Florida Senate - 2017 CS for SB 1590
By the Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservation;
and Senators Latvala, Hutson, and Mayfield
592-02736A-17 20171590c1
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to coastal management; amending s.
3 161.101, F.S.; revising the criteria to be considered
4 by the Department of Environmental Protection in
5 determining and assigning annual funding priorities
6 for beach management and erosion control projects;
7 specifying tiers for such criteria; requiring tiers to
8 be given certain weight; requiring the department to
9 update active project lists on its website; redefining
10 the term “significant change”; revising the
11 department’s reporting requirements; specifying
12 allowable uses for certain surplus funds; revising the
13 requirements for a specified summary; requiring that
14 funding for certain projects remain available for a
15 specified period; amending s. 161.143, F.S.;
16 specifying the scope of certain projects; revising the
17 list of projects that are included as inlet management
18 projects; requiring that certain projects be
19 considered separate and apart from other specified
20 projects; revising the ranking criteria to be used by
21 the department to establish certain funding priorities
22 for certain inlet-caused beach erosion projects;
23 revising provisions authorizing the department to
24 spend certain appropriated funds for the management of
25 inlets; deleting a provision authorizing the
26 department to spend certain appropriated funds for
27 specified inlet studies; revising the required
28 elements of the department’s report of prioritized
29 inlet management projects; revising the funds that the
30 department must make available to certain inlet
31 management projects; requiring the department to
32 include specified activities on the inlet management
33 project list; deleting provisions requiring the
34 department to make available funding for specified
35 projects; deleting a requirement that the Legislature
36 designate a project as an Inlet of the Year; requiring
37 the department to update and maintain a report
38 regarding the progress of certain inlet management
39 projects; revising the requirements for the report;
40 deleting certain temporary provisions relating to
41 specified appropriations; amending s. 161.161, F.S.;
42 revising requirements for the comprehensive long-term
43 management plan; requiring the plan to include a
44 strategic beach management plan, a critically eroded
45 beaches report, and a statewide long-range budget
46 plan; providing for the development and maintenance of
47 such plans; deleting a requirement that the department
48 submit a certain beach management plan on a certain
49 date each year; requiring the department to hold a
50 public meeting before finalization of the strategic
51 beach management plan; requiring the department to
52 submit a 3-year work plan and a related forecast for
53 the availability of funding to the Legislature;
54 amending s. 375.041, F.S.; requiring certain funds
55 from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to be used for
56 projects that preserve and repair state beaches;
57 providing effective dates.
58
59 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
60
61 Section 1. Effective July 1, 2018, subsection (14) of
62 section 161.101, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
63 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
64 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
65 control.—
66 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and
67 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to
68 direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most
69 severely eroded beaches, and to prevent further adverse impact
70 caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal
71 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual
72 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal
73 input from local coastal governments, beach and general
74 government interest groups, and university experts. The
75 department shall adopt by rule a scoring system to determine
76 annual project funding priorities. The scoring system must
77 consist of the following criteria equally weighted within the
78 following specified tiers criteria to be considered by the
79 department in determining annual funding priorities shall
80 include:
81 (a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score
82 and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the
83 severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland
84 development, and recreational and/or economic impact of the
85 project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of
86 the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the
87 amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The
88 economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism
89 related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax
90 revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate
91 these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax
92 data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If
93 multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the
94 department must assess each county individually using these
95 ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these
96 ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the
97 multicounty project benefits.
98 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score
99 and consist of the following criteria:
100 1. The availability of federal matching dollars,
101 considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share
102 percentage, and the status of the funding award;.
103 2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based
104 on the following considerations:
105 a. The current conditions of the project area, including
106 any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of
107 sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most
108 recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been
109 previously restored, the department must use the historical
110 background erosion rate;
111 b. The overall potential threat to existing upland
112 development, including public and private structures and
113 infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline
114 within the project boundaries; and
115 c. The value of upland property benefiting from the
116 protection provided by the project and its subsequent
117 maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the
118 project boundaries to be considered under the criterion
119 specified in this subparagraph; and
120 3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the
121 yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill
122 placement. The department shall also consider the following when
123 assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph:
124 a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or
125 design components to extend the beach nourishment interval;
126 b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland
127 storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune
128 structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation
129 projects;
130 c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce
131 project costs; and
132 d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination
133 to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs.
134 (c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score
135 and consist of the following criteria: The extent of local
136 government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to
137 the project, including a long-term financial plan with a
138 designated funding source or sources for initial construction
139 and periodic maintenance.
140 1.(d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the
141 project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount
142 of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations
143 for the proposed project;
144 2. The recreational benefits of the project based on:
145 a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and
146 b. The percentage of linear footage within the project
147 boundaries that is zoned:
148 (I) As recreational or open space;
149 (II) For commercial use; or
150 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging
151 establishments;.
152 (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed
153 project, including the frequency of periodic planned
154 nourishment.
155 3.(f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates
156 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on
157 adjacent beaches; and.
158 (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally
159 sensitive applications to reduce erosion.
160 (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or
161 adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.
162 (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach
163 erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,
164 design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of
165 identifiable cost savings.
166 4.(j) The degree to which the project addresses the state’s
167 most significant beach erosion problems based on the ratio of
168 the linear footage of the project shoreline to the cubic yards
169 of sand placed per mile per year.
170 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score
171 and consist of the following criteria:
172 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on
173 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and
174 that have not previously secured state funding for project
175 implementation;
176 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or
177 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered
178 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring or
179 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens
180 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle
181 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with
182 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of
183 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to
184 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to
185 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered;
186 and
187 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a
188 timely manner considering the project’s readiness for the
189 construction phase of development, the status of required
190 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the
191 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of
192 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific
193 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not
194 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to
195 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted
196 to the Legislature.
197
198 If In the event that more than one project qualifies equally
199 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall
200 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be most that
201 are ready to proceed.
202 Section 2. Subsection (20) of section 161.101, Florida
203 Statutes, is amended to read:
204 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
205 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
206 control.—
207 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists,
208 updated at least quarterly, listings on its website by fiscal
209 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects
210 receiving funding and the funding amounts, and to facilitate
211 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this
212 intent:
213 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the
214 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes
215 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested
216 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included
217 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant
218 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes
219 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or
220 that exceed those changes exceeding 25 percent of the a
221 project’s original allocation.
222 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is
223 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and
224 supporting justification shall be provided to the Executive
225 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether
226 surplus additional dollars are intended to be used for inlet
227 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach
228 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for
229 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used
230 for other specified priority projects on active project lists.
231 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a
232 significant change, the department may use such funds for the
233 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department shall
234 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of
235 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is
236 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does
237 not have a significant change.
238 (b) The department shall prepare a summary of specific
239 project activities for the current fiscal year, their funding
240 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and
241 preceding fiscal year. shall be prepared by The department shall
242 include the summary and included with the department’s
243 submission of its annual legislative budget request.
244 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists
245 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such
246 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time
247 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by
248 formal notification to the department. The department, which
249 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the
250 Legislature of such release and. Notification must indicate in
251 the notification how the project dollars are recommended
252 intended to be used after such release.
253 Section 3. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143,
254 Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
255 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding,
256 approving, and implementing projects.—
257 (2) The department shall establish annual funding
258 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning
259 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the
260 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of
261 include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing,
262 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing,
263 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair,
264 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision,
265 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan.
266 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section shall
267 be considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and
268 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities
269 established by the department under this section must be
270 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in
271 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing
272 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting
273 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under
274 subsection (4) (5), the department shall seek formal input from
275 local coastal governments, beach and general government
276 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university
277 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet
278 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of
279 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of
280 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to
281 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other
282 projects concerning inlet management must include equal
283 consideration of:
284 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality
285 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or
286 inlet channel.
287 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches
288 caused by the inlet and the extent to which the proposed project
289 mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet.
290 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the
291 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet,
292 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches,
293 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected
294 shorelines.
295 (d) The extent to which existing bypassing activities at an
296 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements
297 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed
298 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not
299 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with
300 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained.
301 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a
302 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other
303 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet
304 caused beach erosion The interest and commitment of local
305 governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate
306 the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet
307 management project and their financial plan for funding the
308 local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand
309 bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance.
310 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updated The
311 previous completion or approval of a state-sponsored inlet
312 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study
313 addressing concerning the inlet addressed by the proposed
314 project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or
315 study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s
316 recommendations concerning the mitigation of an inlet’s erosive
317 effects on adjacent beaches.
318 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance
319 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment
320 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic
321 nourishment projects.
322 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the
323 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies,
324 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not
325 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g).
326 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations
327 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major
328 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating
329 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing
330 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction
331 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local
332 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major
333 inlet management project component must be shared equally by
334 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.
335 161.101 and notwithstanding s. 161.101(15), pay from legislative
336 appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the
337 total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a
338 study, activity, or other project concerning the management of
339 an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or
340 special districts having jurisdiction over the property where
341 the inlet is located.
342 (4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide
343 beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed
344 capital outlay funding request, the department may employ
345 university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100
346 percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the
347 legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:
348 (a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general
349 consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be
350 used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet
351 management projects; and
352 (b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities
353 between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a
354 particular inlet on adjacent beaches.
355 (4)(5) The department shall annually provide an inlet
356 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature
357 as part of the department’s budget request. The list must
358 include studies, projects, or other activities that address the
359 management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked
360 according to the criteria established under subsection (2).
361 (a) The department shall designate for make available at
362 least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature
363 appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management
364 for the three highest-ranked projects on the current year’s
365 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that
366 is at least equal to the greater of:
367 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature
368 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management;
369 or
370 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from
371 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide
372 beach management dollars requested in a given year.
373 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring
374 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one
375 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project
376 list make available at least 50 percent of the funds
377 appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the
378 department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects
379 on the current year’s inlet management project list which
380 involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet
381 management project.
382 (c) The department shall make available all statewide beach
383 management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to
384 non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively
385 approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local
386 government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by
387 the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a
388 period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an
389 assessment and the department’s determination that a project
390 will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such
391 funds shall be used for inlet management projects on
392 legislatively approved lists.
393 (5)(d) The Legislature shall designate one of the three
394 highest projects on the inlet management project list in any
395 year as the Inlet of the Year. The department shall update and
396 maintain an annual annually report on its website to the
397 Legislature concerning the extent to which each inlet project
398 designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Year has succeeded
399 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent
400 beaches and in, mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on
401 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the
402 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred, and transferring or
403 otherwise placed placing beach-quality sand on adjacent eroding
404 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of
405 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this
406 state.
407 (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), and for the
408 2016-2017 fiscal year only, the amount allocated for inlet
409 management funding is provided in the 2016-2017 General
410 Appropriations Act. This paragraph expires July 1, 2017.
411 Section 4. Effective July 1, 2018, subsections (1) and (2)
412 of section 161.161, Florida Statutes, are amended, and present
413 subsections (3) through (7) are redesignated as subsections (4)
414 through (8), respectively, to read:
415 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.—
416 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a
417 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the
418 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded
419 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits
420 of Florida. In developing and maintaining this the beach
421 management plan, the department shall:
422 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of
423 critically eroded beaches in this state.
424 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and
425 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach
426 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a
427 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:
428 1. the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and
429 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet,
430 including, but not limited to, recommendations regarding inlet
431 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate
432 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design,
433 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches;
434 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and
435 2. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective
436 measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the
437 beneficiaries of such inlet.
438 (c) Evaluate Design criteria for beach restoration and
439 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:
440 1. dune elevation and width and revegetation and
441 stabilization requirements,; and
442 2. beach profiles profile.
443 (d) Consider Evaluate the establishment of regional
444 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual
445 beach and inlet sand bypassing projects feeder beaches as an
446 alternative to direct beach restoration when appropriate and
447 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional
448 sediment management alternatives feeder beaches and the source
449 of beach-compatible sand.
450 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change,
451 determine calculate erosion rates, and maintain an updated list
452 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and
453 investigations of shoreline conditions and project long-term
454 erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and
455 profiles.
456 (f) Identify shoreline development and degree of density
457 and Assess impacts of development and coastal protection
458 shoreline protective structures on shoreline change and erosion.
459 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and
460 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach
461 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax
462 base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance
463 costs.
464 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing
465 beach nourishment projects without dune features or with dunes
466 without adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and
467 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery
468 projects or future dune maintenance events.
469 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop
470 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and
471 nesting locations.
472 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve
473 undeveloped beach and dune systems and, to restore damaged beach
474 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the
475 department shall consider, at a minimum, and to prevent
476 inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating
477 beaches, and consider beach restoration and nourishment,
478 armoring, relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation
479 restoration, and acquisition.
480 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post
481 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans,
482 including repair cost estimates. Establish criteria, including
483 costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative
484 management techniques.
485 (l) Identify and assess Select and recommend appropriate
486 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded
487 sandy beaches in a beach management program.
488 (m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach
489 nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the
490 funding levels needed for such projects.
491 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed
492 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must
493 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a
494 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range
495 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year
496 work plan for beach nourishment projects and inlet management
497 projects that lists planned projects for each of the 3 fiscal
498 years addressed in the work plan.
499 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and
500 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically
501 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plans be prepared at
502 the regional level taking into account based upon areas of
503 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon
504 approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of Florida,
505 such regional plans, along with the 3-year work plan identified
506 in subparagraph (c)1., shall be components of the statewide
507 beach management plan and shall serve as the basis for state
508 funding decisions upon approval in accordance with chapter 86
509 138, Laws of Florida. In accordance with a schedule established
510 for the submission of regional plans by the department, any
511 completed plan must be submitted to the secretary of the
512 department for approval no later than March 1 of each year.
513 These regional plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,
514 recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for
515 implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving
516 consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing
517 districts or other revenue generation measures by state and
518 local governments and the private sector. Prior to finalizing
519 the strategic beach management presenting the plan to the
520 secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public
521 meeting in the region areas for which the plan is prepared or
522 through a publicly noticed webinar. The plan submission schedule
523 shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions
524 to such schedule must be approved in like manner.
525 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed
526 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in
527 paragraph (1)(e).
528 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at
529 least 5 years of planned beach nourishment and inlet management
530 project funding needs as identified, and subsequently refined,
531 by local government sponsors. This plan shall consist of two
532 components:
533 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach nourishment and
534 inlet management projects viable for implementation during the
535 next 3 ensuing fiscal years, as determined by available cost
536 sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory considerations, and
537 the ability of the project to proceed as scheduled. The 3-year
538 work plan must, for each fiscal year, identify proposed projects
539 and their current development status, listing them in priority
540 order based on the applicable criteria established in ss.
541 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding requests and
542 criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2),
543 may be modified as warranted in each successive fiscal year, and
544 such modifications must be documented and submitted to the
545 Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year one projects shall
546 consist of those projects identified for funding consideration
547 in the ensuing fiscal year.
548 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion
549 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may
550 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in
551 priority order; however, the department should identify issues
552 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and
553 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress
554 into the 3-year work plan.
555 (3)(2) Annually, The secretary shall annually present the
556 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be
557 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability
558 of funding for the projects, based on funds dedicated in s.
559 375.041 recommendations for funding beach erosion control
560 projects prioritized according to the criteria established in s.
561 161.101(14).
562 Section 5. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section
563 375.041, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
564 375.041 Land Acquisition Trust Fund.—
565 (3) Funds distributed into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund
566 pursuant to s. 201.15 shall be applied:
567 (b) Of the funds remaining after the payments required
568 under paragraph (a), but before funds may be appropriated,
569 pledged, or dedicated for other uses:
570 1. A minimum of the lesser of 25 percent or $200 million
571 shall be appropriated annually for Everglades projects that
572 implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set
573 forth in s. 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning
574 Project subject to Congressional authorization; the Long-Term
575 Plan as defined in s. 373.4592(2); and the Northern Everglades
576 and Estuaries Protection Program as set forth in s. 373.4595.
577 From these funds, $32 million shall be distributed each fiscal
578 year through the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the South Florida
579 Water Management District for the Long-Term Plan as defined in
580 s. 373.4592(2). After deducting the $32 million distributed
581 under this subparagraph, from the funds remaining, a minimum of
582 the lesser of 76.5 percent or $100 million shall be appropriated
583 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year for the
584 planning, design, engineering, and construction of the
585 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set forth in s.
586 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning Project
587 subject to Congressional authorization. The Department of
588 Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management
589 District shall give preference to those Everglades restoration
590 projects that reduce harmful discharges of water from Lake
591 Okeechobee to the St. Lucie or Caloosahatchee estuaries in a
592 timely manner. For the purpose of performing the calculation
593 provided in this subparagraph, the amount of debt service paid
594 pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds issued after July 1, 2016,
595 for the purposes set forth under paragraph (b) shall be added to
596 the amount remaining after the payments required under paragraph
597 (a). The amount of the distribution calculated shall then be
598 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to
599 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the
600 purposes set forth under this subparagraph.
601 2. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million
602 shall be appropriated annually for spring restoration,
603 protection, and management projects. For the purpose of
604 performing the calculation provided in this subparagraph, the
605 amount of debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds
606 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under
607 paragraph (b) shall be added to the amount remaining after the
608 payments required under paragraph (a). The amount of the
609 distribution calculated shall then be reduced by an amount equal
610 to the debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) on bonds
611 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under this
612 subparagraph.
613 3. The sum of $5 million shall be appropriated annually
614 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year to the St.
615 Johns River Water Management District for projects dedicated to
616 the restoration of Lake Apopka. This distribution shall be
617 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to
618 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the
619 purposes set forth in this subparagraph.
620 4. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million
621 shall be appropriated annually for projects that preserve and
622 repair the state’s beaches as provided in s. 161.091(3). The
623 calculation provided in this subparagraph shall be performed
624 using the same formula as described in subparagraph 2.
625 Section 6. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this
626 act shall take effect July 1, 2017.