Bill Text: FL S1590 | 2017 | Regular Session | Introduced
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
Bill Title: Coastal Management
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Failed) 2017-05-05 - Died in Messages [S1590 Detail]
Download: Florida-2017-S1590-Introduced.html
Bill Title: Coastal Management
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Failed) 2017-05-05 - Died in Messages [S1590 Detail]
Download: Florida-2017-S1590-Introduced.html
Florida Senate - 2017 SB 1590 By Senator Latvala 16-00086B-17 20171590__ 1 2 A bill to be entitled 3 An act relating to coastal management; amending s. 4 161.101, F.S.; revising the criteria to be considered 5 by the Department of Environmental Protection in 6 determining and assigning annual funding priorities 7 for beach management and erosion control projects; 8 specifying tiers for such criteria; requiring tiers to 9 be given certain weight; requiring the department to 10 update active project lists on its website; redefining 11 the term “significant change”; revising the 12 department’s reporting requirements; specifying 13 allowable uses for certain surplus funds; revising the 14 requirements for a specified summary; requiring that 15 funding for certain projects remain available for a 16 specified period; amending s. 161.143, F.S.; 17 specifying the scope of certain projects; revising the 18 list of projects that are included as inlet management 19 projects; requiring that certain projects be 20 considered separate and apart from other specified 21 projects; revising the ranking criteria to be used by 22 the department to establish certain funding priorities 23 for certain inlet-caused beach erosion projects; 24 revising provisions authorizing the department to 25 spend certain appropriated funds for the management of 26 inlets; deleting a provision authorizing the 27 department to spend certain appropriated funds for 28 specified inlet studies; revising the required 29 elements of the department’s report of prioritized 30 inlet management projects; revising the funds that the 31 department must make available to certain inlet 32 management projects; requiring the department to 33 include specified activities on the inlet management 34 project list; deleting provisions requiring the 35 department to make available funding for specified 36 projects; deleting a requirement that the Legislature 37 designate a project as an Inlet of the Year; requiring 38 the department to update and maintain a report 39 regarding the progress of certain inlet management 40 projects; revising the requirements for the report; 41 deleting certain temporary provisions relating to 42 specified appropriations; amending s. 161.161, F.S.; 43 revising requirements for the comprehensive long-term 44 management plan; requiring the plan to include a 45 strategic beach management plan, a critically eroded 46 beaches report, and a statewide long-range budget 47 plan; providing for the development and maintenance of 48 such plans; deleting a requirement that the department 49 submit a certain beach management plan on a certain 50 date each year; requiring the department to hold a 51 public meeting before finalization of the strategic 52 beach management plan; requiring the department to 53 submit a 3-year work plan and a related forecast for 54 the availability of funding to the Legislature; 55 amending s. 375.041, F.S.; requiring certain funds 56 from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to be used for 57 projects that preserve and repair state beaches; 58 providing an effective date. 59 60 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 61 62 Section 1. Subsections (14) and (20) of section 161.101, 63 Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 64 161.101 State and local participation in authorized 65 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion 66 control.— 67 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and 68 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to 69 direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most 70 severely eroded beaches,and to prevent further adverse impact 71 caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal 72 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual 73 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal 74 input from local coastal governments, beach and general 75 government interest groups, and university experts. The 76 department shall adopt by rule a scoring system to determine 77 annual project funding priorities. The scoring system must 78 consist of the following criteria equally weighted within the 79 following specified tierscriteria to be considered by the80department in determining annual funding priorities shall81include: 82 (a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score 83 and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the 84severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland85development, and recreational and/oreconomic impact of the 86 project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of 87 the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the 88 amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The 89 economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism 90 related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax 91 revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate 92 these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax 93 data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If 94 multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the 95 department must assess each county individually using these 96 ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these 97 ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the 98 multicounty projectbenefits. 99 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score 100 and consist of the following criteria: 101 1. The availability of federal matching dollars, 102 considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share 103 percentage, and the status of the funding award;.104 2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based 105 on the following considerations: 106 a. The current conditions of the project area, including 107 any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of 108 sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most 109 recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been 110 previously restored, the department must use the historical 111 background erosion rate; 112 b. The overall potential threat to existing upland 113 development, including public and private structures and 114 infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline 115 within the project boundaries; and 116 c. The value of upland property benefiting from the 117 protection provided by the project and its subsequent 118 maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the 119 project boundaries to be considered under the criterion 120 specified in this subparagraph; and 121 3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the 122 yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill 123 placement. The department shall also consider the following when 124 assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph: 125 a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or 126 design components to extend the beach nourishment interval; 127 b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland 128 storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune 129 structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation 130 projects; 131 c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce 132 project costs; and 133 d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination 134 to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs. 135 (c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score 136 and consist of the following criteria:Theextent of local137government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to138the project, including a long-term financial plan with a139designated funding source or sources for initial construction140and periodicmaintenance.141 1.(d)Previous state commitment and involvement in the 142 project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount 143 of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations 144 for the proposed project; 145 2. The recreational benefits of the project based on: 146 a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and 147 b. The percentage of linear footage within the project 148 boundaries that is zoned: 149 (I) As recreational or open space; 150 (II) For commercial use; or 151 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging 152 establishments;.153(e)Theanticipated physical performance of the proposed154project, including the frequency of periodic planned155nourishment.156 3.(f)The extent to which theproposedproject mitigates 157 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on 158 adjacent beaches; and.159(g)Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally160sensitive applications to reduce erosion.161(h)Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or162adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.163(i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach164erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,165design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of166identifiable cost savings.167 4.(j)The degree to which the project addresses the state’s 168 most significant beach erosion problems based on the ratio of 169 the linear footage of the project shoreline to the cubic yards 170 of sand placed per mile per year. 171 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score 172 and consist of the following criteria: 173 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on 174 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and 175 that have not previously secured state funding for project 176 implementation; 177 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or 178 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered 179 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring or 180 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens 181 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle 182 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with 183 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of 184 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to 185 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to 186 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered; 187 and 188 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a 189 timely manner considering the project’s readiness for the 190 construction phase of development, the status of required 191 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the 192 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of 193 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific 194 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not 195 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to 196 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted 197 to the Legislature. 198 199 IfIn the event thatmore than one project qualifies equally 200 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall 201 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be mostthat202areready to proceed. 203 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists, 204 updated at least quarterly,listingson its website by fiscal 205 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects 206 receiving funding and the funding amounts,and to facilitate 207 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this 208 intent: 209 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the 210 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes 211 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested 212 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included 213 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant 214 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes 215 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or 216 that exceedthosechanges exceeding25 percent of thea217 project’s original allocation. 218 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is 219 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and 220 supporting justificationshall be providedto the Executive 221 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether 222 surplusadditionaldollars are intended to be used for inlet 223 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach 224 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for 225 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used 226 for other specified priority projects on active project lists. 227 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a 228 significant change, the department may use such funds for the 229 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department shall 230 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of 231 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is 232 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does 233 not have a significant change. 234 (b) The department shall prepare a summary ofspecific235 project activitiesfor the current fiscal year, their funding 236 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and 237 preceding fiscal year.shall beprepared byThe department shall 238 include the summaryandincludedwith the department’s 239 submission of its annual legislative budget request. 240 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists 241 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such 242 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time 243 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by 244 formal notification to the department. The department, which245 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the 246 Legislature of such release and. Notification mustindicate in 247 the notification how the project dollars are recommended 248intendedto be used after such release. 249 Section 2. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143, 250 Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 251 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding, 252 approving, and implementing projects.— 253 (2) The department shall establish annual funding 254 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning 255 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the 256 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of 257include, but are not limited to,inlet sand bypassing, 258 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing, 259 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair, 260 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision, 261 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan. 262 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section shall 263 be considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and 264 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities 265 established by the department under this section must be 266 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in 267 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing 268 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting 269 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under 270 subsection (4)(5), the department shall seek formal input from 271 local coastal governments, beach and general government 272 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university 273 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet 274 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of 275 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of 276 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to 277 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other 278 projects concerning inlet management must include equal 279 consideration of: 280 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality 281 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or 282 inlet channel. 283 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches 284 caused by the inletand the extent to which the proposed project285mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet. 286 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the 287 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet, 288 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches, 289 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected 290 shorelines. 291 (d) The extent to whichexistingbypassing activities at an 292 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements 293 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed 294 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not 295 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with 296 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained. 297 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a 298 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other 299 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet 300 caused beach erosionThe interest and commitment of local301governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate302the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet303management project and their financial plan for funding the304local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand305bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance. 306 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updatedThe307previous completion or approval of a state-sponsoredinlet 308 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study 309 addressingconcerning the inlet addressed by the proposed310project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or311study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s312recommendations concerningthe mitigation of an inlet’s erosive 313 effects on adjacent beaches. 314 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance 315 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment 316 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic 317 nourishment projects. 318 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the 319 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies, 320 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not 321 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g). 322 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations 323 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major 324 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating 325 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing 326 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction 327 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local 328 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major 329 inlet management project component must be shared equally by 330 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.331161.101 and notwithstandings. 161.101(15), pay from legislative332appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the333total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a334study, activity, or other project concerning the management of335an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or336special districts having jurisdiction over the property where337the inlet is located. 338(4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide339beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed340capital outlay funding request, the department may employ341university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100342percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the343legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:344(a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general345consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be346used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet347management projects; and348(b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities349between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a350particular inlet on adjacent beaches.351 (4)(5)The department shall annually provide an inlet 352 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature 353 as part of the department’s budget request.The list must354include studies, projects, or other activities that address the355management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked356according to the criteria established under subsection (2).357 (a) The department shall designate formakeavailable at358least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature359appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management360forthe three highest-rankedprojects on the current year’s 361 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that 362 is at least equal to the greater of: 363 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature 364 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management; 365 or 366 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from 367 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide 368 beach management dollars requested in a given year. 369 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring 370 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one 371 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project 372 listmake available at least 50 percent of the funds373appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the374department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects375on the current year’s inlet management project list which376involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet377management project. 378(c) The department shall make available all statewide beach379management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to380non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively381approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local382government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by383the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a384period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an385assessment and the department’s determination that a project386will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such387funds shall be used for inlet management projects on388legislatively approved lists.389 (5)(d)The Legislature shall designate one of the three390highest projects on the inlet management project list in any391year as the Inlet of the Year.The department shall update and 392 maintain an annualannuallyreport on its websiteto the393Legislatureconcerning the extent to which each inlet project 394designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Yearhas succeeded 395 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent 396 beaches and in,mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on 397 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the 398 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred,and transferringor 399 otherwise placedplacingbeach-quality sandon adjacent eroding 400 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of 401 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this 402 state. 403(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), and for the4042016-2017 fiscal year only, the amount allocated for inlet405management funding is provided in the 2016-2017 General406Appropriations Act. This paragraph expires July 1, 2017.407 Section 3. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 161.161, 408 Florida Statutes, are amended, and present subsections (3) 409 through (7) are redesignated as subsections (4) through (8), 410 respectively, to read: 411 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.— 412 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a 413 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the 414 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded 415 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits 416 of Florida. In developing and maintaining thisthe beach417managementplan, the department shall: 418 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of 419 critically eroded beaches in this state. 420 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and 421 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach 422 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a 423 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:4241.the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and 425 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet, 426 including, but not limited to,recommendations regardinginlet 427 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate 428 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design, 429 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches; 430 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and4312. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective432measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the433beneficiaries of such inlet. 434 (c) EvaluateDesigncriteria for beach restoration and 435 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:4361.dune elevation and width and revegetation and 437 stabilization requirements,;and 4382.beach profilesprofile. 439 (d) ConsiderEvaluatethe establishment of regional 440 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual 441 beach and inlet sand bypassing projectsfeeder beachesas an 442 alternative todirectbeach restoration when appropriate and 443 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional 444 sediment management alternativesfeeder beachesand the source 445 of beach-compatible sand. 446 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change, 447 determinecalculateerosion rates, and maintain an updated list 448 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and 449 investigations of shoreline conditionsandproject long-term450erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and451profiles. 452 (f)Identify shoreline development and degree of density453andAssess impacts of development and coastal protection 454shorelineprotectivestructures on shoreline change and erosion. 455 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and 456 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach 457 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax458base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance459costs. 460 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing 461 beach nourishment projects without dune features or with dunes 462 without adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and 463 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery 464 projects or future dune maintenance events. 465 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop 466 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and 467 nesting locations. 468 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve 469 undeveloped beach and dune systems and,to restore damaged beach 470 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the 471 department shall consider, at a minimum,andto prevent472inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating473beaches, and considerbeach restoration and nourishment, 474 armoring, relocationand abandonment, dune and vegetation 475 restoration, and acquisition. 476 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post 477 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans, 478 including repair cost estimates.Establish criteria, including479costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative480management techniques.481 (l) Identify and assessSelect and recommendappropriate 482 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded 483 sandy beachesin a beach managementprogram. 484(m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach485nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the486funding levels needed for such projects.487 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed 488 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must 489 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a 490 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range 491 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year 492 work plan for beach nourishment projects and inlet management 493 projects that lists planned projects for each of the 3 fiscal 494 years addressed in the work plan. 495 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and 496 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically 497 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plansbeprepared at 498 the regional level taking into accountbased uponareas of 499 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon 500 approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of Florida, 501 such regional plans, along with the 3-year work plan identified 502 in subparagraph (c)1.,shall be components of the statewide503beach management plan andshallserve as the basis for state 504 funding decisionsupon approval in accordance with chapter 86505138, Laws of Florida.Inaccordance with a schedule established506for the submission of regional plans by the department, any507completed plan must be submitted to the secretary of the508department for approval no later than March 1 of each year.509These regional plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,510recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for511implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving512consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing513districts or other revenue generation measures by state and514local governments and the private sector.Prior to finalizing 515 the strategic beach managementpresenting theplanto the516secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public 517 meeting in the regionareasfor which the plan is prepared or 518 through a publicly noticed webinar.The plan submission schedule519shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions520to such schedule must be approved in like manner.521 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed 522 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in 523 paragraph (1)(e). 524 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at 525 least 5 years of planned beach nourishment and inlet management 526 project funding needs as identified, and subsequently refined, 527 by local government sponsors. This plan shall consist of two 528 components: 529 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach nourishment and 530 inlet management projects viable for implementation during the 531 next 3 ensuing fiscal years, as determined by available cost 532 sharing, local sponsor support, regulatory considerations, and 533 the ability of the project to proceed as scheduled. The 3-year 534 work plan must, for each fiscal year, identify proposed projects 535 and their current development status, listing them in priority 536 order based on the applicable criteria established in ss. 537 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific funding requests and 538 criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2), 539 may be modified as warranted in each successive fiscal year, and 540 such modifications must be documented and submitted to the 541 Legislature with each 3-year work plan. Year one projects shall 542 consist of those projects identified for funding consideration 543 in the ensuing fiscal year. 544 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion 545 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may 546 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in 547 priority order; however, the department should identify issues 548 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and 549 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress 550 into the 3-year work plan. 551 (3)(2)Annually,The secretary shall annually present the 552 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be 553 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability 554 of funding for the projects, based on funds dedicated in s. 555 375.041recommendations for funding beach erosion control556projects prioritized according to the criteria established in s.557161.101(14). 558 Section 4. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 559 375.041, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 560 375.041 Land Acquisition Trust Fund.— 561 (3) Funds distributed into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund 562 pursuant to s. 201.15 shall be applied: 563 (b) Of the funds remaining after the payments required 564 under paragraph (a), but before funds may be appropriated, 565 pledged, or dedicated for other uses: 566 1. A minimum of the lesser of 25 percent or $200 million 567 shall be appropriated annually for Everglades projects that 568 implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set 569 forth in s. 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning 570 Project subject to Congressional authorization; the Long-Term 571 Plan as defined in s. 373.4592(2); and the Northern Everglades 572 and Estuaries Protection Program as set forth in s. 373.4595. 573 From these funds, $32 million shall be distributed each fiscal 574 year through the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the South Florida 575 Water Management District for the Long-Term Plan as defined in 576 s. 373.4592(2). After deducting the $32 million distributed 577 under this subparagraph, from the funds remaining, a minimum of 578 the lesser of 76.5 percent or $100 million shall be appropriated 579 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year for the 580 planning, design, engineering, and construction of the 581 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set forth in s. 582 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning Project 583 subject to Congressional authorization. The Department of 584 Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management 585 District shall give preference to those Everglades restoration 586 projects that reduce harmful discharges of water from Lake 587 Okeechobee to the St. Lucie or Caloosahatchee estuaries in a 588 timely manner. For the purpose of performing the calculation 589 provided in this subparagraph, the amount of debt service paid 590 pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds issued after July 1, 2016, 591 for the purposes set forth under paragraph (b) shall be added to 592 the amount remaining after the payments required under paragraph 593 (a). The amount of the distribution calculated shall then be 594 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to 595 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the 596 purposes set forth under this subparagraph. 597 2. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million 598 shall be appropriated annually for spring restoration, 599 protection, and management projects. For the purpose of 600 performing the calculation provided in this subparagraph, the 601 amount of debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds 602 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under 603 paragraph (b) shall be added to the amount remaining after the 604 payments required under paragraph (a). The amount of the 605 distribution calculated shall then be reduced by an amount equal 606 to the debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) on bonds 607 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under this 608 subparagraph. 609 3. The sum of $5 million shall be appropriated annually 610 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year to the St. 611 Johns River Water Management District for projects dedicated to 612 the restoration of Lake Apopka. This distribution shall be 613 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to 614 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the 615 purposes set forth in this subparagraph. 616 4. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million 617 shall be appropriated annually for projects that preserve and 618 repair the state’s beaches as provided in s. 161.091(3). The 619 calculation provided in this subparagraph shall be performed 620 using the same formula as described in subparagraph 2. 621 Section 5. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017.