Bill Text: FL S0174 | 2018 | Regular Session | Comm Sub
Bill Title: Coastal Management
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Failed) 2018-03-10 - Died in Messages [S0174 Detail]
Download: Florida-2018-S0174-Comm_Sub.html
Florida Senate - 2018 CS for SB 174
By the Committee on Appropriations; and Senators Hukill, Book,
Hutson, Mayfield, and Taddeo
576-02688-18 2018174c1
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 providing effective dates.
55
56 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
57
58 Section 1. Effective July 1, 2019, subsection (14) of
59 section 161.101, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
60 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
61 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
62 control.—
63 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and
64 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to
65 direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most
66 severely eroded beaches, and to prevent further adverse impact
67 caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal
68 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual
69 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal
70 input from local coastal governments, beach and general
71 government interest groups, and university experts. The
72 department shall adopt by rule a scoring system to determine
73 annual project funding priorities. The scoring system must
74 consist of the following criteria equally weighted within the
75 following specified tiers criteria to be considered by the
76 department in determining annual funding priorities shall
77 include:
78 (a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score
79 and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the
80 severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland
81 development, and recreational and/or economic impact of the
82 project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of
83 the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the
84 amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The
85 economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism
86 related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax
87 revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate
88 these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax
89 data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If
90 multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the
91 department must assess each county individually using these
92 ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these
93 ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the
94 multicounty project benefits.
95 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score
96 and consist of the following criteria:
97 1. The availability of federal matching dollars,
98 considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share
99 percentage, and the status of the funding award;.
100 2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based
101 on the following considerations:
102 a. The current conditions of the project area, including
103 any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of
104 sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most
105 recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been
106 previously restored, the department must use the historical
107 background erosion rate;
108 b. The overall potential threat to existing upland
109 development, including public and private structures and
110 infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline
111 within the project boundaries; and
112 c. The value of upland property benefiting from the
113 protection provided by the project and its subsequent
114 maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the
115 project boundaries to be considered under the criterion
116 specified in this sub-subparagraph; and
117 3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the
118 yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill
119 placement. The department shall also consider the following when
120 assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph:
121 a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or
122 design components to extend the beach nourishment interval;
123 b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland
124 storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune
125 structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation
126 projects;
127 c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce
128 project costs; and
129 d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination
130 to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs.
131 (c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score
132 and consist of the following criteria: The extent of local
133 government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to
134 the project, including a long-term financial plan with a
135 designated funding source or sources for initial construction
136 and periodic maintenance.
137 1.(d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the
138 project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount
139 of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations
140 for the proposed project;
141 2. The recreational benefits of the project based on:
142 a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and
143 b. The percentage of linear footage within the project
144 boundaries that is zoned:
145 (I) As recreational or open space;
146 (II) For commercial use; or
147 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging
148 establishments;.
149 (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed
150 project, including the frequency of periodic planned
151 nourishment.
152 3.(f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates
153 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on
154 adjacent beaches; and.
155 (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally
156 sensitive applications to reduce erosion.
157 (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or
158 adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.
159 (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach
160 erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,
161 design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of
162 identifiable cost savings.
163 4.(j) The degree to which the project addresses the state’s
164 most significant beach erosion problems as a function of the
165 linear footage of the project shoreline and the cubic yards of
166 sand placed per mile per year.
167 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score
168 and consist of the following criteria:
169 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on
170 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and
171 that have not previously secured state funding for project
172 implementation;
173 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or
174 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered
175 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring or
176 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens
177 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle
178 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with
179 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of
180 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to
181 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to
182 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered;
183 and
184 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a
185 timely manner, considering the project’s readiness for the
186 construction phase of development, the status of required
187 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the
188 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of
189 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific
190 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not
191 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to
192 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted
193 to the Legislature.
194
195 If In the event that more than one project qualifies equally
196 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall
197 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be most that
198 are ready to proceed.
199 Section 2. Subsection (20) of section 161.101, Florida
200 Statutes, is amended to read:
201 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
202 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
203 control.—
204 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists,
205 updated at least quarterly, listings on its website by fiscal
206 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects
207 receiving funding and the funding amounts, and to facilitate
208 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this
209 intent:
210 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the
211 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes
212 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested
213 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included
214 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant
215 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes
216 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or
217 that exceed those changes exceeding 25 percent of the a
218 project’s original allocation.
219 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is
220 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and
221 supporting justification shall be provided to the Executive
222 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether
223 surplus additional dollars are intended to be used for inlet
224 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach
225 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for
226 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used
227 for other specified priority projects on active project lists.
228 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a
229 significant change, the department may use such funds for the
230 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department shall
231 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of
232 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is
233 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does
234 not have a significant change.
235 (b) The department shall prepare a summary of specific
236 project activities for the current fiscal year, their funding
237 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and
238 preceding fiscal year. shall be prepared by The department shall
239 include the summary and included with the department’s
240 submission of its annual legislative budget request.
241 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists
242 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such
243 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time
244 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by
245 formal notification to the department. The department, which
246 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the
247 Legislature of such release and. Notification must indicate in
248 the notification how the project dollars are recommended
249 intended to be used after such release.
250 Section 3. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143,
251 Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
252 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding,
253 approving, and implementing projects.—
254 (2) The department shall establish annual funding
255 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning
256 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the
257 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of
258 include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing,
259 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing,
260 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair,
261 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision,
262 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan.
263 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section shall
264 be considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and
265 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities
266 established by the department under this section must be
267 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in
268 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing
269 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting
270 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under
271 subsection (4) (5), the department shall seek formal input from
272 local coastal governments, beach and general government
273 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university
274 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet
275 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of
276 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of
277 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to
278 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other
279 projects concerning inlet management must include equal
280 consideration of:
281 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality
282 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or
283 inlet channel.
284 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches
285 caused by the inlet and the extent to which the proposed project
286 mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet.
287 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the
288 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet,
289 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches,
290 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected
291 shorelines.
292 (d) The extent to which existing bypassing activities at an
293 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements
294 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed
295 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not
296 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with
297 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained.
298 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a
299 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other
300 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet
301 caused beach erosion The interest and commitment of local
302 governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate
303 the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet
304 management project and their financial plan for funding the
305 local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand
306 bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance.
307 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updated The
308 previous completion or approval of a state-sponsored inlet
309 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study
310 addressing concerning the inlet addressed by the proposed
311 project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or
312 study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s
313 recommendations concerning the mitigation of an inlet’s erosive
314 effects on adjacent beaches.
315 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance
316 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment
317 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic
318 nourishment projects.
319 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the
320 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies,
321 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not
322 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g).
323 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations
324 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major
325 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating
326 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing
327 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction
328 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local
329 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major
330 inlet management project component must be shared equally by
331 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.
332 161.101 and notwithstanding s. 161.101(15), pay from legislative
333 appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the
334 total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a
335 study, activity, or other project concerning the management of
336 an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or
337 special districts having jurisdiction over the property where
338 the inlet is located.
339 (4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide
340 beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed
341 capital outlay funding request, the department may employ
342 university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100
343 percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the
344 legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:
345 (a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general
346 consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be
347 used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet
348 management projects; and
349 (b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities
350 between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a
351 particular inlet on adjacent beaches.
352 (4)(5) The department shall annually provide an inlet
353 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature
354 as part of the department’s budget request. The list must
355 include studies, projects, or other activities that address the
356 management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked
357 according to the criteria established under subsection (2).
358 (a) The department shall designate for make available at
359 least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature
360 appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management
361 for the three highest-ranked projects on the current year’s
362 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that
363 is at least equal to the greater of:
364 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature
365 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management;
366 or
367 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from
368 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide
369 beach management dollars requested in a given year.
370 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring
371 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one
372 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project
373 list make available at least 50 percent of the funds
374 appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the
375 department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects
376 on the current year’s inlet management project list which
377 involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet
378 management project.
379 (c) The department shall make available all statewide beach
380 management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to
381 non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively
382 approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local
383 government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by
384 the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a
385 period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an
386 assessment and the department’s determination that a project
387 will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such
388 funds shall be used for inlet management projects on
389 legislatively approved lists.
390 (5)(d) The Legislature shall designate one of the three
391 highest projects on the inlet management project list in any
392 year as the Inlet of the Year. The department shall update and
393 maintain an annual annually report on its website to the
394 Legislature concerning the extent to which each inlet project
395 designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Year has succeeded
396 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent
397 beaches and in, mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on
398 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the
399 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred, and transferring or
400 otherwise placed placing beach-quality sand on adjacent eroding
401 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of
402 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this
403 state.
404 (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), and for the
405 2016-2017 fiscal year only, the amount allocated for inlet
406 management funding is provided in the 2016-2017 General
407 Appropriations Act. This paragraph expires July 1, 2017.
408 Section 4. Effective July 1, 2019, subsection (1) and
409 present subsection (2) of section 161.161, Florida Statutes, are
410 amended, a new subsection (2) is added to that section, and
411 present subsections (2) through (7) are redesignated as
412 subsections (3) through (8), respectively, to read:
413 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.—
414 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a
415 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the
416 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded
417 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits
418 of Florida. In developing and maintaining this the beach
419 management plan, the department shall:
420 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of
421 critically eroded beaches in this state.
422 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and
423 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach
424 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a
425 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:
426 1. the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and
427 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet,
428 including, but not limited to, recommendations regarding inlet
429 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate
430 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design,
431 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches;
432 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and
433 2. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective
434 measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the
435 beneficiaries of such inlet.
436 (c) Evaluate Design criteria for beach restoration and
437 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:
438 1. dune elevation and width and revegetation and
439 stabilization requirements,; and
440 2. beach profiles profile.
441 (d) Consider Evaluate the establishment of regional
442 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual
443 beach and inlet sand bypassing projects feeder beaches as an
444 alternative to direct beach restoration when appropriate and
445 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional
446 sediment management alternatives feeder beaches and the source
447 of beach-compatible sand.
448 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change,
449 determine calculate erosion rates, and maintain an updated list
450 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and
451 investigations of shoreline conditions and project long-term
452 erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and
453 profiles.
454 (f) Identify shoreline development and degree of density
455 and Assess impacts of development and coastal protection
456 shoreline protective structures on shoreline change and erosion.
457 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and
458 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach
459 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax
460 base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance
461 costs.
462 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing
463 beach projects without dune features or with dunes without
464 adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and
465 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery
466 projects or future dune maintenance events.
467 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop
468 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and
469 nesting locations.
470 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve
471 undeveloped beach and dune systems and, to restore damaged beach
472 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the
473 department shall consider, at a minimum, and to prevent
474 inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating
475 beaches, and consider beach restoration and nourishment,
476 armoring, relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation
477 restoration, and acquisition.
478 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post
479 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans,
480 including repair cost estimates Establish criteria, including
481 costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative
482 management techniques.
483 (l) Identify and assess Select and recommend appropriate
484 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded
485 sandy beaches in a beach management program.
486 (m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach
487 nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the
488 funding levels needed for such projects.
489 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed
490 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must
491 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a
492 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range
493 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year
494 work plan for beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet
495 management projects that lists planned projects for each of the
496 3 fiscal years addressed in the work plan.
497 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and
498 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically
499 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plans be prepared at
500 the regional level, taking into account based upon areas of
501 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon
502 approval in accordance with this section, such regional plans,
503 along with the 3-year work plan identified in subparagraph
504 (c)1., shall be components of the statewide beach management
505 plan and shall serve as the basis for state funding decisions
506 upon approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of
507 Florida. In accordance with a schedule established for the
508 submission of regional plans by the department, any completed
509 plan must be submitted to the secretary of the department for
510 approval no later than March 1 of each year. These regional
511 plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,
512 recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for
513 implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving
514 consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing
515 districts or other revenue generation measures by state and
516 local governments and the private sector. Prior to finalizing
517 the strategic beach management presenting the plan to the
518 secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public
519 meeting in the region areas for which the plan is prepared or
520 through a publicly noticed webinar. The plan submission schedule
521 shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions
522 to such schedule must be approved in like manner.
523 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed
524 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in
525 paragraph (1)(e).
526 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at
527 least 5 years of planned beach restoration, beach nourishment,
528 and inlet management project funding needs as identified, and
529 subsequently refined, by local government sponsors. This plan
530 shall consist of two components:
531 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach restoration,
532 beach nourishment, and inlet management projects viable for
533 implementation during the next 3 fiscal years, as determined by
534 available cost-sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory
535 considerations, and the ability of the project to proceed as
536 scheduled. The 3-year work plan must, for each fiscal year,
537 identify proposed projects and their current development status,
538 listing them in priority order based on the applicable criteria
539 established in ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding
540 requests and criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and
541 161.143(2), may be modified as warranted in each successive
542 fiscal year, and such modifications must be documented and
543 submitted to the Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year
544 one projects shall consist of those projects identified for
545 funding consideration in the ensuing fiscal year.
546 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion
547 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may
548 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in
549 priority order; however, the department should identify issues
550 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and
551 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress
552 into the 3-year work plan.
553 (3)(2) Annually, The secretary shall annually present the
554 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be
555 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability
556 of funding for the projects recommendations for funding beach
557 erosion control projects prioritized according to the criteria
558 established in s. 161.101(14).
559 Section 5. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this
560 act shall take effect July 1, 2018.
