Bill Text: FL S0446 | 2019 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Coastal Management
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2019-04-24 - Laid on Table, companion bill(s) passed, see CS/HB 325 (Ch. 2019-122) [S0446 Detail]
Download: Florida-2019-S0446-Introduced.html
Florida Senate - 2019 SB 446
By Senator Mayfield
17-00538-19 2019446__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to coastal management; amending s.
3 161.101, F.S.; revising the criteria the Department of
4 Environmental Protection must consider in determining
5 and assigning annual funding priorities for beach
6 management and erosion control projects; specifying
7 tiers for such criteria; requiring tiers to be given
8 certain weight; requiring the department to update
9 active project lists on its website; redefining the
10 term “significant change”; revising the department’s
11 reporting requirements; specifying allowable uses for
12 certain surplus funds; revising the requirements for a
13 specified summary; requiring that funding for certain
14 projects remain available for a specified period;
15 amending s. 161.143, F.S.; specifying the scope of
16 certain projects; revising the list of projects
17 included as inlet management projects; requiring that
18 certain projects be considered separate and apart from
19 other specified projects; revising the ranking
20 criteria to be used by the department to establish
21 certain funding priorities for certain inlet-caused
22 beach erosion projects; revising provisions
23 authorizing the department to spend certain
24 appropriated funds for the management of inlets;
25 deleting a provision authorizing the department to
26 spend certain appropriated funds for specified inlet
27 studies; revising the required elements of the
28 department’s report of prioritized inlet management
29 projects; revising the funds that the department must
30 make available to certain inlet management projects;
31 requiring the department to include specified
32 activities on the inlet management project list;
33 deleting provisions requiring the department to make
34 available funding for specified projects; deleting a
35 requirement that the Legislature designate a project
36 as an Inlet of the Year; requiring the department to
37 update and maintain a report regarding the progress of
38 certain inlet management projects; deleting certain
39 temporary provisions relating to specified
40 appropriations; revising the requirements for the
41 report; amending s. 161.161, F.S.; revising
42 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, 2020, 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 economic impact of the project. The return on investment of the
81 project is the ratio of the tourism-related tax revenues for the
82 most recent year to the amount of state funding requested for
83 the proposed project. The economic impact of the project is the
84 ratio of the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent
85 year to all county tax revenues for the most recent year. The
86 department must calculate these ratios using state sales tax and
87 tourism development tax data of the county having jurisdiction
88 over the project area. If multiple counties have jurisdiction
89 over the project area, the department must assess each county
90 individually using these ratios. The department shall calculate
91 the mean average of these ratios to determine the final overall
92 assessment for the multicounty project the severity of erosion
93 conditions, the threat to existing upland development, and
94 recreational and/or economic benefits.
95 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score
96 and consist of all 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.
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 all of the following criteria: The extent of
133 local government sponsor financial and administrative commitment
134 to 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 which is zoned:
145 (I) As recreational or open space;
146 (II) For commercial use; or
147 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging establishments.
148 (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed
149 project, including the frequency of periodic planned
150 nourishment.
151 3.(f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates
152 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on
153 adjacent beaches.
154 (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally
155 sensitive applications to reduce erosion.
156 (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or
157 adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.
158 (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach
159 erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,
160 design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of
161 identifiable cost savings.
162 4.(j) The degree to which the project addresses the state’s
163 most significant beach erosion problems as a function of the
164 linear footage of the project shoreline and the cubic yards of
165 sand placed per mile per year.
166 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score
167 and consist of all of the following criteria:
168 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on
169 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and
170 that have not previously secured state funding for project
171 implementation.
172 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or
173 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered
174 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring, or
175 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens
176 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle
177 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with
178 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of
179 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to
180 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to
181 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered.
182 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a
183 timely manner, considering the project’s readiness for the
184 construction phase of development, the status of required
185 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the
186 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of
187 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific
188 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not
189 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to
190 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted
191 to the Legislature.
192
193 If In the event that more than one project qualifies equally
194 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall
195 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be most that
196 are ready to proceed.
197 Section 2. Subsection (20) of section 161.101, Florida
198 Statutes, is amended to read:
199 161.101 State and local participation in authorized
200 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion
201 control.—
202 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists,
203 updated at least quarterly, listings on its website by fiscal
204 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects
205 receiving funding and the funding amounts, and to facilitate
206 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this
207 intent:
208 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the
209 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes
210 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested
211 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included
212 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant
213 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes
214 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or
215 that exceed those changes exceeding 25 percent of the a
216 project’s original allocation.
217 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is
218 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and
219 supporting justification shall be provided to the Executive
220 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether
221 surplus additional dollars are intended to be used for inlet
222 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach
223 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for
224 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used
225 for other specified priority projects on active project lists.
226 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a
227 significant change, the department may use such funds for the
228 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department must
229 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of
230 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is
231 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does
232 not have a significant change.
233 (b) The department shall prepare a summary of specific
234 project activities for the current fiscal year, their funding
235 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and
236 preceding fiscal year. shall be prepared by The department shall
237 include the summary and included with the department’s
238 submission of its annual legislative budget request.
239 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists
240 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such
241 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time
242 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by
243 formal notification to the department. The department, which
244 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the
245 Legislature of such release and. Notification must indicate in
246 the notification how the project dollars are recommended
247 intended to be used after such release.
248 Section 3. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143,
249 Florida Statutes, are amended to read:
250 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding,
251 approving, and implementing projects.—
252 (2) The department shall establish annual funding
253 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning
254 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the
255 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of
256 include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing,
257 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing,
258 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair,
259 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision,
260 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan.
261 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section must be
262 considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and
263 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities
264 established by the department under this section must be
265 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in
266 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing
267 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting
268 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under
269 subsection (4) (5), the department shall seek formal input from
270 local coastal governments, beach and general government
271 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university
272 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet
273 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of
274 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of
275 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to
276 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other
277 projects concerning inlet management must include equal
278 consideration of:
279 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality
280 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or
281 inlet channel.
282 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches
283 caused by the inlet and the extent to which the proposed project
284 mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet.
285 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the
286 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet,
287 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches,
288 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected
289 shorelines.
290 (d) The extent to which existing bypassing activities at an
291 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements
292 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed
293 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not
294 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with
295 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained.
296 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a
297 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other
298 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet
299 caused beach erosion The interest and commitment of local
300 governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate
301 the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet
302 management project and their financial plan for funding the
303 local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand
304 bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance.
305 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updated The
306 previous completion or approval of a state-sponsored inlet
307 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study
308 addressing concerning the inlet addressed by the proposed
309 project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or
310 study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s
311 recommendations concerning the mitigation of an inlet’s erosive
312 effects on adjacent beaches.
313 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance
314 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment
315 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic
316 nourishment projects.
317 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the
318 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies,
319 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not
320 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g).
321 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations
322 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major
323 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating
324 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing
325 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction
326 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local
327 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major
328 inlet management project component must be shared equally by
329 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.
330 161.101 and notwithstanding s. 161.101(15), pay from legislative
331 appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the
332 total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a
333 study, activity, or other project concerning the management of
334 an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or
335 special districts having jurisdiction over the property where
336 the inlet is located.
337 (4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide
338 beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed
339 capital outlay funding request, the department may employ
340 university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100
341 percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the
342 legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:
343 (a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general
344 consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be
345 used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet
346 management projects; and
347 (b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities
348 between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a
349 particular inlet on adjacent beaches.
350 (4)(5) The department shall annually provide an inlet
351 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature
352 as part of the department’s budget request. The list must
353 include studies, projects, or other activities that address the
354 management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked
355 according to the criteria established under subsection (2).
356 (a) The department shall designate for make available at
357 least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature
358 appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management
359 for the three highest-ranked projects on the current year’s
360 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that
361 is at least equal to the greater of:
362 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature
363 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management;
364 or
365 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from
366 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide
367 beach management dollars requested in a given year.
368 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring
369 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one
370 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project
371 list make available at least 50 percent of the funds
372 appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the
373 department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects
374 on the current year’s inlet management project list which
375 involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet
376 management project.
377 (c) The department shall make available all statewide beach
378 management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to
379 non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively
380 approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local
381 government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by
382 the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a
383 period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an
384 assessment and the department’s determination that a project
385 will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such
386 funds shall be used for inlet management projects on
387 legislatively approved lists.
388 (5)(d) The Legislature shall designate one of the three
389 highest projects on the inlet management project list in any
390 year as the Inlet of the Year. The department shall update and
391 maintain an annual annually report on its website to the
392 Legislature concerning the extent to which each inlet project
393 designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Year has succeeded
394 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent
395 beaches and in, mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on
396 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the
397 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred, and transferring or
398 otherwise placed placing beach-quality sand on adjacent eroding
399 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of
400 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this
401 state.
402 Section 4. Effective July 1, 2020, subsection (1) and
403 present subsection (2) of section 161.161, Florida Statutes, are
404 amended, a new subsection (2) is added to that section, and
405 present subsections (2) through (7) are redesignated as
406 subsections (3) through (8), respectively, to read:
407 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.—
408 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a
409 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the
410 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded
411 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits
412 of Florida. In developing and maintaining this the beach
413 management plan, the department shall:
414 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of
415 critically eroded beaches in this state.
416 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and
417 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach
418 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a
419 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:
420 1. the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and
421 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet,
422 including, but not limited to, recommendations regarding inlet
423 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate
424 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design,
425 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches;
426 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and
427 2. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective
428 measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the
429 beneficiaries of such inlet.
430 (c) Evaluate Design criteria for beach restoration and
431 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:
432 1. dune elevation and width and revegetation and
433 stabilization requirements,; and
434 2. beach profiles profile.
435 (d) Consider Evaluate the establishment of regional
436 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual
437 beach and inlet sand bypassing projects feeder beaches as an
438 alternative to direct beach restoration when appropriate and
439 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional
440 sediment management alternatives feeder beaches and the source
441 of beach-compatible sand.
442 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change,
443 determine calculate erosion rates, and maintain an updated list
444 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and
445 investigations of shoreline conditions and project long-term
446 erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and
447 profiles.
448 (f) Identify shoreline development and degree of density
449 and Assess impacts of development and coastal protection
450 shoreline protective structures on shoreline change and erosion.
451 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and
452 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach
453 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax
454 base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance
455 costs.
456 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing
457 beach projects without dune features or with dunes without
458 adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and
459 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery
460 projects or future dune maintenance events.
461 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop
462 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and
463 nesting locations.
464 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve
465 undeveloped beach and dune systems and, to restore damaged beach
466 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the
467 department shall consider, at a minimum, and to prevent
468 inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating
469 beaches, and consider beach restoration and nourishment,
470 armoring, relocation and abandonment, dune and vegetation
471 restoration, and acquisition.
472 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post
473 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans,
474 including repair cost estimates Establish criteria, including
475 costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative
476 management techniques.
477 (l) Identify and assess Select and recommend appropriate
478 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded
479 sandy beaches in a beach management program.
480 (m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach
481 nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the
482 funding levels needed for such projects.
483 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed
484 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must
485 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a
486 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range
487 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year
488 work plan for beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet
489 management projects that lists planned projects for each of the
490 3 fiscal years addressed in the work plan.
491 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and
492 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically
493 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plans be prepared at
494 the regional level, taking into account based upon areas of
495 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon
496 approval in accordance with this section, such regional plans,
497 along with the 3-year work plan identified in subparagraph
498 (c)1., must shall be components of the statewide beach
499 management plan and shall serve as the basis for state funding
500 decisions upon approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws
501 of Florida. Before finalizing the strategic beach management
502 plan In accordance with a schedule established for the
503 submission of regional plans by the department, any completed
504 plan must be submitted to the secretary of the department for
505 approval no later than March 1 of each year. These regional
506 plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,
507 recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for
508 implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving
509 consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing
510 districts or other revenue generation measures by state and
511 local governments and the private sector. Prior to presenting
512 the plan to the secretary of the department, the department
513 shall hold a public meeting in the region areas for which the
514 plan is prepared or hold a publicly noticed webinar. The plan
515 submission schedule shall be submitted to the secretary for
516 approval. Any revisions to such schedule must be approved in
517 like manner.
518 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed
519 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in
520 paragraph (1)(e).
521 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at
522 least 5 years of planned beach restoration, beach nourishment,
523 and inlet management project funding needs as identified, and
524 subsequently refined, by local government sponsors. This plan
525 must consist of two components:
526 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach restoration,
527 beach nourishment, and inlet management projects viable for
528 implementation during the next 3 fiscal years, as determined by
529 available cost-sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory
530 considerations, and the ability of the project to proceed as
531 scheduled. The 3-year work plan must, for each fiscal year,
532 identify proposed projects and their current development status,
533 listing them in priority order based on the applicable criteria
534 established in ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding
535 requests and criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and
536 161.143(2), may be modified as warranted in each successive
537 fiscal year, and such modifications must be documented and
538 submitted to the Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year
539 one projects shall consist of those projects identified for
540 funding consideration in the ensuing fiscal year.
541 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion
542 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may
543 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in
544 priority order; however, the department should identify issues
545 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and
546 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress
547 into the 3-year work plan.
548 (3)(2) Annually, The secretary shall annually present the
549 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be
550 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability
551 of funding for the projects recommendations for funding beach
552 erosion control projects prioritized according to the criteria
553 established in s. 161.101(14).
554 Section 5. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
555 act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2019.
