Florida Senate - 2017 SB 1590
By Senator Latvala
16-00086B-17 20171590__
1
2 A bill to be entitled
3 An act relating to coastal management; amending s.
4 161.101, F.S.; revising the criteria to be considered
5 by the Department of Environmental Protection in
6 determining and assigning annual funding priorities
7 for beach management and erosion control projects;
8 specifying tiers for such criteria; requiring tiers to
9 be given certain weight; requiring the department to
10 update active project lists on its website; redefining
11 the term “significant change”; revising the
12 department’s reporting requirements; specifying
13 allowable uses for certain surplus funds; revising the
14 requirements for a specified summary; requiring that
15 funding for certain projects remain available for a
16 specified period; amending s. 161.143, F.S.;
17 specifying the scope of certain projects; revising the
18 list of projects that are included as inlet management
19 projects; requiring that certain projects be
20 considered separate and apart from other specified
21 projects; revising the ranking criteria to be used by
22 the department to establish certain funding priorities
23 for certain inlet-caused beach erosion projects;
24 revising provisions authorizing the department to
25 spend certain appropriated funds for the management of
26 inlets; deleting a provision authorizing the
27 department to spend certain appropriated funds for
28 specified inlet studies; revising the required
29 elements of the department’s report of prioritized
30 inlet management projects; revising the funds that the
31 department must make available to certain inlet
32 management projects; requiring the department to
33 include specified activities on the inlet management
34 project list; deleting provisions requiring the
35 department to make available funding for specified
36 projects; deleting a requirement that the Legislature
37 designate a project as an Inlet of the Year; requiring
38 the department to update and maintain a report
39 regarding the progress of certain inlet management
40 projects; revising the requirements for the report;
41 deleting certain temporary provisions relating to
42 specified appropriations; amending s. 161.161, F.S.;
43 revising requirements for the comprehensive long-term
44 management plan; requiring the plan to include a
45 strategic beach management plan, a critically eroded
46 beaches report, and a statewide long-range budget
47 plan; providing for the development and maintenance of
48 such plans; deleting a requirement that the department
49 submit a certain beach management plan on a certain
50 date each year; requiring the department to hold a
51 public meeting before finalization of the strategic
52 beach management plan; requiring the department to
53 submit a 3-year work plan and a related forecast for
54 the availability of funding to the Legislature;
55 amending s. 375.041, F.S.; requiring certain funds
56 from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to be used for
57 projects that preserve and repair state beaches;
58 providing an effective date.
59
60 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
61
62 Section 1. Subsections (14) and (20) of section 161.101,
63 Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
64 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
65 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
66 control.—
67 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and
68 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to
69 direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most
70 severely eroded beaches, and to prevent further adverse impact
71 caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal
72 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual
73 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal
74 input from local coastal governments, beach and general
75 government interest groups, and university experts. The
76 department shall adopt by rule a scoring system to determine
77 annual project funding priorities. The scoring system must
78 consist of the following criteria equally weighted within the
79 following specified tiers criteria to be considered by the
80 department in determining annual funding priorities shall
81 include:
82 (a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score
83 and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the
84 severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland
85 development, and recreational and/or economic impact of the
86 project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of
87 the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the
88 amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The
89 economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism
90 related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax
91 revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate
92 these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax
93 data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If
94 multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the
95 department must assess each county individually using these
96 ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these
97 ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the
98 multicounty project benefits.
99 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score
100 and consist of the following criteria:
101 1. The availability of federal matching dollars,
102 considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share
103 percentage, and the status of the funding award;.
104 2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based
105 on the following considerations:
106 a. The current conditions of the project area, including
107 any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of
108 sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most
109 recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been
110 previously restored, the department must use the historical
111 background erosion rate;
112 b. The overall potential threat to existing upland
113 development, including public and private structures and
114 infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline
115 within the project boundaries; and
116 c. The value of upland property benefiting from the
117 protection provided by the project and its subsequent
118 maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the
119 project boundaries to be considered under the criterion
120 specified in this subparagraph; and
121 3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the
122 yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill
123 placement. The department shall also consider the following when
124 assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph:
125 a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or
126 design components to extend the beach nourishment interval;
127 b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland
128 storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune
129 structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation
130 projects;
131 c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce
132 project costs; and
133 d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination
134 to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs.
135 (c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score
136 and consist of the following criteria: The extent of local
137 government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to
138 the project, including a long-term financial plan with a
139 designated funding source or sources for initial construction
140 and periodic maintenance.
141 1.(d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the
142 project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount
143 of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations
144 for the proposed project;
145 2. The recreational benefits of the project based on:
146 a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and
147 b. The percentage of linear footage within the project
148 boundaries that is zoned:
149 (I) As recreational or open space;
150 (II) For commercial use; or
151 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging
152 establishments;.
153 (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed
154 project, including the frequency of periodic planned
155 nourishment.
156 3.(f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates
157 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on
158 adjacent beaches; and.
159 (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally
160 sensitive applications to reduce erosion.
161 (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or
162 adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.
163 (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach
164 erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,
165 design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of
166 identifiable cost savings.
167 4.(j) The degree to which the project addresses the state’s
168 most significant beach erosion problems based on the ratio of
169 the linear footage of the project shoreline to the cubic yards
170 of sand placed per mile per year.
171 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score
172 and consist of the following criteria:
173 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on
174 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and
175 that have not previously secured state funding for project
176 implementation;
177 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or
178 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered
179 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring or
180 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens
181 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle
182 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with
183 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of
184 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to
185 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to
186 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered;
187 and
188 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a
189 timely manner considering the project’s readiness for the
190 construction phase of development, the status of required
191 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the
192 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of
193 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific
194 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not
195 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to
196 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted
197 to the Legislature.
198
199 If In the event that more than one project qualifies equally
200 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall
201 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be most that
202 are ready to proceed.
203 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists,
204 updated at least quarterly, listings on its website by fiscal
205 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects
206 receiving funding and the funding amounts, and to facilitate
207 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this
208 intent:
209 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the
210 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes
211 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested
212 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included
213 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant
214 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes
215 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or
216 that exceed those changes exceeding 25 percent of the a
217 project’s original allocation.
218 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is
219 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and
220 supporting justification shall be provided to the Executive
221 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether
222 surplus additional dollars are intended to be used for inlet
223 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach
224 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for
225 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used
226 for other specified priority projects on active project lists.
227 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a
228 significant change, the department may use such funds for the
229 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department shall
230 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of
231 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is
232 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does
233 not have a significant change.
234 (b) The department shall prepare a summary of specific
235 project activities for the current fiscal year, their funding
236 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and
237 preceding fiscal year. shall be prepared by The department shall
238 include the summary and included with the department’s
239 submission of its annual legislative budget request.
240 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists
241 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such
242 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time
243 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by
244 formal notification to the department. The department, which
245 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the
246 Legislature of such release and. Notification must indicate in
247 the notification how the project dollars are recommended
248 intended to be used after such release.
249 Section 2. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143,
250 Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
251 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding,
252 approving, and implementing projects.—
253 (2) The department shall establish annual funding
254 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning
255 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the
256 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of
257 include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing,
258 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing,
259 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair,
260 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision,
261 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan.
262 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section shall
263 be considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and
264 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities
265 established by the department under this section must be
266 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in
267 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing
268 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting
269 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under
270 subsection (4) (5), the department shall seek formal input from
271 local coastal governments, beach and general government
272 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university
273 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet
274 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of
275 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of
276 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to
277 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other
278 projects concerning inlet management must include equal
279 consideration of:
280 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality
281 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or
282 inlet channel.
283 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches
284 caused by the inlet and the extent to which the proposed project
285 mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet.
286 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the
287 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet,
288 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches,
289 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected
290 shorelines.
291 (d) The extent to which existing bypassing activities at an
292 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements
293 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed
294 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not
295 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with
296 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained.
297 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a
298 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other
299 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet
300 caused beach erosion The interest and commitment of local
301 governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate
302 the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet
303 management project and their financial plan for funding the
304 local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand
305 bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance.
306 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updated The
307 previous completion or approval of a state-sponsored inlet
308 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study
309 addressing concerning the inlet addressed by the proposed
310 project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or
311 study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s
312 recommendations concerning the mitigation of an inlet’s erosive
313 effects on adjacent beaches.
314 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance
315 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment
316 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic
317 nourishment projects.
318 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the
319 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies,
320 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not
321 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g).
322 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations
323 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major
324 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating
325 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing
326 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction
327 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local
328 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major
329 inlet management project component must be shared equally by
330 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.
331 161.101 and notwithstanding s. 161.101(15), pay from legislative
332 appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the
333 total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a
334 study, activity, or other project concerning the management of
335 an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or
336 special districts having jurisdiction over the property where
337 the inlet is located.
338 (4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide
339 beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed
340 capital outlay funding request, the department may employ
341 university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100
342 percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the
343 legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:
344 (a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general
345 consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be
346 used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet
347 management projects; and
348 (b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities
349 between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a
350 particular inlet on adjacent beaches.
351 (4)(5) The department shall annually provide an inlet
352 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature
353 as part of the department’s budget request. The list must
354 include studies, projects, or other activities that address the
355 management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked
356 according to the criteria established under subsection (2).
357 (a) The department shall designate for make available at
358 least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature
359 appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management
360 for the three highest-ranked projects on the current year’s
361 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that
362 is at least equal to the greater of:
363 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature
364 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management;
365 or
366 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from
367 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide
368 beach management dollars requested in a given year.
369 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring
370 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one
371 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project
372 list make available at least 50 percent of the funds
373 appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the
374 department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects
375 on the current year’s inlet management project list which
376 involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet
377 management project.
378 (c) The department shall make available all statewide beach
379 management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to
380 non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively
381 approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local
382 government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by
383 the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a
384 period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an
385 assessment and the department’s determination that a project
386 will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such
387 funds shall be used for inlet management projects on
388 legislatively approved lists.
389 (5)(d) The Legislature shall designate one of the three
390 highest projects on the inlet management project list in any
391 year as the Inlet of the Year. The department shall update and
392 maintain an annual annually report on its website to the
393 Legislature concerning the extent to which each inlet project
394 designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Year has succeeded
395 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent
396 beaches and in, mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on
397 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the
398 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred, and transferring or
399 otherwise placed placing beach-quality sand on adjacent eroding
400 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of
401 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this
402 state.
403 (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), and for the
404 2016-2017 fiscal year only, the amount allocated for inlet
405 management funding is provided in the 2016-2017 General
406 Appropriations Act. This paragraph expires July 1, 2017.
407 Section 3. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 161.161,
408 Florida Statutes, are amended, and present subsections (3)
409 through (7) are redesignated as subsections (4) through (8),
410 respectively, to read:
411 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.—
412 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a
413 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the
414 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded
415 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits
416 of Florida. In developing and maintaining this the beach
417 management plan, the department shall:
418 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of
419 critically eroded beaches in this state.
420 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and
421 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach
422 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a
423 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:
424 1. the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and
425 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet,
426 including, but not limited to, recommendations regarding inlet
427 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate
428 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design,
429 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches;
430 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and
431 2. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective
432 measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the
433 beneficiaries of such inlet.
434 (c) Evaluate Design criteria for beach restoration and
435 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:
436 1. dune elevation and width and revegetation and
437 stabilization requirements,; and
438 2. beach profiles profile.
439 (d) Consider Evaluate the establishment of regional
440 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual
441 beach and inlet sand bypassing projects feeder beaches as an
442 alternative to direct beach restoration when appropriate and
443 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional
444 sediment management alternatives feeder beaches and the source
445 of beach-compatible sand.
446 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change,
447 determine calculate erosion rates, and maintain an updated list
448 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and
449 investigations of shoreline conditions and project long-term
450 erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and
451 profiles.
452 (f) Identify shoreline development and degree of density
453 and Assess impacts of development and coastal protection
454 shoreline protective structures on shoreline change and erosion.
455 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and
456 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach
457 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax
458 base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance
459 costs.
460 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing
461 beach nourishment projects without dune features or with dunes
462 without adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and
463 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery
464 projects or future dune maintenance events.
465 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop
466 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and
467 nesting locations.
468 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve
469 undeveloped beach and dune systems and, to restore damaged beach
470 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the
471 department shall consider, at a minimum, and to prevent
472 inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating
473 beaches, and consider beach restoration and nourishment,
474 armoring, relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation
475 restoration, and acquisition.
476 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post
477 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans,
478 including repair cost estimates. Establish criteria, including
479 costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative
480 management techniques.
481 (l) Identify and assess Select and recommend appropriate
482 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded
483 sandy beaches in a beach management program.
484 (m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach
485 nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the
486 funding levels needed for such projects.
487 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed
488 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must
489 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a
490 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range
491 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year
492 work plan for beach nourishment projects and inlet management
493 projects that lists planned projects for each of the 3 fiscal
494 years addressed in the work plan.
495 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and
496 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically
497 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plans be prepared at
498 the regional level taking into account based upon areas of
499 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon
500 approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of Florida,
501 such regional plans, along with the 3-year work plan identified
502 in subparagraph (c)1., shall be components of the statewide
503 beach management plan and shall serve as the basis for state
504 funding decisions upon approval in accordance with chapter 86
505 138, Laws of Florida. In accordance with a schedule established
506 for the submission of regional plans by the department, any
507 completed plan must be submitted to the secretary of the
508 department for approval no later than March 1 of each year.
509 These regional plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,
510 recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for
511 implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving
512 consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing
513 districts or other revenue generation measures by state and
514 local governments and the private sector. Prior to finalizing
515 the strategic beach management presenting the plan to the
516 secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public
517 meeting in the region areas for which the plan is prepared or
518 through a publicly noticed webinar. The plan submission schedule
519 shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions
520 to such schedule must be approved in like manner.
521 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed
522 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in
523 paragraph (1)(e).
524 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at
525 least 5 years of planned beach nourishment and inlet management
526 project funding needs as identified, and subsequently refined,
527 by local government sponsors. This plan shall consist of two
528 components:
529 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach nourishment and
530 inlet management projects viable for implementation during the
531 next 3 ensuing fiscal years, as determined by available cost
532 sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory considerations, and
533 the ability of the project to proceed as scheduled. The 3-year
534 work plan must, for each fiscal year, identify proposed projects
535 and their current development status, listing them in priority
536 order based on the applicable criteria established in ss.
537 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding requests and
538 criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2),
539 may be modified as warranted in each successive fiscal year, and
540 such modifications must be documented and submitted to the
541 Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year one projects shall
542 consist of those projects identified for funding consideration
543 in the ensuing fiscal year.
544 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion
545 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may
546 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in
547 priority order; however, the department should identify issues
548 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and
549 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress
550 into the 3-year work plan.
551 (3)(2) Annually, The secretary shall annually present the
552 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be
553 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability
554 of funding for the projects, based on funds dedicated in s.
555 375.041 recommendations for funding beach erosion control
556 projects prioritized according to the criteria established in s.
557 161.101(14).
558 Section 4. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section
559 375.041, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
560 375.041 Land Acquisition Trust Fund.—
561 (3) Funds distributed into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund
562 pursuant to s. 201.15 shall be applied:
563 (b) Of the funds remaining after the payments required
564 under paragraph (a), but before funds may be appropriated,
565 pledged, or dedicated for other uses:
566 1. A minimum of the lesser of 25 percent or $200 million
567 shall be appropriated annually for Everglades projects that
568 implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set
569 forth in s. 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning
570 Project subject to Congressional authorization; the Long-Term
571 Plan as defined in s. 373.4592(2); and the Northern Everglades
572 and Estuaries Protection Program as set forth in s. 373.4595.
573 From these funds, $32 million shall be distributed each fiscal
574 year through the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the South Florida
575 Water Management District for the Long-Term Plan as defined in
576 s. 373.4592(2). After deducting the $32 million distributed
577 under this subparagraph, from the funds remaining, a minimum of
578 the lesser of 76.5 percent or $100 million shall be appropriated
579 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year for the
580 planning, design, engineering, and construction of the
581 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set forth in s.
582 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning Project
583 subject to Congressional authorization. The Department of
584 Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management
585 District shall give preference to those Everglades restoration
586 projects that reduce harmful discharges of water from Lake
587 Okeechobee to the St. Lucie or Caloosahatchee estuaries in a
588 timely manner. For the purpose of performing the calculation
589 provided in this subparagraph, the amount of debt service paid
590 pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds issued after July 1, 2016,
591 for the purposes set forth under paragraph (b) shall be added to
592 the amount remaining after the payments required under paragraph
593 (a). The amount of the distribution calculated shall then be
594 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to
595 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the
596 purposes set forth under this subparagraph.
597 2. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million
598 shall be appropriated annually for spring restoration,
599 protection, and management projects. For the purpose of
600 performing the calculation provided in this subparagraph, the
601 amount of debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds
602 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under
603 paragraph (b) shall be added to the amount remaining after the
604 payments required under paragraph (a). The amount of the
605 distribution calculated shall then be reduced by an amount equal
606 to the debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) on bonds
607 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under this
608 subparagraph.
609 3. The sum of $5 million shall be appropriated annually
610 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year to the St.
611 Johns River Water Management District for projects dedicated to
612 the restoration of Lake Apopka. This distribution shall be
613 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to
614 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the
615 purposes set forth in this subparagraph.
616 4. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million
617 shall be appropriated annually for projects that preserve and
618 repair the state’s beaches as provided in s. 161.091(3). The
619 calculation provided in this subparagraph shall be performed
620 using the same formula as described in subparagraph 2.
621 Section 5. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017.