Bay's coastal communities are not prepared for coastal hazards. At the same time, small businesses are particularly vulnerable to coastal hazards for several reasons. First, small businesses generally have fewer resources to assess coastal hazard risks and make detailed plans to assist in response and recovery when events occur. When small businesses are subject to the impacts of coastal hazards, they often lack the capital reserves, access to financing, or insurance coverage necessary to absorb a loss of income and the additional expenses that come with rebuilding. Further, small businesses that derive most of their income in specific times of the year (e.g., ocean and coastal tourism) face significant barriers to recovery if coastal hazards affect their operations in their peak season(s). Table 29. Businesses in the Six-County Region by Firm Size and Employment Firm Size

% of Firms

% of Employment

<20 employees

83%

14%

20-499 employees

11%

21%

500+ employees Total

65%

100%

Note: Business Dynamics Statistics: Firm Age by Firm Size: 1978-2019 (US Census Bureau, 2019b)

After a disaster, state, federal, and regional agencies may offer an array of programs to help small businesses recover. However, engaging with small businesses in the wake of an event may be difficult given competing demands (The Miami Foundation, 2020). As noted in FEMA's 2017 Hurricane Season After-Action Report, which addressed lessons learned from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, "public and private sector response and recovery efforts were too 'stove piped' to share timely information, too slow to consult, and as a result, often too late to synchronize stabilization efforts” (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017). Given these challenges, some best practices for assisting small businesses with disaster preparedness and recovery have emerged. These include conducting outreach to small businesses before a disaster occurs to better understand their needs; making use of technology to improve communications before, during, and after disasters; and developing partnerships between the public sector and local chambers of commerce, trade associations, civic associations, and other trusted measures. For example, to boost preparedness for Tampa's small business and residents, TBRPC has published a hurricane simulation for Tampa Bay small businesses and emergency management agencies in the context of a Category 5 hurricane (TBRPC, 2009). Beyond improving communications and outreach, economic development agencies can assist businesses in preparing for disasters by providing technical assistance to aid with business continuity planning. Business continuity plans should account for both onsite vulnerabilities to coastal hazards, as well as offsite vulnerabilities such as impacts to lifeline infrastructure that can affect the ability of employees to get to work (e.g., transportation networks) or conduct their work (e.g., wastewater service provision). Businesses should also review their insurance policies to determine if they are covered for both direct as well as indirect hazard impacts. Developing these plans can help businesses to minimize impacts to economic output and maintain their share of market activity when hazards occur. Once a disaster occurs, agencies and institutions should provide streamlined access to capital and financing tailored to small business needs. Assistance should be provided in an expedited manner and, whenever possible, explicitly account for the barriers faced by smaller businesses that may lack financial documentation, collateral, and the required resources to be considered creditworthy and bankable.

6. Establish a Roadmap to a Resilient Workforce Certain workers may be more vulnerable to coastal hazards than others. These include workers in particularly vulnerable industries (discussed in recommendation 4), workers with less adaptable skillsets, lower wage workers, and workers who travel far to get to work. In the Tampa Bay region, many of the workers most vulnerable to the impacts of coastal hazards work in tourism-related businesses. These individuals make close to the minimum wage and do not live in the communities where they work, meaning that they have limited resources to prepare for and recover from a disaster and may struggle to get to work during and after a hazardous event. Prioritizing workforce

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

training investments, addressing current gaps in career resources, and linking education and placement services with growing, well-paying sectors of the economy can help build a more economically resilient workforce that is able to withstand the shock of disaster. The recent Resilient Tampa plan identifies a sector-based approach that focuses on building transferable skills to allow low- and middle-income residents to find higher paying jobs in the region’s fastgrowing industries (City of Tampa, 2021a). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how a disaster can exacerbate underlying gender and race inequities in labor force participation and wages. The Resilient Tampa plan reported a “she-cession” in Tampa during the pandemic, in which female labor participation declined dramatically as women shifted to focus on childcare (City of Tampa, 2021a).The Tampa Bay partnership has also found that Black workers are 1.5 times more likely to be laid off, and that the median wage for Black workers is 21 percent less than the median for white workers in the Tampa Bay region (Tampa Bay Partnership, 2020). Policies and investments to address these inequities – such as equitable hiring guidelines, targeted training programs, and investments in childcare, health care, broadband access, and other community lifelines – are an important part of building workforce resilience. At the same time, recovery efforts and adaptation investments tend to support job growth in certain occupations. For example, across the Tampa Bay counties evaluated, the adaptation scenario modeled in REMI for this analysis estimated that a significant number of jobs would be supported in the construction industry over the period of investment. These include workers in specialized design, engineering and construction fields, as well as project management and administrative support roles. With an increased frequency of disasters will also come increased need for emergency response workers. Preparing workers for jobs in these fields will be critical to ensure an adequate pipeline of labor. Investing in workforce preparedness and research and development related to the “green” or resilience economy could also help create new occupations and science-related industries. For example, targeted investment could help businesses in the Tampa Bay region develop cutting-edge technologies to prevent saltwater intrusion into aquifers or other chronic interruptions, as well as strategies for adapting to event-based hazards. To address these varied concerns, communities should develop coordinated workforce and economic development strategies. In particular, a coordinated “roadmap to a resilient workforce” could focus on developing career pathways and providing workforce training aimed at transitioning vulnerable workers to higher-paying jobs, including jobs in high-growth and emerging “green” industries; growing the local labor pool capable of providing the services needed to prepare for and recover from coastal hazard events; and reducing gender and race inequality in labor force participation and earnings.

7. Develop Strategic Implementation Plans and Monitor Effectiveness Over Time While the adaptation strategies modeled in this study generally show that taking action to mitigate coastal hazard risk is economically justified (i.e., the benefits outweigh the costs), there is a high price tag associated with implementing these strategies. Given the finite financial resources available for adaptation, communities and regions will be faced with difficult decisions on where investment should be directed, what types of adaptation projects should be pursued, when these investments should be made, and how much money should be raised or borrowed to accelerate investments in resilience in a way that is commensurate with expected risks. The risks posed by a changing climate are too great for any one sector to take on alone, and the benefits provided by making investments in climate resilience are shared across sectors. Public agencies should work with nongovernmental organizations, the business community, and philanthropic and civic institutions to develop strategic implementation plans that include clear criteria for project prioritization, identify appropriate funding and financing tools, and assign responsibilities for implementation. Project prioritization criteria should be transparent, standardized, and responsive to local community needs. For example, criteria can be tailored to consider factors such as funding availability, local job creation, directing investments to historically disinvested communities, supporting sustainable development patterns and the region’s overall economic competitiveness, and maintaining the continuity of community lifeline services such as energy,

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

water, transportation, communications, infrastructure, and emergency shelter. Potential adaptation investments should be evaluated for potential tradeoffs as well as co-benefits (e.g., providing community amenities, access to open space). As the primary owner and operator of infrastructure, local governments will need to rely on a combination of many funding and financing tools to pay for adaptation and resilience. Such tools may include general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, tourist development taxes, state and federal grants, and special assessments. Each of these have different benefits and limitations and need to be evaluated based on factors such as what types of projects they can be used for, whether they are subject to voter approval, and equity considerations. In particular, it will be important from an equity perspective to ensure that costs are borne by those who receive the benefits, but also consider the capacity for specific individuals and populations to bear the burden of anticipated costs. Many funding tools can be regressive and burdensome to low-income populations or other vulnerable communities if not implemented strategically. Finally, to ensure that future adaptation projects provide their intended return on investment, the effectiveness of implemented adaptation strategies should be evaluated where feasible and lessons learned should be incorporated into future planning. Communities can draw from a variety of existing resources to develop measuring and monitoring frameworks, such as the frameworks developed by the United Nations Development Program (Martinich et al., 2018) or the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40 Cities, 2019). By incorporating lessons learned from ongoing monitoring and evaluation into future planning, communities can tailor their adaptation strategies to provide an equitable and positive return on investment.

8. Take Local Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions As documented in the most recent report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some level of sea level rise is virtually certain during the 21st century because humans’ past greenhouse gas emissions have committed the atmosphere, the land, and the ocean to future warming. However, the worst effects of climate change can still be avoided by taking rapid, strong, and sustained action to reduce GHG emissions and reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions (IPCC, 2021). Scientists and policymakers have defined a goal of limiting warming to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in order to limit climate-related risks (IPCC, 2018). In addition to helping reach this goal, reductions in GHG emissions can also result in reduced local air pollution, improved public health, increased energy security, and reduction in extreme weather events (Martinich et al., 2018). Both global mitigation efforts as well as local adaptation strategies will ultimately be necessary to reduce the risk and help avoid economic losses due to flooding in the Tampa Bay region and around the world.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Media attention related to climate change mitigation often focuses on national action (or inaction) and international negotiations. However, many states, local governments, businesses, and other subnational actors are committing to ambitious goals to reduce emissions, and their actions have the potential to make a significant impact on overall national emissions. For example, one study aggregated all U.S. Local Climate Action in the U.S. state, city, and business emission reduction targets and found that existing commitments, if met, could reduce U.S. GHG emissions by States, cities, and businesses have made 25 percent below 2005 by 2030, and that enhanced actions could significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas reduce emissions up to 37 percent. When combined with an emissions in the last several years. A recent increased level of federal action, these state and local actions could report by Bloomberg Philanthropies found that potentially reduce U.S. emissions by 49 percent by 2030 – a level as of 2020: that is consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C • 165 cities, 12 states, and Puerto Rico have (Hultman et al., 2020). Of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. by committing to getting 100% of their energy population, 45 have established GHG reduction targets. Tampa and from renewable sources. 29 cities have St. Petersburg are both among the cities that have pledged to already achieved this goal. reduce emissions, though neither city has yet publicly published GHG inventories that would allow for tracking their progress • 56 utilities, representing 68% of all (Markolf et al., 2020). The City of Tampa is preparing to conduct an customer accounts in the United States, updated GHG inventory in 2021 and develop a Climate Action and have established carbon reduction goals. Equity Plan to guide future efforts to adopt clean energy 27 of these utilities have goals to be technologies (City of Tampa, 2020). carbon-free or net-zero emissions by Nationally, the sector that accounts for the greatest share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is now transportation (29 percent), followed by electricity (25 percent), industry (23 percent), agriculture (10 percent), and commercial and residential uses (7 percent and 6 percent, respectively) (US EPA, 2021). States, cities, businesses, universities, and other institutions are reducing emissions by: requiring 100 percent clean energy, adopting regulations to expand the use of zero-emission vehicles, transitioning to electric vehicle fleets and buses, adopting building electrification and energy efficiency standards, prioritizing measures to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership, and committing to phasing out the use of hydrofluorocarbons (refrigerants that have an especially high global warming potential) and methane from oil and gas operations (Bloomberg Philanthropies Support LLC & We Are Still In, 2020).

2050. •

More than 210 cities, counties, ports, universities, and transit agencies have committed to purchasing over 3,700 EVs and electric buses by the end of 2021 through the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing Collaborative.

•

82 companies have signed on to the Climate Group’s EV100 campaign to commit to purchasing more than 2 million electric vehicles and 2,000 charging sites by 2030.

•

37 cities, with a collective population of over 6 million, have passed or are

pursuing building electrification Despite this progress, researchers have raised concerns that while requirements, zero energy legislation, many local governments have established targets, most are lagging and/or moratoria on the use of gas in new behind in meeting their existing goals and the scale and speed of building construction. local commitments will need to increase in order to support the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C (Markolf et al., 2020). Researchers and • 27 gas companies have committed to activists are pushing cities to establish more ambitious targets (e.g., reduce methane emissions across the gas achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 or earlier), conduct robust GHG value chain to 1% (or less) by 2025. inventories and monitor emissions on an ongoing basis, and Source: Bloomberg Philanthropies Support LLC & We accelerate implementation (Arikan et al., 2020; C40 Cities & NYC Are Still In, 2020 Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2019; Markolf et al., 2020). Cities should also carefully consider how adaptation and mitigation measures interact, as these interactions can be either positive or negative. For example, building efficiency measures can both reduce building energy demand and emissions, and lessen the impact of extreme heat events. On the other hand, to the extent that cities increase the use of air conditioning as an adaptation strategy, this will result in increased demand for energy and additional stress on the electrical grid which is already vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Martinich et al., 2018).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

5. References Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2002). Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 1553. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312947 Adler, M. (2016). Benefit-Cost Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview. Review of Environmental Economics & Policy, 10(2), 264–285. Aerts, J. C., Barnard, P. L., Botzen, W. J., Grifman, P., Hart, J. A., Moel, H. D., Mann, A. N., Ruig, L. T., & Sadrpour, N. (2018). Pathways to Resilience: Adapting to Sea Level Rise in Los Angeles. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1, 1– 90. Aerts, J. C., Botzen, W. J., Emanuel, K., Lin, N., Moel, H. D., & Michael-Kerjan, E. O. (2014). Evaluating Flood Resilience Strategies for Coastal Megacities. Science, 344, 473–475. American Association of Port Authorities. (2019). New US Port Economic Impacts Report Released. https://www.aapaports.org/advocating/ PRDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=20424 American Hospital Directory. (2021). Tampa General Hospital. https://www.ahd.com/free_profile/100128/Tampa_General_Hospital/Tampa/Florida/ American Shore & Beach Preservation Association. (n.d.). National Beach Nourishment Database [Map]. https://gim2.aptim.com/ASBPANationwideRenourishment/ Arikan, Y., Carreño, C., & van Staden, M. (2020). ICLEI’s Climate Netrality Framework. ICLEI. https://elib.iclei.org/publications/ICLEIs_Climate_Neutrality_Framework.pdf Bathi, J., & Das, H. (2016). Vulnerability of Coastal Communities from Storm Surge and Flood Disasters. International Journal of Environmental Research, 13(2), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020239 Bernstein, A., Gustafson, M. T., & Lewis, R. (2019). Disaster on the horizon: The price effect of sea level rise. Journal of Financial Economics, 134(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.03.013 Billings, S. B., Gallagher, E., & Ricketts, L. (2019). Let the Rich Be Flooded: The Distribution of Financial Aid and Distress after Hurricane Harvey (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3396611). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3396611

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Blankenship, T. (2004). To Repair or Replace a Bulkhead: That Is the Question. https://coastalsystemsint.com/pdf/Media/Bulkhead_Converted.pdf Bloomberg Philanthropies Support LLC & We Are Still In. (2020). We Are Still In to Deliver on America’s Pledge: A Retrospective. https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/28/2020/09/We-Are-Still-In-to-Deliver-on-Americas-Pledge_.pdf Broward County. (2020). Broward County Code of Ordinances, Article XXV – Resiliency Standards for Tidal Flood Protection, Sec. 39-408. Required disclosure in contracts for sale of real estate. Climate, Energy & Sustainability Program. https://www.broward.org:443/Climate/Pages/USACE.aspx Broward County. (2021). Broward County Resilience Dashboard. Broward County Resilience Dashboard. https://bcgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=19a5119bfb254d7db93e390305c4d4dc Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Annual Averages from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. C40 Cities. (2019). Measuring Progress in Urban Climate Change Adaptation: A monitoring, evaluating and reporting framework. https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Measuring-Progress-in-Urban-Climate-Change-Adaptation-A-monitoringevaluating-and-reporting-framework?language=en_US C40 Cities & NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. (2019). Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions. https://c40-productionimages.s3.amazonaws.com/researches/images/76_Carbon_neutrality_guidance_for_cities_20190422.original.pdf?15559 46416 California Emergency Management Agency. (2012). California Adaptation Planning Guide: Planning for Adaptive Communities. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdf Catma, S. (2020). Non-Market Valuation of Beach Quality: Using a Spatial Hedonic Price Modeling in Hilton Head Island, SC. Marine Policy, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103866 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 28). CDC/ATSDR’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html City of Tampa. (2020, December 1). Greenhouse Gases Reduction. City of Tampa. https://www.tampa.gov/greentampa/greenhouse-gas-reduction City of Tampa. (2021a). Resilient Tampa. Tampa.Gov. https://www.tampa.gov/green-tampa/resilience

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

City of Tampa. (2021b). Tampa Convention Center Becomes the Primary Destination for the Return and Relocation of Conventions, Meetings and Events. https://www.tampa.gov/news/tampa-convention-center-becomes-primary-destination-return-andrelocation-conventions-meetings Climate Central. (2017, October 25). These U.S. Cities Are Most Vulnerable to Major Coastal Flooding and Sea Level Rise. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-cities-most-vulnerable-major-coastal-flooding-sea-level-rise-21748 Cohen, J., Barr, J., & Kim, E. (2021). Storm surges, informational shocks, and the price of urban real estate: An application to the case of Hurricane Sandy. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 90. https://www.researchwithrutgers.com/en/publications/storm-surges-informational-shocks-and-the-price-of-urban-real-est Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, by Expenditure Category. (2021). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm CoStar. (2021). Market Data and Analytics 2019 Data. DiNatale, S. (2021, January 15). Pinellas economy took $2 billion hit from coronavirus tourism losses, bureau says. Tampa Bay Times. https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/2021/01/15/pinellas-economy-took-2-billion-hit-from-coronavirustourism-losses-bureau-says/ Economic development council. (2020). Distribution & Logistics. Tampa Bay Economic Development Council. https://tampabayedc.com/target-industries-2/distribution-logistics/ Elliott, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research, 35(2), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.003 Elliott, R. (2021, February 19). Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program show the moral and political dimensions of addressing climate change [Online resource]. USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog; London School of Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/ ESRI. (2019a). Business Analyst. ESRI. (2019b). ESRI Business Analyst. ESRI. (2021). ArcGIS StreetMap Premium. Federal & State Tax Information Portal. (n.d.). Tax Rates by State. http://www.tax-rates.org/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2009). Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting. Second Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2013). Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2017). 2017 Hurricane Season FEMA After-Action Report (p. 65). https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_hurricane-season-after-action-report_2017.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2018). An Affordability Framework for the National Flood Insurance Program. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2021). Risk Rating 2.0: Equity in Action. https://www.fema.gov/floodinsurance/risk-rating Figliozzi, M. A., & Zhang, Z. (2009). A Study of Transportation Disruption Causes and Costs in Containerized Maritime Transportation. Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, 1–10. First Street Foundation. (2021). The Cost of Climate: America’s Growing Flood Risk. Flavelle, C. (2021, June 7). Why Does Disaster Aid Often Favor White People? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/climate/FEMA-race-climate.html Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (2016). Coastal Vulnerability Assessment: City of Clearwater, Florida. https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/CRI_Coastal_Vulnerability_Assessment_Clearwater.pdf Florida Department of Revenue. (2019a). Index of Tax Roll Data Files. Florida Department of Revenue. (2019b). Statewide Property Tax Overview. Florida Department of Revenue. (2020). Florida History of Local Sales Tax and Current Rates. Florida Department of Revenue. (2021). Florida Ad Valorem Valuation and Tax Data Book. https://floridarevenue.com/property/Pages/DataPortal_DataBook.aspx Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2015). ESI Shoreline Classificaiton Lines Florida [Map]. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. https://geodata.myfwc.com/datasets/esi-shoreline-classification-linesflorida/explore?location=27.649350%2C-83.774550%2C7.57 Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). (2015). Economic Evaluation of Florida’s Investment in Beaches. Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). (2019). Local Government Financial Information Handbook. Florida Ocean Alliance (FOA). (2020). Securing Florida’s Blue Economy: A Strategic Policy Plan for Florida’s Oceans and Coasts (Draft). Florida Revenue Estimating Conference. (2020). Florida Tax Handbook Including Fiscal Impact of Potential Changes.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Senate Bill 1954: An Act Relating to Statewide Flooding and Sea Level Rise Resilience, (2021). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1954/BillText/e1/HTML Freudenberg, R., Calvin, E., Tolkoff, L., & Brawley, D. (2016). Three Flood-Prone Communities Opt for Managed Retreat. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/buy-buyouts Fu, X., Song, J., Sun, B., & Peng, Z.-R. (2016). “Living on the edge”: Estimating the economic cost of sea level rise on coastal real estate in the Tampa Bay region, Florida | Fu, Xinyu; Song, Jie; Sun, Bowen; Peng, Zhong-Ren |. Ocean & Coastal Management, 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016 Hersher, R., & Sommer, L. (2020, August 26). Major Real Estate Website Now Shows Flood Risk. Should They All? NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/26/905551631/major-real-estate-website-now-shows-flood-risk-should-they-all Hultman, N. E., Clarke, L., Frisch, C., Kennedy, K., McJeon, H., Cyrs, T., Hansel, P., Bodnar, P., Manion, M., Edwards, M. R., Cui, R., Bowman, C., Lund, J., Westphal, M. I., Clapper, A., Jaeger, J., Sen, A., Lou, J., Saha, D., … O’Neill, J. (2020). Fusing subnational with national climate action is central to decarbonization: The case of the United States. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18903-w IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ IPCC. (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., & Ivanova, M. (2017). Literature Review on Disruption Recovery in the Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55(20), 6158–6174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572 Keenan, J., Hill, T., & Gumber, A. (2018). Climate gentrification: From theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environmental Research Letters, 13(054001). https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabb32/meta Kousky, C. (2021). Stopping price reform won’t eliminate flood risk. The Hill. https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/546158stopping-price-reform-wont-eliminate-flood-risk

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Kroll, C., Lu, S., Olsen, A., & Wein, A. (2020). The Economic Effects of the HayWired Scenario Using the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Growth Forecast The HayWired Earthquake Scenario-Societal Consequences. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175013v3 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. (2018). US Census OnTheMap [Map]. US Census Bureau. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Markolf, S. A., Azevedo, I. M. L. A., Muro, M., & Victor, D. G. (2020). Pledges and progress: Steps toward greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the 100 largest cities across the United States (p. 34). Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/pledges-and-progress-steps-toward-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reductions-in-the100-largest-cities-across-the-united-states/ Martinich, J., DeAngelo, B. J., Ekwurzel, B., Franco, G., Frisch, C., McFarland, J., & O’Neill, B. (2018). Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II (pp. 1346–1386). U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/29/ McAlpine, S. A., & Porter, J. R. (2018). Estimating Recent Local Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on Current Real-Estate Losses: A Housing Market Case Study in Miami-Dade, Florida. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(6), 871–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9473-5 McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). (2020). Will Mortgages and Markets Stay Afloat in Florida. Microsoft. (n.d.). Building Footprints. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/maps/building-footprints Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model Technical Manual. (n.d.). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_hazus_earthquake-model_technical-manual_2.1.pdf Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Flood Model Technical Manual. (2013). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_hazus_flood-model_technical-manual_2.1.pdf National Association of Realtors. (2019). State Flood Hazard Disclosures Survey. https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2019_State_Flood_Disclosures_Table_final.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration (NOAA). (2021). Tides and Currents: Saint Petersburg and Cedar Key. Natural Resources Defense Council. (2018). Flood Disclosure Scorecard. NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/flood-disclosure-map Natural Resources Defense Council. (2020). Losing Ground: Flood Data Visualization Tool. Losing Ground: Flood Data Visualization Tool. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/losing-ground-flood-visualization-tool

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Nerem, R. S., Beckley, B. D., Fasullo, J. T., Hamlington, B. D., Masters, D., & Mitchum, G. T. (2018). Climate-Change Driven Accelerated Seal-Level Rise Detected in the Altimeter Era. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(9). New York State. (n.d.). Buyout & Acquisition Programs. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF STORM RECOVERY (GOSR). Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://stormrecovery.ny.gov/housing/buyout-acquisition-programs NOAA. (n.d.). Zoning Ordinance Overhauled to Increase Community Resilience to Flooding. Office for Coastal Management. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/norfolk-zoning-ordinance.html Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2017). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Pinellas County. (n.d.). Real Estate Disclosure Program. Pinellas County Government Website. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.pinellascounty.org/flooding/real_estate_disclosure.htm Port Manatee. (2019). The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of Port Manatee. https://www.portmanatee.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/Economic_Imact_Report_Martin_Associates-1.pdf Port Tampa Bay. (2016). The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of Port Tampa Bay. https://frontrunnerbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/19C50C62-5056-907D-8DA1-F2F8EC080E35.pdf Port Tampa Bay. (2019). Port Tampa Bay Exceeds One Million Cruise Ship Passengers for Second Time in a Row. https://www.porttb.com/posts?id=940929AF-8765-4122-B90B-A3348BADF392 Regional Economic Models, Inc. (2021). REMI PI+ Model. RSMeans. (2019). Square Foot Costs with RSMeans Data. Siders, A. R. (2019). Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs. Climatic Change, 152(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2272-5 Southeast Florida Regional Compact. (2019). Broward County Advances Updates to Flood Maps to Reflect Future Conditions. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. https://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/uncategorized/broward-countyadvances-updates-to-flood-maps-to-reflect-future-conditions/ Florida Statute: Public Financing of Construction Projects within the Coastal Building Zone, 161.551 (2021). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=01000199/0161/Sections/0161.551.html

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Sweet, W. V., Kopp, R. E., Obeysekera, C. P., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., & Zervas, C. E. (2017). Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States. Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel. (2019). Recommended Projections of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region. http://www.tbrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSAP_SLR_Recommendation_2019.pdf Tampa Bay Economic Development Council. (2020). Tampa Downtown Partnership. https://tampabayedc.com/edc-investorcpt/tampa-downtown-partnership/ Tampa Bay Partnership. (2020). 2020 Regional Equity Report. https://issuu.com/tampabaypartnership/docs/2020_regional_equity_report TBRPC. (2009). Project Phoenix Hurricane Simulation – TBRPC. https://www.tbrpc.org/phoenix/ TBRPC. (2019). Resilient Tampa Bay Transportation. TBRPC. https://www.tbrpc.org/resilient-tampa-bay/ TBRPC. (2021). Business Continuity Planning. TBRPC. https://www.tbrpc.org/business-continuity/ The Florida Bar. (2021). Real Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section creates safety task force in wake of condo collapse. The Florida Bar. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/real-property-probate-and-trust-law-section-creates-safetytask-force-in-wake-of-condo-collapse/ The Florida Senate. (2021). Senate Bill 1954 Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1954 The Greenlining Institute. (2019). Making Equity Real in Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience Policies and Programs. https://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Making-Equity-Real-in-Climate-Adaption-and-Community-ResiliencePolicies-and-Programs-A-Guidebook-1.pdf The Miami Foundation. (2020). The Greater Miami Workforce Asset Mapping Report. https://miamifoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Miami-Foundation-Final-Report.pdf Tourism Economics. (2018). The Impact of Hurricane Irma on the Florida Tourism Economy. Visit Florida. https://www.visitflorida.org/media/46680/fl-hurricane-impacts.pdf Tourist Development Council. (2021). Value of Tourism. St. Pete Clearwater Industry Partner Site. https://partners.visitstpeteclearwater.com/resource/value-tourism United for ALICE. (2018). Monthly Budget Comparison, Pinellas County, Florida, 2018. https://www.unitedforalice.org/householdbudgets/florida

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

University of Florida. (n.d.). Sea Level Scenario Sketch Planning Tool. US Army Corps of Engineers. (2015). North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS): Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk. Physical Depth-Damage Function Summary Report. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2020). South Atlantic Division, Sand Availability and Needs Determination (SAD SAND): Summary Report. US Census Bureau. (2019a). 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (Table S0101). data.census.gov US Census Bureau. (2019b). County Business Patterns. Business Dynamic Statistics: Firm Age by Firm Size: 1978-2019. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=BDSTIMESERIES.BDSFAGEFSIZE&g=0500000US12017,12053,12057,12081,12 101,12103&tid=BDSTIMESERIES.BDSFAGEFSIZE&hidePreview=true US Cluster Mapping. (n.d.). Regions | U.S. Cluster Mapping. US Cluster Mapping_ Tampa, FL Economic Area. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://clustermapping.us/region/msa/tampa_st_petersburg_clearwater_fl/cluster-portfolio US EPA. (2004). Erosion Control Alternatives Cost Calculator. https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/greenscapes/web/pdf/erosion.pdf US EPA. (2021). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventoryus-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 US House Committee on Financial Services. (2019, May 14). House Passes Four Financial Services Bill Including Waters/McHenry Flood Insurance Extension. https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=403769 USF Muma College of Business. (2021). 2021 E-Insights Report. https://www.usf.edu/business/state-of-the-region/e-insights2021/index.aspx Verschuur, J., Koks, E. E., & Hall, J. W. (2020). Port Disruptions Due to Natural Disasters: Insights into Port and Logistics Resilience. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102393 Visit Tampa Bay. (2019). The Economic Impact of Tampa’s Visitory Economy. https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/tampabay/Hillsborough_County_2019_Economic_I mpact_Report_ebfb1073-3048-4cbb-9bbe-7d56a0d9e41e.pdf Wendler-Bosco, V., & Nicholson, C. (2018). Port Disruption Impact on the Maritime Supply Chain: A Literature Review. 378–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1600961

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

WFLA News Channel 8. (2020, July 22). More than 1.2K Tampa Bay businesses have closed since March. WFLA. https://www.wfla.com/news/by-the-numbers/more-than-1-2k-tampa-bay-business-have-closed-since-march/ World Bank. (2013, August 9). Which Coastal Cities Are at Highest Risk of Damaging Floods? New Study Crunches the Numbers [Text/HTML]. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/08/19/coastal-cities-at-highest-risk-floods

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix A – Selection of Coastal Water Level Conditions The selection of existing and future coastal water level conditions and related mapping products is foundational to the assessment of exposed assets and property, which serves as a basis for the assessment of economic and fiscal consequences. An evaluation of water levels corresponding to existing high frequency coastal conditions, including the average daily high tide, annual tide, and the 10-year tide was undertaken, accounting for sea level rise projections recommended by the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel in 2019.

Daily and Storm Tide Levels – Existing Conditions To account for spatial variability of water levels in the Tampa Bay region, average tide levels were obtained for the locations of two NOAA tide stations and assigned to counties in the Tampa Bay region based on their proximity to each tide station (see Table 30). Assignment of representative tide stations aligns with the approach outlined in the Recommended Projections of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region (2019) developed by the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel. Locations of these two tide stations is shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Table 30. Representative Tide Stations for the Tampa Bay Counties County

Assigned NOAA Tide Station

Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee

Saint Petersburg (#8726520)

Citrus, Hernando

Cedar Key (#8727520)

Figure 14. St. Petersburg Tide Station

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 15. Cedar Key Tide Station

Average water level conditions, referred to as tidal datums, are calculated based on the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE), a 19-year period used to capture tidal fluctuations due to lunar and solar cycles. The most recently published epoch is 1983-2001 and is centered on the year 1992. A combination of approaches was used to account for sea level rise that has occurred from 1992-2020. Historically observed sea level rise rates at each tide station were used to adjust the water levels from 1992 to 2000. Projections of sea level rise were sourced from NOAA and then applied to adjust water levels from 2000 to 2020 (Sweet et al., 2017). Application of sea level rise projections for post-2000 conditions were used preferably over extrapolation of the historical linear trend to account for an observed acceleration of sea level rise in recent decades (Nerem et al., 2018). Figure 1 and Figure 2 presented previously in this report, indicate that the linear-fit trend of sea level rise observed over the Saint Petersburg and Cedar Key tide station observation period is lower than the recorded sea level rise that has occurred over the past decade. In addition to tidal datums, storm tide conditions were obtained from both NOAA tide stations. Storm tides include the effects of the astronomical tide and storm surge (due to atmospheric pressure, oceanographic, and meteorological effects). The existing storm tide levels were estimated by NOAA using a statistical analysis of measured annual maximum water level data. As with tidal datums, average storm water levels were adjusted to present day conditions using a combination of the historically observed linear trend from 1992-2000 and NOAA’s sea level rise projections from 2000 to 2020. To account for high-frequency tide conditions that may impact infrastructure and other assets in the Tampa Bay region, the following conditions were evaluated: MHHW (average daily high tide), 1-year tide level (annual tide), and the 10-year tide level (coastal storm). The MHHW represents the average daily high tide conditions and reflects areas that may be exposed to permanent tidal inundation. The 1-year tide level represents tide conditions that are expected to occur 1-2 times each year. The 10-year tide level represents a small coastal storm that may result in temporary flooding of low-lying areas. Table 32 and Table 33 below present the relative tide conditions at each station. Water levels are presented relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), the national standard for referencing sea level elevations.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Daily and Storm Tide Levels – Future Conditions In 2019, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel updated recommended regional sea level rise projections to reflect the latest climate science summarized in a NOAA report (Sweet et al., 2017). The updates reflect significant advances in understanding of changes in the cryosphere and regional factors contributing to sea level rise, includes an extreme scenario for sea level rise caused by rapid ice sheet loss from the West Antarctica ice sheet, and are associated with risk-based (probabilistic) planning capabilities. For this study, NOAA Intermediate High projections were selected for the planning time horizons of 2020, 2045, and 2070 to align with regional infrastructure planning time horizons (see Table 31). Table 31. Tampa Bay Local Sea Level Rise Projections for NOAA Intermediate-High Scenario NOAA Intermediate-High Sea Level Rise Projections (inches) Year

Saint Petersburg Tide Station (#8726520)

Cedar Key Tide Station (#8727520)

2020

7.4

6.7

2045

20.3

18.9

2070

40.6

38.2

Each planning horizon (i.e., 2020, 2045, and 2070) was evaluated under the three water level conditions: 1) MHHW, 2) 1-year tide, and 3) 10-year tide. For each planning horizon, sea level rise was added to the existing conditions water levels to estimate future water level conditions (see Table 32 and Table 33). Table 32. Existing and Future Tide Conditions for the Saint Petersburg Tide Station Tide Level Relative to NAVD88 (inches) Year

MHHW (average daily high tide)

1-year Tide Level (annual tide event)

10-year Tide Level (coastal storm event)

2020

17.7

28.6

49.9

2045

30.5

41.4

62.7

2070 50.8 61.7 Notes: Definitions are available at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html

83.0

NAVD88 is the current national standard to reference sea level elevations. Tide conditions have been adjusted to be relative to 2020.

Table 33. Existing and Future Tide Conditions for the Cedar Key Tide Station Tide Level Relative to NAVD88 (inches) Year

MHHW (average daily high tide)

1-year Tide Level (annual tide event)

10-year Tide Level (coastal storm event)

2020

25.9

38.6

64.2

2045

38.1

50.8

76.4

2070 Notes:

57.3

70.1

95.7

Definitions are available at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html NAVD88 is the current national standard to reference sea level elevations. Tide conditions have been adjusted to be relative to 2020.

Although sea level rise is a slow process, it is accelerating, and even small rises can disproportionately increase coastal flood frequency. Present day coastal water levels caused by extreme coastal storms will become more

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

commonplace in the coming decades. Table 34 shows equivalent water level elevations expected to occur through the end of the project planning time horizon (2070) based on SLR projected for the NOAA Intermediate-High scenario. This table estimates the timing of coastal flood frequency by considering the persistent shifts in mean water level due to sea level rise. For example, the present-day 1-year tide level is expected to transition to average daily high tide conditions by 2045; the present-day 10-year tide level will transition to average daily high tide conditions by 2070; and the present-day 100-year tide level, occurring as a result of an extreme coastal storm, is expected to transition to the 10-year tide level by 2060. By 2070, the projected 10-year tide event will be higher than the presentday 100-year tide event. Table 34. Equivalent Water Level Matrix for the Saint Petersburg Tide Station Year

SLR (inches)

Tide Level Relative to NAVD88 (inches) MHHW

1-year Tide

10-year Tide

100-year Tide

2020

+7.4

17.7

28.6

49.9

75.8

2030

+12.2

22.5

33.4

54.7

80.6

2040

+16.9

27.2

38.1

59.3

85.3

2045

+20.3

30.5

41.4

62.7

88.7

2050

+23.6

33.9

44.8

66.1

92.0

2060

+31.4

41.7

52.6

73.9

99.8

2070

+40.6

50.8

61.7

83.0

109.0

Notes: Definitions are available at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html NAVD88 is the current national standard to reference sea level elevations. Tide conditions have been adjusted to be relative to 2020.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix B – Exposure Analysis Mapping The assessment of exposure to coastal storms and sea level rise involved conducting a spatial analysis in GIS to estimate the timing and extent of temporary flooding and permanent inundation of the region’s critical assets as well as flood/inundation depths for all parcels in the six counties. Tidal inundation and storm flooding layers were overlaid on the locations of assets to estimate exposure to future water level conditions. In this assessment, overtopping only considers the stillwater levels associated with astronomical tides and storm surge and does not account for “wave overtopping,” which may occur along segments of the shoreline prior to stillwater overtopping. The mapping does not account for wave height, rainfall, or other potential variations in conditions that could affect the depth of inundation at any given location. The methodology is GIS-based and does not consider the associated physics of overland flow, dissipation, levee/seawall overtopping, storm duration, effects of groundwater or potential shoreline or levee erosion associated with extreme water levels and waves. To account for these processes, a more sophisticated modeling effort would be required. However, given the uncertainties associated with sea level rise, future land use changes, development, and geomorphic changes that will occur over the next half century, a more sophisticated modeling effort may not necessarily provide more accurate results. The Flood Master Tool Suite9, developed by the TBRPC, was used to create flooding and inundation maps that could inform which public and private assets are exposed to the modeled high-frequency coastal conditions. Expected sea level rise was superimposed on each of the three high-frequency events to map changes in the landward extent of the evaluated water surface elevations for the three planning time horizons (i.e., 2020, 2045, and 2070). Results from the Flood Master Tool Suite were used as inputs for the Sea Level Rise Value Tool, also developed by the TBRPC, to batch process potential exposure of Tampa Bay region assets. The Sea Level Rise Value Tool overlaid each of the input asset features with evaluated flooding and inundation layers to identify potential asset exposure. The maps are not intended to provide the precise extent and depth of inundation across the Tampa Bay region—a more sophisticated hydrodynamic modeling assessment would be required to do this. Rather, the maps provide a means to perform a high-level screening assessment of the timing and extent of potential shoreline overtopping and asset exposure due to high frequency coastal conditions and rising sea levels. Minimum, mean, and maximum flood depths associated with asset feature locations were extracted and output to a statistics summary table for use in the assessment of economic consequences. The assets analyzed in the exposure assessment are described in Table 35, and are reflective of publicly available datasets that provide coverage across the entire Tampa Bay region. While individual jurisdictions may have more detailed asset data, it is preferable to leverage standardized datasets (e.g., all assets in point or polygon format with similar attribution characteristics) that can uniformly be incorporated into the exposure analysis without the need for further consultation and/or processing. The need for standardization is critical in a regional analysis that covers such a large geographic area. The exposure maps and exposure analysis tabular results are presented below, followed by a glossary of exposurerelated terms.

The Flood Master Tool Suite has been used to create hurricane evacuation zone maps and inform other flood vulnerability planning documents for regional governments in the Tampa Bay region and beyond. The Flood Master Tool Suite is structured to allow for the inclusion of Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges Hurricane (SLOSH) numerical storm surge prediction model. This dynamic modeling component was not incorporated into this study due to the focus on high-frequency events that are not compatible with embedded SLOSH parameters for the region.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 35. Data Sources Incorporated into the Exposure Analysis Asset Type

Description

Source

Parcels Footprints and Tax Rolls

Polygon boundaries of public and private parcels and supporting parcel attribution data (e.g., land use, just value) that can be joined based on unique IDs.

Florida Department of Revenue

Building Footprints

High-quality building footprints developed using Bing Maps using AI and computing power. Data is from 2016 and does not include recent development.

Microsoft

Critical Facilities

Sub-set of structures from which essential services and functions for victim survival, continuation of public safety actions, and disaster recovery are performed or provided.

Florida Division of Emergency Management

Roads

National roadway network that includes designations by functional class.

ArcGIS StreetMap Premium

Exposure Maps This section presents exposure maps for each Tampa Bay county included in the analysis and each hazard scenario. For the 10-year tide event, insert maps have been included, focusing on developed areas with high levels of exposure. Note that due to data limitations, bridge elevations were not accounted for and as a result, roads on bridges may be overstated in exposure results. How to interpret the exposure maps: Three maps are shown for each county, each depicting a different flood scenario: average daily high tide (MHHW), 1-year high tide event (King Tide), and 10-year tide event. For each time horizon, flood data and road damage are shown for the three time horizons: 2020, 2045, and 2070. Flood coverage in 2020 is represented in dark blue, while coverage in 2045 and 2070 is represented as medium and lighter blue hues, to indicate more immediate damage risk during early time horizons. For example, Figure 16 depicts flood exposure for the average daily high tide scenario in Citrus County. Under this scenario, three time horizons are shown, each successively impacting a greater area of land. Average daily high tide is expected to solely impact coastal communities in 2020 (as depicted in dark blue), while the same scenario is expected to impact the City of Crystal River in 2045 and 2070 (as depicted by medium and light blue hues). Road infrastructure is overlaid on the flood exposure analysis. County and existing shoreline boundaries are symbolized with white lines.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 16. Citrus County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 17. Citrus County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 18. Citrus County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 19. Hernando County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 20. Hernando County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 21. Hernando County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 22. Hillsborough County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 23. Hillsborough County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 24. Hillsborough County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 25. Manatee County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 26. Manatee County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 27. Manatee County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 28. Pasco County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 29. Pasco County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 30. Pasco County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 31. Pinellas County Exposure to Average Daily High Tide (MHHW)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 32. Pinellas County Exposure to 1-Year Tide Event (King Tide)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 33. Pinellas County Exposure to 10-Year Tide Event

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Exposure Analysis Tabular Results Exposure mapping was conducted across parcels and core community infrastructure assets that are necessary for life safety or public and private service continuity, or that could pose a significant social consequence if compromised. The exposure assessment was primarily focused on accounting for selected asset types where 15 percent or more of the asset boundary, generally the parcel footprint, is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions. This exposure percentage threshold has been used by TBRPC in prior coastal hazard analyses in the region to account for parcels that have boundaries that extend into the water and to account for the fact that exposure was calculated based on parcel boundaries rather than buildings.10 Table 36 through Table 53 show county-level results, accounting for all identified parcels, roads and critical facilities that are exposed to the modeled coastal conditions.

Parcel Exposure Table 36. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County 2020 Land Use

2045

2070

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

106

Commercial

374

174

563

269

437

871

Governmental

262

363

521

360

447

575

496

538

646

Industrial

Institutional

125

Miscellaneous

195

252

281

251

265

296

274

286

318

Non-Ag Acreage

106

120

101

114

135

Agriculture Centrally Assessed

Residential

1,308

2,971

7,343

2,892

5,083

8,909

6,171

8,121

11,121

GRAND TOTAL

1,856

3,747

8,755

3,660

6,121

10,648

7,400

9,643

13,400

Notes: Excludes parcels not included in County tax roll data. Parcels are considered exposed if 15% or more of the parcel area had flooding. Residential land use category includes multi-residential parcels, such as condominiums, which are presented as one parcel if they share a parcel number. See Glossary of Terms in Appendix B for land use sub-type designations that are aggregated in the land use categories presented above.

Table 37. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County

Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Agriculture

Centrally Assessed

Commercial

105

143

135

150

Governmental

134

113

149

123

144

157

Note that the economic consequence analysis was not based on a flood area threshold, but rather related to the flood depth at the building-level. Additional consideration was taken into account for a subset of critical facilities whereby they were included in the analysis if a building was flooded and/or the parcel area was flooded by MHHW.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

112

161

111

145

168

153

165

171

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

484

931

2,591

911

1,803

3,328

2,153

2,947

3,888

GRAND TOTAL

681

1,188

3,066

1,164

2,179

3,875

2,583

3,472

4,464

Table 38. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County

Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Agriculture

Centrally Assessed

Commercial

151

177

380

207

287

642

403

533

1,146

Governmental

260

338

465

346

403

611

474

538

854

Industrial

155

328

193

247

541

Institutional

168

Miscellaneous

127

100

191

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

1,511

1,906

5,180

2,143

3,165

10,159

5,482

8,213

22,161

GRAND TOTAL

2,031

2,556

6,339

2,841

4,066

12,002

6,720

9,736

25,159

Table 39. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County 2020 Land Use Agriculture Centrally Assessed Commercial

2045

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

2070

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

111

265

101

207

354

276

346

504

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Land Use Governmental

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

161

217

326

225

280

378

331

376

437

Industrial

Institutional

102

Miscellaneous

106

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

1,288

3,366

11,468

4,051

8,554

15,808

11,826

15,448

21,304

GRAND TOTAL

1,605

3,830

12,341

4,548

9,284

16,893

12,720

16,520

22,680

Table 40. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Agriculture

Centrally Assessed

Commercial

229

146

389

241

381

638

Governmental

308

352

620

369

507

719

626

709

903

Industrial

Institutional

119

137

196

140

160

220

198

220

278

Miscellaneous Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

929

1,483

6,311

1,684

3,661

9,862

6,592

9,605

14,565

1,397

2,040

7,415

2,272

4,516

11,278

7,717

11,000

16,526

GRAND TOTAL Notes:

Excludes parcels not included in County tax roll data. Parcels are considered exposed if 15% or more of the parcel area had flooding. Residential land use category includes multi-residential parcels, such as condominiums, which are presented as one parcel if they share a parcel number. See Glossary of Terms in Appendix B for land use sub-type designations that are aggregated in the land use categories presented above.

Table 41. Parcels Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County

Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Agriculture

Centrally Assessed

216

264

958

274

503

1,755

1,026

1,706

2,553

Commercial

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Land Use

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Governmental

102

208

106

146

280

213

275

332

Industrial

106

163

115

161

266

Institutional

117

111

194

Miscellaneous

751

798

959

811

888

1,096

976

1,093

1,221

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

2,850

3,486

16,927

3,747

8,748

30,093

17,805

29,040

51,675

GRAND TOTAL

3,963

4,727

19,266

5,021

10,424

33,552

20,247

32,433

56,301

Roadway Exposure Table 42. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County Functional Class

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

128

170

149

240

GRAND TOTAL

131

174

152

253

Notes: Shows roads clipped to floodplain extent. Rounded to nearest 1 mile. Note that due to data limitations, bridge elevations were not accounted for and as a result, roads on bridges may be overstated in exposure results. See Glossary of Terms in Appendix B for descriptions of the functional classes reported.

Table 43. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County 2020 Functional Class

2045

2070

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

GRAND TOTAL

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

See Glossary of Terms in Appendix B for descriptions of the functional classes reported.

Table 44. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County Functional Class

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

190

177

436

GRAND TOTAL

215

200

503

Table 45. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County Functional Class

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

119

190

123

185

284

GRAND TOTAL

125

202

130

196

310

Table 46. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County

Functional Class

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

105

101

163

GRAND TOTAL

109

105

174

100

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 47. Miles of Roads Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County

Functional Class

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

208

101

457

221

433

822

GRAND TOTAL

239

121

522

255

495

954

Critical Facilities Exposure Table 48. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Citrus County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

Notes: Critical facilities are considered exposed if 15% or more of the parcel area had flooding. See Glossary of Terms in Appendix B for critical facility sub-type designations that are aggregated in the critical facility categories presented above.

101

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 49. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hernando County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

Table 50. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

102

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

Table 51. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Manatee County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

103

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 52. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pasco County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

Table 53. Critical Facilities Exposed to Modeled Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Airport

Community Meeting Space

Defense

Marina

Commercial Ports

Rail Facility

Fire Station

Hazardous Materials Facility

Emergency Services

Public Health

Police

104

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Critical Facility Type

MHHW

2020 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2045 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

MHHW

2070 1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Power Plant

Public Water Supply

Public Water Supply Plant

School

Shelter

Solid Waste Facility

Substation

Wastewater Facility

Glossary of Exposure-Related Terms This section presents additional detail on some of the asset classifications evaluated in the exposure analysis.

Parcels The Florida Department of Revenue provides land use subclassifications for all parcels recorded in county assessor tax rolls. These subclassifications were incorporated, where relevant and feasible, to allow for more refined estimates of the potential economic consequences. Table 54. Land Use Code Classifications Use Code

Definition

Residential 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009

Vacant Residential Single Family Mobile Homes Multi-family - 10 units or more Condominiums Cooperatives Retirement Homes not eligible for exemption Miscellaneous Residential (migrant camps, boarding homes, etc.) Multi-family - fewer than 10 units Residential Common Elements/Areas

Commercial 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023

105

Vacant Commercial Stores, one story Mixed use - store and office or store and residential combination Department Stores Supermarkets Regional Shopping Centers Community Shopping Centers Office buildings, non-professional service buildings, one story Office buildings, non-professional service buildings, multi-story Professional service buildings Airports (private or commercial), bus terminals, marine terminals, piers, marinas Restaurants, cafeterias Drive-in Restaurants Financial institutions (banks, saving and loan companies, mortgage companies, credit services)

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Use Code 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039

Definition Insurance company offices Repair service shops (excluding automotive), radio and T.V. repair, refrigeration service, electric repair, laundromats Service stations Auto sales, auto repair and storage, auto service shops, body and fender shops, commercial garages, farm and machinery sales and services, auto rental, marine equipment, trailers and related equipment, mobile home sales, motorcycles, construction vehicle sales Parking lots (commercial or patron), mobile home parks Wholesale outlets, produce houses, manufacturing outlets Florists, greenhouses Drive-in theaters, open stadiums Enclosed theaters, enclosed auditoriums Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars Bowling alleys, skating rinks, pool halls, enclosed arenas Tourist attractions, permanent exhibits, other entertainment facilities, fairgrounds (privately owned) Camps Racetracks (horse, auto, or dog) Golf courses, driving ranges Hotels, motels

Industrial 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049

Vacant Industrial Light manufacturing, small equipment manufacturing plants, small machine shops, instrument manufacturing, printing Heavy industrial, heavy equipment manufacturing, large machine shops, foundries, steel fabricating plants, auto or aircraft Lumber yards, sawmills, planing mills Packing plants, fruit and vegetable packing plants, meat packing plants Canneries, fruit and vegetable, bottlers and brewers, distilleries, wineries Other food processing, candy factories, bakeries, potato chip factories Mineral processing, phosphate processing, cement plants, refineries, clay plants, rock and gravel plants Warehousing, distribution terminals, trucking terminals, van and storage warehousing Open storage, new and used building supplies, junk yards, auto wrecking, fuel storage, equipment and material storage

Agricultural 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069

Improved agricultural Cropland soil capability Class I Cropland soil capability Class II Cropland soil capability Class III Timberland - site index 90 and above Timberland - site index 80 to 89 Timberland - site index 70 to 79 Timberland - site index 60 to 69 Timberland - site index 50 to 59 Timberland not classified by site index to Pines Grazing land soil capability Class I Grazing land soil capability Class II Grazing land soil capability Class III Grazing land soil capability Class IV Grazing land soil capability Class V Grazing land soil capability Class VI Orchard Groves, citrus, etc. Poultry, bees, tropical fish, rabbits, etc. Dairies, feed lots Ornamentals, miscellaneous agricultural

Institutional 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079

106

Vacant Institutional, with or without extra features Churches Private schools and colleges Privately owned hospitals Homes for the aged Orphanages, other non-profit or charitable services Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums Clubs, lodges, union halls Sanitariums, convalescent and rest homes Cultural organizations, facilities

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Use Code

Definition

Governmental 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089

Vacant Governmental Military Forest, parks, recreational areas Public county schools - including all property of Board of Public Instruction Colleges (non-private) Hospitals (non-private) Counties (other than public schools, colleges, hospitals) including non-municipal government State, other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals Federal, other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, hospitals, colleges Municipal, other than parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals

Miscellaneous 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097

Leasehold interests (government-owned property leased by a non-governmental lessee) Utility, gas and electricity, telephone and telegraph, locally assessed railroads, water and sewer service, pipelines, canals, radio/television communication Mining lands, petroleum lands, or gas lands Subsurface rights Right-of-way, streets, roads, irrigation channel, ditch, etc. Rivers and lakes, submerged lands Sewage disposal, solid waste, borrow pits, drainage reservoirs, waste land, marsh, sand dunes, swamps Outdoor recreational or parkland, or high-water recharge subject to classified use assessment

Centrally Assessed 098

Centrally assessed

Non-Agricultural Acreage 099

Acreage not zoned agricultural with or without extra features

Source: Florida Department of Revenue 2018 User's Guide Codes and Tables

Roads Exposed roads were evaluated using common functional classifications that account for connections in the arterial network. The density and pattern of each Functional Class level is influenced by the physical road network present. Physical road network density variations vary by geography. For example, the density of the road network will vary from the East Coast to the West Coast. Functional Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 roads are connected to form a comprehensive road network for navigation of long distance, mid-range and short routes in any given coverage area. Table 55. Functional Class Descriptions Functional Class

Description

Roads that allow for high volume, maximum speed traffic movement between and through major metropolitan areas. This functional class is applied to roads with very few, if any, speed changes. Access to the road is usually controlled.

Roads that are used to channel traffic to Functional Class 1 roads for travel between and through cities in the shortest amount of time. This functional class is applied to roads with very few, if any speed changes that allow for high volume, high speed traffic movement.

Roads which interconnect Functional Class 2 roads and provide a high volume of traffic movement at a lower level of mobility than Functional Class 2 roads.

Roads which provide for a high volume of traffic movement at moderate speeds between neighborhoods. These roads connect with higher functional class roads to collect and distribute traffic between neighborhoods.

Roads whose volume and traffic movement are below the level of any functional class. In addition, walkways, truck only roads, bus only roads, and emergency vehicle only roads receive Functional Class 5. Source: ArcGIS StreetMap Premium 5

Critical Facilities The Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM) provides critical facility asset locations and across the state. This is an expansive dataset, which contains facility types were not pertinent to the Study. AECOM created a higher level classification, which can include multiple facility types. For the economic consequence analysis, impacts

107

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. The facilities with asterisks below have been considered priority critical facilities for purposes of this analysis. Table 56. Critical Facility Classifications AECOM Critical Facility Category

Facility Type

Airport Commercial Ports

Airport* Commercial Ports* Community Center Library Coast Guard* National Guard* Disaster Recovery Center Disaster Recovery Center-Mobile Emergency Medical Service Emergency Operations Center Relief Agency Fire Station Hazardous Materials Facility Marina Law Enforcement Electric Power Plant* Nuclear Power Plant* Ambulatory Surgical Center* Hospice Hospital* Hospital - Acute Care Hospital - Pediatric Hospital – Trauma* Hospital – VA* Rural Health Clinic Skilled Nursing Facility Public Water Supply* Public Water Supply – Plant* Rail Facility* College Day Care Private School Public School Shelter Solid Waste Facility* Electric Substation* Wastewater Facility*

Community Meeting Space Defense

Emergency Services

Fire Station Hazardous Materials Facility Marina Police Power Plant

Public Health

Public Water Supply Public Water Supply - Plant Rail Facility School Shelter Solid Waste Facility Substation Wastewater Facility Notes:

Facilities with asterisks are considered priority critical facilities for purposes of the economic consequence and adaptation analyses. Source: Florida Division of Emergency Management

108

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix C – Primary Economic Consequence Methods This economic and fiscal impact analysis draws from commonly used guidance outlined by the federal agencies such as the USACE and FEMA. The analysis also incorporates techniques from relevant academic and technical studies that address principles of accounting for economic and fiscal impacts in the natural hazard context. While standard economic methodologies underpin this analysis, effort was taken to ensure that model inputs reflected local—not national or regional—economic conditions where feasible to reflect on-the-ground conditions more accurately. Note that different types of damages are expected from temporary storm-induced flooding compared to permanent progressive tidal inundation from sea level rise. Separate accounting methodologies were used to address these different types of impacts.

Temporary Coastal Storm Impacts Direct Property Impacts Storm-induced flooding can cause direct physical damage to structures and their contents as well as result in costs to clean up damaged property. In the context of this analysis, structural damage applies to real property while content damage applies to personal property. Methodology Standard procedures outlined by the USACE and FEMA were used to estimate damages to structures and contents. The primary steps of the analysis include: 1.

Identify structures that are at risk to flooding.

Determine the depth of flooding for at-risk structures.

Estimate the replacement value of at-risk structures.

Estimate content replacement value within at-risk structures

Estimate the inventory replacement value within at-risk structures

Relate depth of flooding and structure and content replacement values to occupancy-specific depth damage functions (DDFs).11

Inputs A variety of data sources were used to carry out this analysis. An inventory of building footprints, parcel lot and parcel / building characteristics was developed using data from Microsoft Building Footprints and the Florida Department of Revenue real property roll (Name – Address – Legal, or NAL). Depth of flooding was determined by overlaying the hazard maps on the spatially explicit building and parcel data. Information from the parcel data was extracted to be at the building-level. For example, if there were three impacted buildings on the same parcel, the qualitative information from the parcel data (e.g., land use) was assigned to each building on that parcel and the quantitative information (e.g., just value) was assigned based on the footprint area of the specific building relative to the full footprint area of buildings on the parcel. Effort was made to ensure that condominium properties were appropriately accounted for – for Manatee and Pinellas county, in which condo assessor data is a series of overlapping parcels, condos were assigned to a ‘mother parcel’ and information was aggregated. Structure replacement values were estimated by subtracting the parcel’s land value from the just value. The DDFs and content to structure value ratios used in the analysis were developed by the USACE. For most land uses, the DDFs were based on USACE outputs developed 11

DDFs account for the relationship between the depth of flooding within a structure and the extent of damage that could be expected, expressed as a percentage of the total building or content replacement value.

109

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

from observed coastal storm damages along the Gulf Coast by the USACE. Additional USACE outputs were used for multi-family, condominium, and cooperative residential land uses based on DDFs produced post-Hurricane Sandy to be more representative of mid- to high-rise buildings in coastal areas. In the no action analysis, first floor elevations were assumed to be one foot above grade. Key Assumptions and Considerations A number of data processing techniques were required to progress through the methodological steps outlined above. The land use or occupancy types of parcels recorded by the Assessor had to be mapped onto the classifications used to assign the most appropriate DDFs to each parcel and its structure(s). Story assumptions were made to better understand the square footage of the building’s footprint and impacts to those who might be most impacted on the first floor. Story assumptions were based on land use, as well as a combination of the property’s square footage and the parcel’s area, estimated using both assessor land area and supporting GIS information.

Displacement Impacts Storm-induced flooding resulting in property damage can displace people. Displacement can trigger a number of costs, such as one-time relocation costs and additional rental costs for the period of time that a property is being rehabilitated. In addition, businesses that are required to relocate can experience sales losses until they are back in operation at another location. Business and employment impacts are accounted for below separately from displacement. For this analysis, the displacement impacts were calculated only to be the one-time relocation expenses incurred by those living on the first floor of an impacted structure from storm damages. Methodology Standard procedures outlined by FEMA were used to estimate displacement and relocation costs. The primary steps of the analysis include: 7.

Identify structures that are at risk to flooding.

Determine the depth of flooding for at-risk structures.

Relate the depth of flooding to the degree of structural damage that is expected.

10. Calculate one-time relocation cost based on land use and building square footage. Inputs The land use or occupancy types of parcels recorded by the Assessor had to be mapped onto the classifications used to assign the most appropriate disruption cost estimates from FEMA technical guidance. Vacancy rates, when available, were estimated using real estate market data (e.g., CoStar) for each county by major land use category and were applied so as to not include disruption of non-occupied space. Results from the Direct Property Impacts were used to determine which buildings suffer the degree of flooding that would trigger displacement. Key Assumptions and Considerations This analysis assumes that certain land uses, such as hotels and golf courses, cannot relocate and therefore do not incur one-time relocation expenses, though they do incur business losses as discussed below.

Business and Employment Impacts Storm-induced flooding can damage structures and result in business losses during the time it takes for a building to be rehabilitated. If a business is closed, sales losses would be expected as well as the potential for lost employment and other associated fiscal impacts. Fiscal impacts that are related to temporary business closure are discussed separately below. Methodology Standard procedures outlined by FEMA were used to estimate business and employment impacts. The primary steps of the analysis include:

110

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Determine the number of businesses in the study area and associate these businesses with the building data collected in the Direct Property Impact analysis.

Determine the annual sales, wages, and number of employees for identified vulnerable businesses.

Based on the NAICS industry code of the business, determine what percentage of sales and wages can be recaptured at a later date through increased productivity.

Using Direct Property Impact model outputs identify how many businesses will be impacted by structure damage and for how long they will experience an economic loss of function (LOF). Calculate the associated sales and wage losses that cannot be recaptured. For occupancy types where there are fewer substitute locations that could absorb operations, assign the LOF timeframe to the total number of days required for the structure to be rehabilitated.

Inputs Several data sources were used to inform this analysis. ES202 data was reviewed but due to suppression of the data, the analysis ultimately used ESRI’s Business Analyst business data including sales volume by business, number of employees, address, and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for all businesses. Sales volume estimates (in dollars) are for the full year 2019 for each business and are based on a model that assigns sales estimates per employee using NAICS codes when specific data is not available. Companies that typically do not generate sales (e.g. educational institutions, government offices) are not assigned sales volumes in the ESRI/Infogroup model. Recapture rates came from FEMA. Wage data was from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and was downloaded for each county and applied by industry for all businesses based on number of employees. All businesses were then associated with the Direct Property Impact information. Loss of function estimates and recaptured rates were identified based on FEMA technical documentation. Key Assumptions and Considerations The economic loss of function (LOF) time is the amount of time a business is not capable of conducting its operations; it is shorter than the rehabilitation time of a damaged property as it assumes that businesses will rent alternative space during repairs and construction. LOF depends on the damage state, as determined by the percent of structure damage compared to the full building replacement value. It was assumed that businesses on the first floor and/or second floor (depending on flood depth) would experience LOF but that businesses on upper stories would not be impacted. Since it is unknown what floor the businesses sit on, it was assumed that businesses were distributed throughout impacted buildings. Sales and wage losses are not summed together so as to avoid double counting of impacts.

Fiscal Impacts Storm-induced flooding that damages property can result in fiscal impacts in the form of reduced sales tax and tourist development tax revenues. Sales tax and tourist development tax losses are a function of the amount of time a business is unable to operate, as well as considerations relating to the ability of a business to recapture some of these earnings at a later date, as described in the Business and Employment Impacts methodology discussed above. Methodology Standard fiscal impact methodologies were used to assess sales and tourist development tax losses. The primary steps of the analysis include: Sales Taxes: 1.

For taxable industries, apply local sales tax rate to sales losses as described in the Business and Employment Impacts methodology (discussed above).

Tourist Development Taxes: 1.

111

For accommodation industries, apply local tourist development tax rates to sales losses as described in the Business and Employment Impacts methodology (discussed above).

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Inputs Tax rate data was identified from information published by the Florida Department of Revenue; rates were collected for each county and more specific for jurisdictions as applicable. Industries exempt from sales taxes were identified using the 2020 Florida Tax Handbook from the Florida Revenue Estimating Conference. Sales and tourist development tax rates were applied to the sales data provided by ESRI by business and NAICS industry code. Key Assumptions and Considerations The percent of total sales that are subject to sales taxes was estimated based on information published by the state regarding what industries are subject to sales taxes and what industries are exempt. It was assumed that sales associated with industries in the accommodation subsector were subject to the tourist development tax.

Permanent Sea Level Rise Impacts Direct Property Impacts Property that is vulnerable to tidal inundation from a rise in sea level is assumed to be an asset with limited to no market value and income producing potential. Methodology The primary steps of the analysis to calculate the market value of parcels at risk include: 1.

Identify buildings and critical facility parcels that are vulnerable to tidal inundation (e.g., MHHW).

Determine market value of property using the Just Value from tax roll data.

Inputs The core inputs are the Just Value from the Florida Department of Revenue real property roll (Name – Address – Legal, or NAL). For all impacted properties, this was calculated at the parcel-level, and the full Just Value was assigned. This means that if a parcel has multiple buildings, but only one building is impacted by tidal inundation (e.g., MHHW), the full value of the parcel is still considered lost to permanent sea level rise. Key Assumptions and Considerations If a property is subject to tidal inundation following a rise in sea level, the market value of this property is assumed to be lost in addition to any future ability to generate income on that property (e.g., business impacts). Because coastal hazards will gradually increase, there would likely be a steady decline in the market value of properties that stand in the path of tidal inundation, rather than a one-time complete market loss. The values shown in the event-based tables represent the losses occurring in the year of the modeled conditions (e.g., the one-time complete loss occurring in 2045). For the cumulative impacts, however, losses are assigned based on the assumed year in which the property starts to get impacted by sea level rise. The year in which properties become subject to exposure from daily high tides was estimated by accounting for the modeled daily high tide inundation depths in 2045 or 2070 and the expected rate of sea level rise between these years.

Business and Employment Impacts Business properties that are vulnerable to tidal inundation from sea level rise are assumed to have limited or no potential to generate business and employment output. Methodology Standard procedures outlined by FEMA were used to estimate business impacts. The primary steps of the analysis include:

112

Identify what properties are vulnerable to tidal inundation and that are no longer considered functional assets based on damage thresholds being met as defined in the Direct Property Impacts methodology (described above).

Determine the annual sales, wages, and number of employees for identified vulnerable businesses.

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Based on the NAICS industry code of the business, determine what percentage of sales can be recaptured at a later date through increased productivity.

Inputs The core inputs for this analysis are the same as those used in the temporary storm Business and Employment Impacts methodology discussed above. Key Assumptions and Considerations The business and employment impacts are assumed to be equivalent to the annual sales and wages of the impacted business that are not recaptured. Job impacts are estimated based on wage losses. Sales and wage losses are not summed together so as to avoid double counting of impacts. The values shown in the event-based tables represent the losses occurring in the year of the modeled conditions (e.g., the one-time complete loss occurring in 2045). For the cumulative impacts, however, losses are assigned based on the assumed year in which the property starts to get impacted by sea level rise as described in the Direct Property Impacts (above) for permanent sea level rise. Losses are assumed to be recurring year over year.

Fiscal Impacts A business that is vulnerable to tidal inundation following a rise in sea level is assumed to be an asset with limited to no market value and income producing potential. When a property loses its market value and/or operating potential, fiscal impacts could occur in the form of lost sales tax, tourist development tax, and property tax. Sales and tourist occupancy tax losses are considered equivalent to the annual sales of a business that are subject to such taxes. Property tax losses are a result of property no longer being functional and having no assessed value. Methodology Standard fiscal impact methodologies were used to assess sales and tourist development tax losses. The primary steps of the analysis include: Sales Taxes: 1.

For applicable industries, apply local sales tax rate to annual lost sales of inundated businesses as described in the Business and Employment Impacts methodology (discussed above).

Tourist Development Taxes: 1.

For accommodation industries, apply local tourist development tax rates to annual sales of inundated businesses as described in the Business and Employment Impacts methodology (discussed above).

Property Taxes: 1.

Identify taxable value for each impacted property and the property tax rates for each county.

Inputs The core inputs to assess lost sales and tourist development taxes are the same as those used in the temporary event-based storm fiscal impact description above. The core inputs for property taxes are the Taxable Value – NonSchool District (NSD) from the Florida Department of Revenue real property roll (Name – Address – Legal, or NAL) and average county property tax rates from the Florida Department of Revenue and based on information from taxrates.org. For all impacted properties, this was calculated at the parcel-level, and the full Taxable Value - NSD was assigned. This means that if a parcel has multiple buildings, but only one building is impacted by tidal inundation (e.g., MHHW), the full taxable value of the parcel is still considered lost to permanent sea level rise. The below average county tax rates were used:

113

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 57. Average County-Wide Property Tax rates County

Average County-Wide Property Tax Rates

Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas

0.72% 0.92% 1.09% 0.92% 0.87% 0.91%

Key Assumptions and Considerations For sales taxes and tourist development taxes, the total annual sales subject to these taxes was incorporated into the analysis assuming recapture for impacted properties. Property taxes are calculated as an additional fiscal impact only for permanently inundated properties and are not included in temporary fiscal impacts. For the cumulative impacts, losses are assigned based on the assumed year in which the property starts to get impacted by sea level rise as described in the Direct Property Impacts (above) for permanent sea level rise. Losses are assumed to be recurring year over year.

114

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix D – Detailed Primary Economic Consequence Results of No Action Property Impacts Table 58. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$1,000,000

$6,000,000

$11,000,000

Governmental

$2,000,000

Industrial

Institutional

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$5,000,000

$3,000,000

$59,000,000

$39,000,000

$2,000,000

Total

$7,000,000

$4,000,000

$69,000,000

$53,000,000

$2,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 59. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$26,000,000

Commercial

$45,000,000

$8,000,000

$21,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$18,000,000

$1,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

Industrial

$3,000,000

Institutional

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

115

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW Land Use

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$105,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$95,000,000

$65,000,000

$3,000,000

Total

$205,000,000

$5,000,000

$3,000,000

$109,000,000

$90,000,000

$4,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 60. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$26,000,000

$1,000,000

Commercial

$92,000,000

$1,000,000

$20,000,000

$89,000,000

$2,000,000

Governmental

$34,000,000

$8,000,000

$3,000,000

Industrial

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

Institutional

$12,000,000

$5,000,000

$2,000,000

Miscellaneous

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$433,000,000

$8,000,000

$4,000,000

$112,000,000

$78,000,000

$4,000,000

Total

$600,000,000

$8,000,000

$5,000,000

$152,000,000

$176,000,000

$6,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

116

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 61. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$1,000,000

Governmental

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$1,000,000

$22,000,000

$14,000,000

$2,000,000

Total

$1,000,000

$23,000,000

$15,000,000

$2,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 62. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Governmental

$1,000,000

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$26,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$38,000,000

$27,000,000

$3,000,000

Total

$29,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$39,000,000

$29,000,000

$3,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring.

117

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 63. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$1,000,000

Commercial

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Governmental

$18,000,000

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$166,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$56,000,000

$39,000,000

$3,000,000

Total

$190,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$57,000,000

$41,000,000

$3,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 64. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Commercial

$12,000,000

$5,000,000

$30,000,000

$11,000,000

Governmental

$1,000,000

Industrial

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

Institutional

Miscellaneous

$1,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$3,000,000

$32,000,000

$18,000,000

$1,000,000

Total

$16,000,000

$10,000,000

$67,000,000

$35,000,000

$1,000,000

118

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 65. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$9,000,000

Commercial

$141,000,000

$151,000,000

$39,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$413,000,000

$90,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

Industrial

$44,000,000

$12,000,000

$13,000,000

$1,000,000

Institutional

$2,000,000

$7,000,000

$6,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

$50,000,000

$4,000,000

Residential

$77,000,000

$1,000,000

$133,000,000

$74,000,000

$4,000,000

Total

$736,000,000

$1,000,000

$397,000,000

$136,000,000

$10,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 66. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$11,000,000

$1,000,000

Commercial

$565,000,000

$1,000,000

$242,000,000

$270,000,000

$5,000,000

Governmental

$822,000,000

$32,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Industrial

$93,000,000

$56,000,000

$66,000,000

$5,000,000

Institutional

$366,000,000

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$13,000,000

$8,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

$94,000,000

$9,000,000

$1,000,000

$817,000,000

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$535,000,000

$322,000,000

$17,000,000

$2,768,000,000

$23,000,000

$16,000,000

$888,000,000

$668,000,000

$31,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage Residential Total Notes:

119

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 67. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

Commercial

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$19,000,000

$25,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$1,000,000

Industrial

Institutional

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$12,000,000

$5,000,000

$303,000,000

$151,000,000

$5,000,000

Total

$14,000,000

$6,000,000

$326,000,000

$179,000,000

$6,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 68. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$9,000,000

$1,000,000

Commercial

$99,000,000

$1,000,000

$14,000,000

$28,000,000

Governmental

$34,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Industrial

$1,000,000

Institutional

$6,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

$3,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

120

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Residential

$928,000,000

$30,000,000

$12,000,000

$519,000,000

$270,000,000

$9,000,000

$1,080,000,000

$31,000,000

$12,000,000

$539,000,000

$301,000,000

$9,000,000

Total

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 69. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$17,000,000

$3,000,000

Commercial

$234,000,000

$14,000,000

$18,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$101,000,000

$1,000,000

Industrial

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Institutional

$71,000,000

$12,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

$4,000,000

Residential

$4,628,000,000

$26,000,000

$10,000,000

$461,000,000

$236,000,000

$9,000,000

Total

$5,059,000,000

$26,000,000

$10,000,000

$496,000,000

$265,000,000

$11,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

121

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 70. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Governmental

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$26,000,000

$16,000,000

$1,000,000

Total

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$27,000,000

$18,000,000

$1,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 71. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

$5,000,000

Governmental

$1,000,000

Industrial

Institutional

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$39,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$86,000,000

$50,000,000

$5,000,000

Total

$49,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$88,000,000

$55,000,000

$5,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring.

122

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 72. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$48,000,000

$2,000,000

$15,000,000

$78,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$4,000,000

Industrial

$1,000,000

Institutional

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$444,000,000

$13,000,000

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$171,000,000

$111,000,000

$8,000,000

Total

$498,000,000

$13,000,000

$7,000,000

$1,000,000

$188,000,000

$190,000,000

$9,000,000

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 73. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

Commercial

$11,000,000

$19,000,000

$29,000,000

$48,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$1,000,000

Industrial

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

Institutional

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

Miscellaneous

Non-Ag Acreage

Residential

$26,000,000

$12,000,000

$142,000,000

$66,000,000

$3,000,000

Total

$39,000,000

$33,000,000

$177,000,000

$119,000,000

$4,000,000

123

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 74. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Commercial

$193,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$50,000,000

$65,000,000

$1,000,000

Governmental

$217,000,000

$7,000,000

Industrial

$20,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Institutional

$17,000,000

$15,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Miscellaneous

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Residential

$343,000,000

$7,000,000

$3,000,000

$630,000,000

$299,000,000

$19,000,000

Total

$793,000,000

$11,000,000

$6,000,000

$706,000,000

$369,000,000

$21,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

Notes: Figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one-time impacts equivalent to the just or market value of the parcel. Parcels impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 75. Direct Property Impacts by Land Use, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Land Use

Just Property Value

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Structure Damages

Content Losses

Relocation Costs

Agriculture

$8,000,000

Commercial

$704,000,000

$6,000,000

$10,000,000

$230,000,000

$303,000,000

$4,000,000

Governmental

$734,000,000

$1,000,000

$20,000,000

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Industrial

$45,000,000

$17,000,000

$19,000,000

$2,000,000

Institutional

$258,000,000

$4,000,000

$28,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

Miscellaneous

$19,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Residential

$6,038,000,000

$70,000,000

$26,000,000

$1,780,000,000

$831,000,000

$42,000,000

Total

$7,806,000,000

$81,000,000

$36,000,000

$2,078,000,000

$1,162,000,000

$51,000,000

Non-Ag Acreage

124

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Business and Employment Impacts Table 76. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

1-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

10-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

Total

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

NAICS Industry

Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

Notes: Monetized figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million.

125

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Businesses impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 77. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$2,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

NAICS Industry

Retail trade

Health care and social assistance

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$2,000,000

Accommodation and food services

$16,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

Other services, except public administration

$1,000,000

Public administration

Unclassified

$24,000,000

$5,000,000

200

$6,000,000

$1,000,000

Total

126

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Notes: Monetized figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Businesses impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 78. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Citrus County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

$1,000,000

Construction

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

$34,000,000

Retail trade

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

$6,000,000

$1,000,000

Information

$1,000,000

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

$1,000,000

Educational services

Health care and social assistance

$7,000,000

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$6,000,000

$1,000,000

Accommodation and food services

$23,000,000

$3,000,000

150

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Public administration

Unclassified

NAICS Industry

Utilities

Transportation and warehousing

127

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW NAICS Industry

Total

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$44,000,000

$13,000,000

430

$48,000,000

$5,000,000

130

Table 79. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

Health care and social assistance

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$4,000,000

Accommodation and food services

$1,000,000

NAICS Industry

128

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

$5,000,000

NAICS Industry

Total

Table 80. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

1-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

10-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

NAICS Industry

129

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Educational services

Health care and social assistance

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$4,000,000

Accommodation and food services

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

NAICS Industry

Total

Table 81. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hernando County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

$1,000,000

Information

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

NAICS Industry

130

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Professional and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

Health care and social assistance

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

Accommodation and food services

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

$5,000,000

$2,000,000

NAICS Industry

Total

Table 82. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

Retail trade

NAICS Industry

131

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

Total

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

$10,000,000

$2,000,000

NAICS Industry

Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

Table 83. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

NAICS Industry

Utilities

132

1-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

$13,000,000

$2,000,000

10-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Construction

$2,000,000

Manufacturing

$3,000,000

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

$9,000,000

Retail trade

$11,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$12,000,000

$6,000,000

100

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$15,000,000

280

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

$26,000,000

$6,000,000

290

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$8,000,000

140

$88,000,000

$35,000,000

860

$19,000,000

$16,000,000

300

NAICS Industry

Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Public administration Unclassified Total

133

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 84. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Hillsborough County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Utilities

$31,000,000

$4,000,000

Construction

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Wholesale trade

$593,000,000

$5,000,000

$16,000,000

$1,000,000

Retail trade

$21,000,000

$3,000,000

100

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Information

$28,000,000

$10,000,000

160

$1,000,000

$22,000,000

$6,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$27,000,000

$12,000,000

160

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$6,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$8,000,000

170

$46,000,000

$160,000,000

3060

$27,000,000

$11,000,000

210

$19,000,000

$5,000,000

110

$1,000,000

$33,000,000

$9,000,000

380

$24,000,000

$4,000,000

180

$7,000,000

$5,000,000

140

$3,000,000

Public administration

$15,000,000

260

Unclassified

$1,000,000

$855,000,000

$251,000,000

4,900

$91,000,000

$24,000,000

600

NAICS Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration

Total

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

134

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 85. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Retail trade

$2,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$6,000,000

$2,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

Total

$1,000,000

$14,000,000

$3,000,000

110

NAICS Industry

Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

135

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 86. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$5,000,000

Retail trade

$11,000,000

$1,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$17,000,000

$4,000,000

110

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

$1,000,000

$7,000,000

$1,000,000

$9,000,000

$1,000,000

$17,000,000

$5,000,000

220

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Public administration

$3,000,000

Unclassified

$61,000,000

$18,000,000

510

$13,000,000

$2,000,000

NAICS Industry

Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration

Total

136

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 87. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Manatee County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$1,000,000

Construction

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

$2,000,000

Wholesale trade

$6,000,000

$1,000,000

Retail trade

$25,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$18,000,000

$5,000,000

110

$1,000,000

Information

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$9,000,000

$11,000,000

210

$21,000,000

$7,000,000

140

$26,000,000

$6,000,000

120

$31,000,000

$10,000,000

430

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$4,000,000

$131,000,000

$46,000,000

1,190

$31,000,000

$9,000,000

230

NAICS Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction Utilities

137

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 88. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

Information

Finance and insurance

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

Educational services

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

Total

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

NAICS Industry

Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

138

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Businesses impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 89. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction Utilities

1-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

10-Year Tide Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$1,000,000

Wholesale trade

$2,000,000

Retail trade

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Information

Finance and insurance

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and waste services

$1,000,000

Educational services

NAICS Industry

Construction

Transportation and warehousing

Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

$1,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

$8,000,000

Total

Notes: Monetized figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million.

139

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 90. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pasco County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Wholesale trade

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

Retail trade

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

100

$3,000,000

Other services, except public administration

$1,000,000

Public administration

Unclassified

$33,000,000

$6,000,000

250

$11,000,000

NAICS Industry

Construction Manufacturing

Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services

Total Notes:

140

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Monetized figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million. Impacts only account for parcels where the building on the parcel is exposed to the modeled coastal conditions unless the parcel has been identified as a priority critical facility in which case it is captured if any part of the parcel is exposed. MHHW results account for one year of impacts. These impacts would recur, annually. Businesses impacted by MHHW conditions are excluded from 1-year and 10-year tide damages. The 1-year and 10-year tide results account for the impacts of one storm event of these magnitudes occurring. The results are not adjusted to account for the probability of the modeled storm occurring. Results account for recapture as discussed in Appendix C. Jobs rounded to nearest 10. Results are not adjusted to account for financial discounting.

Table 91. Business Impacts by Industry, 2020 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$1,000,000

Retail trade

$1,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$1,000,000

Information

Finance and insurance

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Unclassified

Total

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$9,000,000

$2,000,000

100

NAICS Industry

Notes: Monetized figures are rounded to the nearest $1 million.

141

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 92. Business Impacts by Industry, 2045 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Utilities

Construction

$1,000,000

NAICS Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

$6,000,000

$29,000,000

$1,000,000

Retail trade

$8,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$5,000,000

$7,000,000

150

$1,000,000

Information

$11,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services

$1,000,000

Management of companies and enterprises

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$7,000,000

$5,000,000

$13,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$13,000,000

$5,000,000

210

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$18,000,000

$5,000,000

220

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Public administration Unclassified

142

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW NAICS Industry

Total

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$62,000,000

$23,000,000

550

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$67,000,000

$15,000,000

400

Table 93. Business Impacts by Industry, 2070 Coastal Conditions, Pinellas County (2021 Dollars) MHHW NAICS Industry

Job Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$1,000,000

Construction

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Manufacturing

$1,000,000

Wholesale trade

$57,000,000

$2,000,000

$12,000,000

$1,000,000

Retail trade

$36,000,000

$5,000,000

160

$1,000,000

$14,000,000

$2,000,000

Transportation and warehousing

$19,000,000

$12,000,000

240

$1,000,000

Information

$14,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Finance and insurance

$3,000,000

$6,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

Real estate and rental and leasing

$8,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

Professional and technical services

$8,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$3,000,000

Management of companies and enterprises

$2,000,000

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$15,000,000

270

Health care and social assistance

$33,000,000

$21,000,000

370

$1,000,000

$25,000,000

$16,000,000

270

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

$37,000,000

$14,000,000

320

$6,000,000

$2,000,000

Administrative and waste services Educational services

143

10-Year Tide Sales Output Loss

Utilities

Income Loss

1-Year Tide Sales Output Loss

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Sales Output Loss

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MHHW NAICS Industry

1-Year Tide

10-Year Tide

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

Sales Output Loss

Income Loss

Job Loss

$109,000,000

$31,000,000

1310

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$80,000,000

$17,000,000

710

Other services, except public administration

$7,000,000

$17,000,000

430

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

Public administration

$108,000,000

1830

$1,000,000

Unclassified

$1,000,000

$343,000,000

$243,000,000

5,240

$5,000,000

$1,000,000

$157,000,000

$49,000,000

1,310

Accommodation and food services

Total

144

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix E –Secondary Economic Job Consequence Results of No Action by Industry (REMI) Table 94 shows employment impacts by industry for the temporary event-based storm models. Table 94. Employment Impacts by Industry for Event-Based Storms REMI Aggregated Industries Citrus County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Hernando County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Hillsborough County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Manatee County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Pasco County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing

145

2020 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

2045 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

2070 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

-3,210 -9 -2,170 -136 -239 -38 -138 -329 -159

-7,700 -34 -4,832 -361 -486 -105 -504 -1,193 -187

-10,098 -55 -5,188 -481 -817 -181 -813 -2,324 -239

-1,160 -2 -716 -32 -85 -29 -57 -164 -75

-4,202 -9 -2,560 -64 -284 -117 -244 -804 -120

-5,652 -14 -3,247 -78 -431 -183 -324 -1,221 -153

-8,220 -9 -3,368 -232 -858 -423 -654 -2,201 -475

-48,092 -49 -22,865 -974 -3,868 -1,882 -4,091 -13,126 -1,236

-97,783 -82 -49,334 -1,713 -7,416 -3,237 -7,851 -25,890 -2,259

-16,141 -4 -9,690 -488 -1,410 -203 -1,207 -2,433 -705

-28,354 -25 -14,789 -726 -2,171 -407 -3,506 -5,987 -743

-28,090 -33 -15,126 -703 -2,205 -443 -2,772 -6,151 -657

-2,192 -6 -1,139 -43

-11,866 -37 -6,007 -127

-22,646 -67 -12,755 -203

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

REMI Aggregated Industries Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Pinellas County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Rest of Florida All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Transportation and Public Utilities Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government

2020 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

2045 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

2070 10-Year Tide Jobs relative to Baseline

-211 -80 -135 -414 -164

-1,104 -361 -851 -2,973 -406

-1,920 -578 -1,503 -4,920 -700

-10,635 -13 -5,528 -455 -917 -165 -782 -2,218 -559

-68,301 -66 -35,464 -1,778 -5,061 -1,235 -5,913 -17,295 -1,489

-94,107 -87 -38,514 -2,973 -7,624 -2,084 -11,129 -29,651 -2,046

-5,606 -66 -698 -491 -774 -425 -600 -2,190 -362

-14,287 -249 -834 -1,080 -1,680 -1,334 -1,849 -6,810 -452

-19,171 -378 -787 -1,497 -2,199 -1,927 -2,425 -9,378 -581

Notes: Job years is equivalent to one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts two years will equate to two job years.

146

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix F – Additional Case Study Maps and In-Focus Areas The areas below have been identified as key assets and / or areas of importance for the region. As such, focused exposure maps have been provided.

Port Manatee and Port Tampa Bay Figure 34. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Port Manatee

147

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 35. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Port Manatee

148

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 36. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Port Tampa Bay

149

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 37. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Port Tampa Bay

150

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Downtown Tampa Figure 38. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Downtown Tampa

151

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 39. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Downtown Tampa

152

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Clearwater Beach Figure 40. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Clearwater Beach

153

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Bradenton Figure 41. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Bradenton

154

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 42. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Bradenton

155

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 43. 10-Year Tide Event: Bradenton

156

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

MacDill Air Force Base Figure 44. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): MacDill Air Force Base

157

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 45. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): MacDill Air Force Base

158

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 46. 10-Year Tide Event: MacDill Air Force Base

159

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

New Port Richey Figure 47. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): New Port Richey

160

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 48. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): New Port Richey

161

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 49. 10-Year Tide Event: New Port Richey

162

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Tampa International Airport Figure 50. Average Daily High Tide Exposure (MHHW): Tampa International Airport

163

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 51. Annual Tide Event (King Tide): Tampa International Airport

164

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 52. 10-Year Tide Event: Tampa International Airport

165

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix G – Adaptation Strategy Modeling This appendix summarizes the approach taken to model the adaptation strategies and their costs. As noted in Section 0, the selected adaptation strategies fall into two primary buckets: (1) community-wide adaptation strategies that provide a primary form of defense at the shoreline to minimize coastal hazard impacts; and (2) building-level adaptation strategies that modify physical assets to lessen the consequences of coastal hazards. Community-wide strategies include: beach nourishment/dune restoration, seawall construction/raising, and berm construction. Building-level strategies include: dry and wet floodproofing and elevating structures. In general, community-wide strategies are intended to provide mitigate impacts from both temporary coastal storms and permanent sea level rise to all landward assets while building-strategies are designed to mitigate impacts for individual assets that are exposed to temporary coastal storms and not permanent sea level rise.

Identifying Adaptation Strategy Applicability To determine which areas should receive community-wide vs building-level adaptation, an adaptation applicability analysis was conducted that leveraged spatial data on existing shoreline type, building footprint data, and the exposure mapping analysis. Overall, adaptation was based on protecting existing development and certain critical facility parcels (see Table 56) within the 10-year tide flood exposure in 2070. This analysis was predicated on the understanding that the construction of community-wide strategies (walls, berms, etc.) would only be feasible and appropriate when the density of impacted development is high enough to justify associated capital costs. Additional analysis was conducted to ensure that certain critical facility parcels, such as those that cannot easily relocate (e.g. airports), were protected. Impacted buildings in lower density areas not protected by community-wide infrastructure are assumed to require building-level strategies. This adaptation applicability analysis was conducted to estimate the total length of multiple types of community-wide infrastructure (berms, walls, etc.) by county and to then identify buildings that would not be protected by those strategies and therefore would require building-level adaptation strategies. Lengths were estimated for the: -

Raising of existing walls/hardened shorelines

Construction of new walls/hardened shorelines

Construction of new earthen berms/levees

Given the large size of the study area, the focus was on an automated approach that would result in reasonably accurate estimates for each type of strategy at the county level. Note that beach nourishment was not included in this analysis and the needs were instead based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Sand Availability and Needs Determination (SAD SAND) Summary Report (2020). Further information on costing is presented in the following sections.

Data Sources This analysis leveraged the datasets shown in Table 95.

166

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 95. Datasets used for Adaptation Strategy Modeling Dataset

Purpose

ESI Shoreline Classification Lines

Determine existing shoreline types

Inundation scenario: current Mean Sea Level

Identification of current open water area vs. land area

Inundation scenario: 2070 10-year tide

Identification of areas projected to be impacted by flooding

Building footprints

Calculation of area of impacted building footprints. Identification of buildings requiring site/building-level strategies by Structure ID

Critical facilities points

Locations of major critical facilities

Parcel footprints

Extents of parcels with major critical facilities

Notes: See Table 35 for more information on data sources.

Detailed Methodology The adaptation applicability analysis was conducted using the following steps. 1.

Classification of existing shoreline types: The ESI Shoreline Classification Lines dataset is a delineation of the current Florida coastline with each segment classified according to physical properties of the shoreline. The classification scheme was originally intended to help rate each segment of shoreline’s sensitivity to oil spills and is very detailed. This classification scheme was simplified into three general categories: hard/armored, soft/natural, and sandy/beaches. It was assumed that existing hard/armored edges would be raised if development is vulnerable inland, sandy beaches would be addressed with beach nourishment programs, and soft/natural shorelines would require new berms, levees, or walls to be built if development is vulnerable inland.

Manual delineation of new berms and walls: While the ESI Shoreline Classification dataset linework was sufficient for the identification of shoreline with existing hard edges, the delineation of existing soft edges was not appropriate for calculating linear distance of future berms or levees. This is because the linework for soft/natural shorelines was often far more complex compared to the way that the alignments of berms and levees are typically designed in relatively straight lines. Basing costs off linear distances derived from this linework would have resulted in significant overestimation. Therefore, it was necessary to manually delineate potential alignments for new berms and walls that would be required to protect impacted development inland of soft/natural shorelines. This was carried out based on the following rules: •

Delineate new community-wide infrastructure wherever existing shoreline is not fronted by a beach or hard/armored shoreline and the extent of flooding from the 2070 10-year tide extends inland enough to impact development.

•

Community-wide infrastructure should be as simple and as short in length as possible, reflecting standard practices in the design and cost engineering of such assets.

•

Where possible, community-wide infrastructure should follow existing roads or canals, reflecting the tendency for such assets to be built on public land.

•

New community-wide infrastructure should be designated as a wall/hard edge or a berm/levee based on how much space is available for the footprint. It was assumed that in locations where development is right at the edge of the shoreline, there would not be room for levees and walls would be preferred, but in areas with adequate space, levees or berms would be preferred. Note that the goal of this delineation was not to locate the exact alignments of anticipated community-wide infrastructure, but instead to delineate generalized alignments that would enable the analysis to arrive at reasonably accurate totals at the county level. The result of was a complete dataset for the study area of existing walls/hard edges from Step 1 along with new walls/berms from Step 2.

167

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Identification of areas with enough density of impacted development to justify construction of community-wide infrastructure. In the previous step, berms and walls required to protect all development in the study area was delineated. However, in many portions of the study area, the density of impacted development is not high enough to justify or support the construction of community-wide infrastructure. Buildings in these areas will be protected with building-level strategies including elevating and floodproofing. To conduct this density-based approach to determine which areas should receive community-wide vs building-level strategies, the entire study area was split into a grid of cells with quarter-mile resolution. Area inundated by current mean sea level (as a proxy for open water) was erased from each grid cell and the remaining area was calculated (land area). The total area of the footprints of buildings impacted by the 2070 10-year tide was then calculated for each grid cell. Note that the area of impacted buildings was based on the full area of each building, not just the impacted area. For each grid cell, the area of impacted building footprints was divided by the total area of the grid cell to arrive at an “impacted building density ratio”. A threshold impacted building density ratio was determined based on visual inspection of grid cell values compared to satellite imagery and building exposure. Grid cells with values above this threshold were understood to have a high enough density of impacted buildings to support the construction of community-wide infrastructure while structures in grid cells with values below the threshold were assumed to receive building-level protection instead. In the example below, purple grid cells represent those above the impact density ratio and the purple buildings are those that are vulnerable to the 2070 10-year tide but will be protected by community-wide infrastructure. Green grid cells represent those below the impact density ratio and the pink buildings represent those that are vulnerable to the 2070 10-year tide but will be protected by building-level strategies. Figure 53. Adaptation Applicability Analysis: Identification of Impacted Development Density

168

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Identification of major critical infrastructure which would justify community-wide infrastructure regardless of impacted developed area density. In addition to areas with high impact density, berms or walls will also likely be built to protect critical facilities that would be infeasible to relocate or floodproof at the structure level. The critical facility dataset originally included a wide variety of facilities (see Table 56) deemed critical for the purposes of emergency planning. However, not all of them would realistically justify the construction of berm or walls if they are located in a low density area as they could be floodproofed or relocated. These facilities were filtered out and the remaining “major” critical infrastructure included: airports, ports, train facilities, military bases, power plants, substations, major hospitals, potable water treatment plants, and wastewater treatment plants. After inspection, many of the wastewater treatments were found to be smaller building-level water treatment equipment for small industrial facilities, car washes, chemical plants, and/or RV Parks. These were removed so only major wastewater treatment plants remained. Once the major critical infrastructure dataset was finalized, it was used to select any parcel impacted by the 2070 10-year tide that also contained a major critical infrastructure facility.

Identification of “justified” community-wide infrastructure and buildings that will require buildinglevel strategies. The outputs of Step 3 (impact density grid) and Step 4 (impacted parcels with major critical facilities) where then used to select a subset of the potential community-wide infrastructure (existing hard shoreline identified in Step 1 and new walls or berms identified in Step 2) which meets the criteria for “justified” community-wide infrastructure . Grid cells above the density threshold and critical infrastructure parcels were merged and then buffered by 200 ft (to account for potential spatial inaccuracy). The resulting layer was then used to clip the berm/wall layers – the remaining berms/walls located within these regions are considered “justified”, in that they protect enough development (or a critical facility) to be constructed. All structures outside these areas were then tagged as requiring building-level strategies.

Implementation phasing of community-wide infrastructure. The steps above identified community-wide and building-level strategies necessary to protect development and critical infrastructure from the 2070 10year tide. However, many of these strategies would in reality be implemented earlier to protect assets that will become vulnerable before then. In order to incorporate this phasing of adaptation strategy implementation, the density grid calculation described in Step 3 above was repeated, but instead of using footprints of buildings vulnerable to the 2070 10-year tide, the footprints of buildings vulnerable to the 2045 10-year tide were used to calculate the impacted building density ratio in each grid cell. Grid cells with density ratios above the threshold defined in Step 3 are areas where the amount of buildings exposed to flooding by 2045 would justify earlier construction. Community-wide infrastructure identified in Step 5 that is within these areas was then tagged for Phase I construction. Community-wide infrastructure protecting the critical facilities identified in Step 4 was also tagged for Phase I construction. Even though Step 4 was based on 2070 vulnerability, it was assumed that critical facilities would be afforded a higher level of protection (i.e. to the 100-year storm) and would therefore need to be protected earlier. Note that the result of this step was that the vast majority of community-wide infrastructure was identified as being needed by 2045. This is not surprising given that in most places where the shoreline is projected to be overtopped, the extent of building exposure in the neighborhoods adjacent to the shoreline is already high enough to justify infrastructure. The difference between the two scenarios is more in the inland extent of flooding beyond that.

In summary, the final outputs of this analysis were: a) length of “justified” community-wide infrastructure by implementation phase, infrastructure type, and county and b) identification of buildings not protected by justified community-wide infrastructure that would require building-level strategies. These outputs were then used to cost out the adaptation strategies, as described in the following sections.

Caveats and Assumptions to Adaptation Applicability Analysis As stated in the approach overview, the goal of this method was to automate the calculation of estimates at the county level over a very large study area. There are some caveats/limitations to the approach: The delineation of potential new berms and walls was carried out based on satellite imagery with the goal of a high-level estimate of linear total by county. This process was not intended to determine exactly where berms would actually be built and did not involve building-level feasibility analysis.

169

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

The density grid analysis used to identify community-wide infrastructure alignments that would be constructed may have resulted in berm configurations in some areas where all flood paths are not cut off. As stated above, the purpose was to arrive at estimates at the county level, not accurate alignments for the entire six-county study area at the building-level. Determining which areas would be protected by community-wide infrastructure versus building-level strategies was based on the density of impacted structures (see above) – not structure value, not other assets excluded from the damage assessment, and not vacant or undeveloped land.

Community-Wide Strategy Cost Information This project assumes that sea level rise will continue to occur over the next decades, through the coming century, and beyond. While Tampa Bay counties will have flood risks from high tides and coastal storm events, it is not necessary to adapt the entire shoreline at once. The shoreline was evaluated for the timing and extent of flood exposure for each water level condition (average daily high tide, annual tide event, 10-year event) considering all planning time horizons in the study. However, hard infrastructure adaptation strategies (i.e., seawalls and berms) were only applied to the length of shoreline exposed to the 10-year event in 2045 and 2070 to provide flood protection from high-frequency coastal storm events. The project also accounted for an incremental approach for structure replacement and raising. Shorelines exposed by 2045 were recommended for immediate full replacement of seawalls to provide protection for 2045 conditions. It was assumed that all existing walls/hard infrastructure fronting vulnerable development would be demolished and rebuilt given that the seawalls in FL are mostly from the 1940-70 time period. As a result, they are old and were not to be designed to be raised. Upon replacement, it is recommended that the foundation of the structure account for future seawall capping to raise the structure’s elevation in the year 2045 to provide continuous protection to the year 2070. Building in adaptive capacity to shoreline flood protection strategies will alleviate upfront construction costs and allow the counties to continue increasing the structure’s elevation through time to align with observed changes in sea level. Table 96 through Table 101 provide the lengths of elevated shoreline strategies for each county which were used to produce community-wide adaptation costs for seawalls and berms. These tables highlight the timing of initial flood exposure of the existing shoreline structure, the recommended year for strategy implementation, and the protection level the structure should be designed to provide continuous flood defense for each of the study’s planning time horizons. Table 96. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Citrus County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2021 2045

2045 2070

302,282 3,073

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 0 302,012

165,927 10,884

0 165,927

Table 97. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Hernando County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2021 2045

2045 2070

259,235 57,679

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 0 259,235

26,591 0

0 26,591

Table 98. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Hillsborough County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2021 2045

2045 2070

638,041 318,454

170

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 0 638,041

207,729 71,000

0 207,729

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 99. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Manatee County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2021 2045

2045 2070

570,991 0

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 73,722 570,991

216,629 73,095

0 216,629

Table 100. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Pasco County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2020 2045

2045 2070

498,861 72,678

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 0 498,861

76,755 31,347

0 76,755

Table 101. Length of Shoreline Adaptation, Pinellas County Year Exposed

Cost Year (Implementation)

Protection Level

Wall Length Replaced

2045 2070

2021 2045

2045 2070

1,703,889 342,584

Infrastructure Lengths (Linear Feet) Wall Length New Berm Raised Berm Raised 0 1,703,889

185,856 109,055

0 185,856

Recognizing the importance of beaches and dunes as a protective buffer from coastal storms and high tide events, beach nourishment and dune restoration was considered as the primary adaptation strategy for the open coast of Tampa Bay counties. Future sediment needs to maintain the position and width of existing beaches and dunes was identified from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Sand Availability and Needs Determination (SAD SAND) Summary Report (2020), which was completed to improve existing and future sediment needs and potential offshore sources for beach nourishment, storm damage reduction, and hurricane protection projects. It should be noted that, although the SAND Study represents the best-available quantification of sediment needs for beach nourishment in Tampa Bay, it is based on USACE Intermediate sea level rise projects, which are lower than the NOAA 2017 Intermediate-High projections used in this study. Therefore, future sediment needs may be higher. To extend sediment needs to the 2070 planning time horizon, the sediment needs listed in the SAND Study for the Tampa Bay counties were extrapolated an additional 8 years. Table 102 lists the Tampa Bay sediment needs based on rates from the SAND Study. The SAND study was completed in 2020 and it is assumed that nourishment activities for each of the counties have been performed to maintain beaches in the region. The year 2020 is set as the starting year to represent existing beach conditions needed to sustain with nourishment activities. Table 102. Tampa Bay Sediment Needs County Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas

Annual Sediment Need (cy/year)

2020 – 2045

2045 – 2070

0 0 110,000 476,000 0 656,000

0 0 2,750,000 11,900,000 0 16,400,000

Adaptation strategies were not detailed in design, but rather, descriptive options to help illustrate the benefits conveyed by adaptation strategies considered in this study. As such, approximated and averaged unit costs were incorporated into the analysis, drawing from publicly available data from published reports that best reflect economic conditions in the Tampa Bay region. Table 103 details the sources of adaptation costs considered for each strategy in the study.

171

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 103. Direct Costs for Community-Wide Adaptation Strategies (2021 Dollars) Type of Protection

Unit Measurement

Unit Cost

Seawall Replacement 12 Seawall Raising13 Berm Construction 14 Berm Raising15 Beach Nourishment 16

Linear foot Linear foot Linear foot Linear foot Cubic Yard

$490 $356 $1,642 $247 $20

In addition to direct costs for materials, labor, equipment, etc., there are also several indirect costs and contingencies included in the estimated cost of adaptation. These additional cost components are described in Table 104. Table 104. Additional Community-Wide Adaptation Cost Components Cost Component Mobilization

Contractor’s Markup Design Engineering and Permit Fees Design Contingency Construction Contingency Contract Administration

Description This includes cost allowances for mobilization/demobilization to the project site, setup of temporary facilities and utilities. This is assumed to be 10% of the direct costs for all counties, with the exception of Monroe County, which is assumed to have a higher rate of 13% due to higher logistical costs. This includes costs for site general conditions, job supervision, contractor’s office overhead, profit, and bonds. This is assumed to be 5% of the direct costs for all counties, with the exception of Monroe County, which is assumed to have a higher rate of 7% due to higher logistical costs. The includes a 15% allowance for the engineering design fee and environmental permitting and clearance requirements. This includes a 25% allowance for project design and construction phases of the project as more current and updated information for the project and site conditions are obtained. This includes a 10% allowance for changes during the construction phase of the project for possible unforeseen conditions, schedule delays, and project change orders. This includes a 30% allowance for contract administration and County staff time to oversee the design, permitting, and construction phases.

Building-Level Cost Information Building-level strategies, accounting for elevating or floodproofing structures were evaluated based on technical guidance and unit costs published by FEMA (2009, 2013), and further adapted by other researchers (Aerts et al., 2018). All building-level strategies were modelled to provide at least 1 foot of freeboard from the 100-year storm conditions for 2020 and 2045, a threshold that can affect flood insurance requirements and costs for properties subject to the National Flood Insurance Program. This is also a more realistic approach given that there are marginal costs associated with protecting from a 10-year tide event and a 100-year storm event. The building-level strategies were only assigned in areas that did not receive community-wide adaptation. Buildinglevel adaptation is assumed to be a phased approach, whereby the first phase provides a level of protection to the estimated 100-year storm flood level in 2045 and the second phase provides a level of protection to the estimated 100-year storm flood level in 2070. Note that the first investment phase protects properties subject to storm impacts in 2045, while the second investment phase protects properties subject to storm impacts in 2070. Two major forms of building-level adaptation were costed: elevating of structures and floodproofing.

Seawall replacement costs were taken as the average of new seawall costs listed in the City of Punta Gorda Adaptation Plan, given that most seawall will take the form of bulkheads along canals. Seawall raising costs were selected based on the upper limit of the cost range ($161 - $810) (US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2020). 13 Seawall raising costs were estimated based on a 2004 report by the Marina Dock Age (Blankenship, 2004). 14 Berm construction costs were developed by the EPA Erosion Control Alternatives Cost Calculator as an average between $1,044 and $1,260 (US EPA, 2004). 15 Berm raising costs were developed by the EPA Erosion Control Alternatives Cost Calculator as an average between $157 to $189 (US EPA, 2004). 16 Beach nourishment costs were calculated as the average of project costs for nourishment projects completed in the state of Florida over the past decade based on information presented in the National Beach Nourishment Database plus one standard deviation to account for higher average costs in Tampa Bay projects (American Shore & Beach Preservation Association, n.d.).

172

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Elevating Structures: Elevation accounts for the entire structure being lifted, including the base floor. This would involve separating a structure from its foundation, raising it with temporary supports, and creating a new foundation or extending the foundation below. Foundation renovations would account for continuous walls, separate piers, posts, columns or piles. Elevation measures were evaluates using unit costs per square foot of building footprint, adjusted for the height of the intervention. Elevation was only applied to single family dwellings, manufactured housing, duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes and temporary lodging, per FEMA guidelines. Given the large study area and the challenges assigning which technology is most suitable and/or feasible for an individual structure, the unit costs for different construction types (e.g., frame, masonry) and foundation types (e.g., basement, crawlspace, slab on grade) were averaged and applied to all structures that were determined to be eligible for elevation. The national unit costs published by FEMA were adjusted to 2021 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and further adjusted for local economic conditions with RSMeans regional construction cost indices . Floodproofing Structures: Both wet floodproofing and dry floodproofing measures were costed. Wet floodproofing allows for floodwaters to enter a structure, with investments made to minimize damages to the structure and its contents through raising utilities and assets of high-value above the flood grade as shown in Figure 54. Dry floodproofing attempts to make a structure watertight so that floodwaters are unable to enter as shown in Figure 55. Both floodproofing measures were evaluated using unit costs per square foot of building footprint, adjusted for the height of the intervention. Generally, only one of these floodproofing techniques would be used for an individual structure. However, given the large study area and the challenges assigning which technology is most suitable and/or feasible for an individual structure, the unit costs for different construction type (e.g., frame, masonry) and foundation type (e.g., basement, crawlspace, slab on grade) were averaged and applied to all structures that could not be elevated. The national unit costs published by FEMA were adjusted to 2021 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and further adjusted for local economic conditions with RSMeans regional construction cost indices. Figure 54. Example of Wet Floodproofing Measures

Source: FEMA 2009

173

Making the Economic Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 55. Example of Dry Floodproofing Measures

Source: FEMA 2009

Table 105 shows the high-level national costs used to estimate the costs of implementing the building-level strategies. As noted, these costs were adjusted further to account for residential and commercial construction cost estimates in the Tampa Bay region. Table 105. Order of Magnitude Costs to Implement Building-Level Adaptation Strategies (2021 Dollars, $per Square Foot of Building Footprint) Scale of Intervention (Feet)

Floodproof

Elevate (1 Story Structure)

Elevate (+1 Story Structure)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

$7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $11.00 $14.00 $16.00 $20.00 $24.00

$80.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $85.00 $87.00 $88.00 $90.00

$136.00 $136.00 $139.00 $143.00 $145.00 $148.00 $151.00 $153.00

Notes: No information was identified to assign costs for the 1-foot scenario, resulting in the application of the 2-foot cost estimates. As shown in the table, the marginal costs for adding an additional foot or more for the measures are relatively insignificant. If intervention is greater than 8 feet, costs for 8 feet were applied. Location adjusters were assigned for each county.

174

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix H – Job Benefits of Adaptation by Industry (REMI) Table 106 shows employment impacts by industry for the systemic adaptation scenario. Employment is shown as job years over the two phases of investment. Job years is one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts the duration of the investment phase of five years will equate to five job years. Table 106. Employment Impacts from Systemic Adaptation Scenario Shown in Two Phases (Shown in Job Years)

REMI Aggregated Industries Citrus County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Hernando County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Hillsborough County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Manatee County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Pasco County All Industries Natural Resources Construction Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Pinellas County All Industries Natural Resources Construction

Investments in First Phase (2020 through 2024) Job Years Combined Difference from Baseline

Investments in Second Phase (2045 through 2049) Job Years Combined Difference from Baseline

3,057 (3) 5,160 141 (496) (321) (1,456) 78

3,019 1 3,480 109 (93) (105) (446) 86

671 1,957 33 (334) (133) (789) (21)

707 1,308 3 (143) (51) (382) (4)

12,857 1 11,971 50 395 (474) (288) 1,031

7,817 3 7,208 54 184 (99) 101 289

3,268 (8) 7,958 (55) (1,163) (745) (2,612) 10

2,927 (5) 5,194 (50) (543) (299) (1,337) 33

1,727 (3) 4,480 (9) (650) (375) (1,678) 4

1,364 2,867 (19) (335) (166) (956) 10

4,823 (2) 13,442

852 (3) 8,126

AECOM 175

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

REMI Aggregated Industries Manufacturing Retail and Wholesale Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government

Investments in First Phase (2020 through 2024) Job Years Combined Difference from Baseline (246) (1,627) (1,525) (5,168) 145

Investments in Second Phase (2045 through 2049) Job Years Combined Difference from Baseline (261) (1,368) (1,047) (4,351) 5

Notes: Job years is equivalent to one year of work for one person – for example: a new construction job that lasts two years will equate to two job years.

AECOM 176

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix I – REMI Model Framework REMI provided the following narrative and figures to AECOM. The following core framework applies to all REMI model builds. The model integrates input-output, computable general equilibrium, econometric and economic geography methodologies. The model is dynamic, with forecasts and simulations generated on an annual basis and behavioral responses to compensation, price, and other economic factors. The model consists of thousands of simultaneous equations with a structure that is relatively straightforward. The exact number of equations used varies depending on the extent of industry, demographic, demand, and other detail in the specific model being used. The overall structure of the model can be summarized in five major blocks: (1) Output and Demand, (2) Labor and Capital Demand, (3) Population and Labor Supply, (4) Compensation, Prices, and Costs, and (5) Market Shares. The blocks and their key interactions are shown in Figure 56 and Figure 57. Figure 56. REMI Model Linkages

AECOM 177

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 57. Economic Geography Linkages

The Output and Demand block consists of output, demand, consumption, investment, government spending, exports, and imports, as well as feedback from output change due to the change in the productivity of intermediate inputs. The Labor and Capital Demand block includes labor intensity and productivity as well as demand for labor and capital. Labor force participation rate and migration equations are in the Population and Labor Supply block. The Compensation, Prices, and Costs block includes composite prices, determinants of production costs, the consumption price deflator, housing prices, and the compensation equations. The proportion of local, inter-regional, and export markets captured by each region is included in the Market Shares block. Models can be built as single region, multi-region, or multi-region national models. A region is defined broadly as a sub-national area, and could consist of a state, province, county, or city, or any combination of sub-national areas. Single-region models consist of an individual region, called the home region. The rest of the nation is also represented in the model. However, since the home region is only a small part of the total nation, the changes in the region do not have an endogenous effect on the variables in the rest of the nation. Multi-regional models have interactions among regions, such as trade and commuting flows. These interactions include trade flows from each region to each of the other regions. These flows are illustrated for a three-region model in Figure 58.

AECOM 178

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Figure 58. Trade and Commuter Flow Linkages

Trade and Commuter Flow Linkages

Disposable Income

Local Earnings

Local Demand

Output

Commuter linkages based on historic commuting data

Local Earnings

Disposable Income

Local Earnings

Output

Local Demand

Output

Flows based on estimated trade flows

Multiregional national models also include a central bank monetary response that constrains labor markets. Models that only encompass a relatively small portion of a nation are not endogenously constrained by changes in exchange rates or monetary responses. Block 1. Output and Demand This block includes output, demand, consumption, investment, government spending, import, commodity access, and export concepts. Output for each industry in the home region is determined by industry demand in all regions in the nation, the home region’s share of each market, and international exports from the region. For each industry, demand is determined by the amount of output, consumption, investment, and capital demand on that industry. Consumption depends on real disposable income per capita, relative prices, differential income elasticities, and population. Input productivity depends on access to inputs because a larger choice set of inputs means it is more likely that the input with the specific characteristics required for the job will be found. In the capital stock adjustment process, investment occurs to fill the difference between optimal and actual capital stock for residential, non-residential, and equipment investment. Government spending changes are determined by changes in the population. Block 2. Labor and Capital Demand The Labor and Capital Demand block includes the determination of labor productivity, labor intensity, and the optimal capital stocks. Industry-specific labor productivity depends on the availability of workers with differentiated skills for the occupations used in each industry. The occupational labor supply and commuting costs determine firms’ access to a specialized labor force. Labor intensity is determined by the cost of labor relative to the other factor inputs, capital and fuel. Demand for capital is driven by the optimal capital stock equation for both non-residential capital and equipment. Optimal capital stock for each industry depends on the relative cost of labor and capital, and the employment weighted by capital use for each industry. Employment in private industries is determined by the value added and employment per unit of value added in each industry. AECOM 179

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Block 3. Population and Labor Supply The Population and Labor Supply block includes detailed demographic information about the region. Population data is given for age, gender, and race, with birth and survival rates for each group. The size and labor force participation rate of each group determines the labor supply. These participation rates respond to changes in employment relative to the potential labor force and to changes in the real after-tax compensation rate. Migration includes retirement, military, international, and economic migration. Economic migration is determined by the relative real after-tax compensation rate, relative employment opportunity, and consumer access to variety. Block 4. Compensation, Prices and Costs This block includes delivered prices, production costs, equipment cost, the consumption deflator, consumer prices, the price of housing, and the compensation equation. Economic geography concepts account for the productivity and price effects of access to specialized labor, goods, and services. These prices measure the price of the industry output, considering the access to production locations. This access is important due to the specialization of production that takes place within each industry, and because transportation and transaction costs of distance are significant. Composite prices for each industry are then calculated based on the production costs of supplying regions, the effective distance to these regions, and the index of access to the variety of outputs in the industry relative to the access by other uses of the product. The cost of production for each industry is determined by the cost of labor, capital, fuel, and intermediate inputs. Labor costs reflect a productivity adjustment to account for access to specialized labor, as well as underlying compensation rates. Capital costs include costs of non-residential structures and equipment, while fuel costs incorporate electricity, natural gas, and residual fuels. The consumption deflator converts industry prices to prices for consumption commodities. For potential migrants, the consumer price is additionally calculated to include housing prices. Housing prices change from their initial level depending on changes in income and population density. Compensation changes are due to changes in labor demand and supply conditions and changes in the national compensation rate. Changes in employment opportunities relative to the labor force and occupational demand change determine compensation rates by industry. Block 5. Market Shares The market shares equations measure the proportion of local and export markets that are captured by each industry. These depend on relative production costs, the estimated price elasticity of demand, and the effective distance between the home region and each of the other regions. The change in share of a specific area in any region depends on changes in its delivered price and the quantity it produces compared with the same factors for competitors in that market. The share of local and external markets then drives the exports from and imports to the home economy.

AECOM 180

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Appendix J – County-Level Social Equity & Flood Index Results AECOM developed a social equity and flood index ranking for each census tract with exposure in each of the six counties of the primary economic consequence analysis. This index is comprised of three main inputs: a social vulnerability index (SVI), the census tract total population, and the percent of the census tract that is inundated for the modeled coastal conditions. This process is explained with the below formula: AECOM Social Equity & Flood Index = SVI x Census Tract Total Population x Percent of Tract Inundated for Modeled Coastal Conditions First, using the coastal inundation flood maps as identified in the exposure analysis, a percent inundation was calculated for each census tract. This information was then overlaid with the SVI. For purposes of this study, social vulnerability has been identified using an existing SVI developed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The CDC/ATSDR index is comprised of fifteen variables from the ACS 5-year data for 2014-2018. These fifteen variables fit into four larger themes: 1) socioeconomic status, 2) household composition & disability, 3) minority status & language background, and 4) housing & transportation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2021). Theme one includes the population below poverty, unemployed persons, household income, and people without a high school diploma or GED equivalent. The second theme has four variables as well: the population aged 65 or older, people younger than 17, civilians with a disability, and single-parent households. Theme three measures racial and ethnic minorities as well as people above the age of four whose English language proficiency is considered “less than well.” Finally, the fourth theme includes multiunit housing structures, mobile homes/manufactured housing, households without a vehicle, population living in group quarters, and residential crowding. These themes can be helpful for understanding communities’ adaptive capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recovery from storm events as well as permanent inundation. It is important to note that the CDC/ATSDR SVI is presented as a percentile relative to the State of Florida data, not regional or local. Ultimately, each tract was weighted by total population to create a single index using population data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data for 2015-2019. Tracts were ranked based on their calculated index relative to other tracts in their county. Below are high-level spatial and tabular results for the tract-level analysis for each county. Maps are shown for the 10-year event for 2020 and for 2070. Tables highlight the top 15 tracts with the highest AECOM index value based on the inundation exposure for a 10-year tide event in 2070. In some counties, fewer than 15 tracts were impacted so all of the ranked tracts are shown. For the tabular results, the four SVI themes refer to the four CDC SVI themes: 1) socioeconomic status, 2) household composition & disability, 3) minority status & language background, and 4) housing & transportation. The AECOM Social Equity & Flood Index is referred to as “AECOM Index”.

AECOM 181

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Citrus County Figure 59. Citrus 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 60. Citrus 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 182

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 107. Citrus County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index 2070 Index Rank

Census Tract

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 Tide Event Level

SVI Theme 2

SVI Theme 3

SVI Theme 4

SVI Overall

12017451700

2,102

92.9%

3,846

2,597

48.0%

73.7%

18.1%

81.4%

58.8%

12017450303

1,276

23.3%

6,182

3,178

89.2%

94.9%

17.5%

93.2%

88.5%

12017450500

1,111

97.4%

4,326

3,065

28.4%

52.0%

5.2%

48.4%

26.4%

12017450602

869

37.4%

4,769

3,030

49.0%

61.1%

12.2%

68.0%

48.8%

12017450601

601

21.7%

4,504

2,517

75.2%

57.7%

13.1%

67.6%

61.6%

12017450400

507

19.7%

6,413

3,469

62.3%

68.3%

16.0%

22.9%

40.1%

12017451502

476

8.7%

6,765

3,325

90.9%

95.6%

2.4%

84.0%

81.2%

AECOM 183

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Hernando County Figure 61. Hernando 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 62. Hernando 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 184

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 108. Hernando County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index 2070 Index Rank

Census Tract

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 Tide Event Level

SVI Theme 2

SVI Theme 3

SVI Theme 4

SVI Overall

12053041600

2,181

68.7%

5,394

3,784

48.0%

73.7%

18.1%

81.4%

58.8%

12053041501

1,156

79.7%

3,255

2,194

77.7%

93.7%

17.8%

4.9%

44.6%

12053041502

423

49.1%

3,578

2,601

51.7%

40.0%

18.9%

11.8%

24.1%

AECOM 185

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Hillsborough County Figure 63. Hillsborough 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 64. Hillsborough 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 186

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 109. Hillsborough County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index Census Tract

2070 Index Rank

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI SVI SVI SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme Theme Theme Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 2 3 4 Tide Event Level

SVI Overall

12057014108

2,072

41.6%

6,487

2,538

74.0%

66.6%

78.3%

63.6%

76.7%

12057011706

1,960

37.7%

8,064

5,587

55.9%

23.9%

87.5%

63.1%

64.4%

12057011712

1,663

81.2%

6,266

4,694

21.0%

3.8%

71.1%

62.6%

32.7%

12057013801

1,531

61.3%

2,701

1,322

90.1%

84.4%

83.1%

79.3%

92.5%

12057011606

1,422

48.8%

7,257

5,751

27.5%

42.6%

64.9%

43.8%

40.2%

12057011615

1,265

32.8%

4,810

2,402

78.4%

44.6%

88.7%

70.9%

80.2%

12057013501

1,121

38.1%

3,706

2,072

73.4%

21.4%

86.4%

86.0%

79.3%

12057006501

1,044

43.4%

3,632

2,166

45.8%

58.4%

60.4%

83.2%

66.2%

12057014121

1,026

84.3%

5,610

4,871

20.8%

36.5%

40.8%

24.3%

21.7%

12057013802

945

34.4%

3,872

2,075

66.9%

32.7%

63.1%

80.1%

70.9%

12057011710

861

68.6%

6,355

4,755

15.1%

7.1%

51.0%

41.0%

19.8%

12057011613

772

14.6%

6,498

3,504

79.2%

65.5%

87.8%

64.2%

81.1%

12057005401

737

96.7%

5,452

4,747

9.3%

18.5%

34.3%

29.1%

14.0%

12057005302

716

47.3%

1,891

675

92.7%

55.0%

91.4%

40.7%

80.0%

12057014122

697

15.0%

6,775

4,130

62.6%

71.2%

78.1%

49.4%

68.4%

AECOM 187

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Manatee County Figure 65. Manatee 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 66. Manatee 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 188

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 110. Manatee County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index 2070 Index Rank

Census Tract

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 Tide Event Level

SVI Theme 2

SVI Theme 3

SVI Theme 4

SVI Overall

12081000705

3,003

55.8%

5,605

3,170

77.8%

99.7%

75.7%

91.8%

96.1%

12081000704

2,547

35.5%

7,307

2,374

89.0%

97.4%

81.5%

96.0%

98.2%

12081001300

1,815

52.5%

3,955

2,088

83.1%

83.7%

60.8%

87.6%

87.4%

12081001107

1,533

83.0%

4,094

2,280

64.6%

37.4%

13.1%

47.8%

45.1%

12081001602

1,156

63.6%

4,248

2,177

54.0%

24.7%

34.3%

48.6%

42.8%

12081001601

1,014

56.2%

5,145

3,842

47.0%

48.1%

36.1%

25.0%

35.1%

12081001502

999

17.7%

5,946

2,304

68.2%

96.8%

79.1%

97.2%

94.7%

12081001403

980

30.9%

4,753

2,930

58.9%

60.2%

31.6%

87.0%

66.8%

12081002013

805

24.7%

16,587

14,586

19.6%

46.7%

40.0%

16.9%

19.7%

12081002011

777

35.6%

3,892

2,744

49.0%

58.5%

49.7%

61.0%

56.2%

12081001000

645

18.6%

5,815

3,668

72.5%

57.9%

47.7%

39.7%

59.5%

12081001108

624

68.0%

2,784

1,967

27.5%

29.9%

11.9%

70.0%

33.0%

12081001402

585

98.8%

1,560

1,181

48.9%

37.2%

34.8%

35.2%

38.0%

12081001104

543

28.0%

4,526

3,008

34.8%

59.5%

61.0%

36.7%

42.8%

12081001904

502

14.3%

6,123

4,330

55.2%

57.8%

32.1%

69.7%

57.5%

AECOM 189

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Pasco County Figure 67. Pasco 2020 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 68. Pasco 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 190

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 111. Pasco County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index 2070 Index Rank

Census Tract

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 Tide Event Level

SVI Theme 2

SVI Theme 3

SVI Theme 4

SVI Overall

12101030102

1,592

88.4%

2,473

1,390

75.8%

86.7%

12.9%

80.0%

72.8%

12101030301

1,368

94.8%

2,349

1,598

61.4%

62.8%

25.3%

74.2%

61.4%

12101030101

1,332

69.9%

2,840

1,789

62.4%

91.9%

27.3%

66.1%

67.1%

12101030502

1,212

37.9%

4,320

2,242

82.9%

87.4%

43.5%

53.5%

74.0%

12101030205

1,105

83.9%

2,263

1,560

51.9%

67.0%

14.5%

81.2%

58.2%

12101030302

1,098

93.4%

2,082

1,138

66.5%

53.6%

24.5%

59.2%

56.5%

12101030203

1,032

92.0%

1,557

792

85.0%

91.5%

20.0%

55.3%

72.0%

12101030202

935

90.7%

2,900

1,955

56.2%

46.7%

11.0%

33.0%

35.6%

12101031406

777

32.5%

3,002

1,522

79.0%

78.3%

17.3%

94.3%

79.8%

12101030303

707

88.7%

3,438

2,440

38.2%

57.8%

30.8%

11.1%

23.2%

12101030412

631

31.6%

2,766

1,165

71.2%

98.1%

54.6%

37.2%

72.2%

12101031408

575

28.0%

2,623

1,426

70.6%

82.5%

40.2%

87.7%

78.2%

12101030405

551

68.4%

2,061

1,065

55.4%

96.4%

25.7%

6.7%

39.1%

12101030409

436

26.7%

2,634

1,691

63.7%

27.2%

44.2%

76.3%

62.1%

12101030204

432

83.7%

1,227

742

44.8%

83.4%

21.7%

35.7%

42.1%

AECOM 191

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Pinellas County Figure 69. Pinellas 2020 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

Figure 70. Pinellas 2070 10- Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index

AECOM 192

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

Table 112. Pinellas County - Tabular Results 2070 10-Year Tide Event Social Equity & Flood Index 2070 Index Rank

Census Tract

2070 Population 2019 2070 SVI Inundation at 200+% Total AECOM Theme for 10-yr of Poverty Population Index 1 Tide Event Level

SVI Theme 2

SVI Theme 3

SVI Theme 4

SVI Overall

12103024403

3,274

88.8%

4,446

2,532

71.4%

70.6%

45.2%

96.8%

82.9%

12103024408

2,924

90.9%

4,506

2,640

70.0%

70.4%

50.4%

70.2%

71.4%

12103024511

2,892

86.3%

9,058

6,961

36.9%

18.4%

47.0%

51.5%

37.0%

12103024406

2,392

77.0%

5,619

3,865

29.1%

6.9%

66.0%

94.0%

55.3%

12103027502

2,185

42.5%

7,872

5,312

53.3%

95.0%

20.4%

73.0%

65.3%

12103020500

2,172

56.6%

4,309

1,521

96.6%

83.4%

44.6%

81.4%

89.1%

12103024410

2,146

88.8%

3,487

2,459

61.0%

81.5%

53.6%

67.2%

69.3%

12103028104

1,886

89.4%

3,438

2,031

39.5%

71.0%

8.2%

96.6%

61.4%

12103027501

1,516

69.4%

5,695

4,316

21.8%

58.3%

22.0%

69.9%

38.3%

12103027308

1,509

51.2%

4,095

2,365

75.9%

84.1%

20.1%

75.0%

71.9%

12103024413

1,478

65.5%

5,366

3,965

11.2%

29.3%

35.9%

91.0%

42.1%

12103020105

1,467

58.8%

5,262

3,251

32.8%

23.6%

39.9%

80.8%

47.5%

12103028003

1,221

88.6%

3,049

2,336

41.2%

35.6%

17.1%

76.6%

45.2%

12103024510

1,128

20.0%

5,880

1,138

97.9%

57.5%

73.6%

96.7%

96.1%

12103025004

1,080

19.7%

6,378

3,480

59.6%

83.0%

59.7%

98.6%

85.9%

AECOM 193

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

General Limiting Conditions AECOM devoted effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) the time and budget available for its work, to have the data contained in this report be accurate as of the date of its preparation. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, the Client's agents and representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting this study. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained herein unless it is separately retained to do so pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and the Client. AECOM’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporation, nor their respective affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods disclosed in this document. Any recipient of this document other than the Client, by their acceptance or use of this document, releases AECOM, its parent corporation, and its and their affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential or special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty (express or implied), tort or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence and strict liability. This report may not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. This study may not be used for purposes other than those for which it was prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the name of "AECOM" in any manner without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically identified in the agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client or a party so authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from (project name) resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of consumers or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects. This document may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of this study and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in this study. These factors are beyond AECOM’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will be achieved. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations.

AECOM 194

The Business Case for Resilience in Tampa Bay

AECOM 195