Bill Text: FL S1590 | 2017 | Regular Session | Comm Sub
Bill Title: Coastal Management
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Failed) 2017-05-05 - Died in Messages [S1590 Detail]
Download: Florida-2017-S1590-Comm_Sub.html
Florida Senate - 2017 CS for CS for SB 1590 By the Committees on Appropriations; and Environmental Preservation and Conservation; and Senators Latvala, Hutson, Mayfield, Stewart, and Hukill 576-04164-17 20171590c2 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to coastal management; amending s. 3 161.101, F.S.; revising the criteria to be considered 4 by the Department of Environmental Protection in 5 determining and assigning annual funding priorities 6 for beach management and erosion control projects; 7 specifying tiers for such criteria; requiring tiers to 8 be given certain weight; requiring the department to 9 update active project lists on its website; redefining 10 the term “significant change”; revising the 11 department’s reporting requirements; specifying 12 allowable uses for certain surplus funds; revising the 13 requirements for a specified summary; requiring that 14 funding for certain projects remain available for a 15 specified period; amending s. 161.143, F.S.; 16 specifying the scope of certain projects; revising the 17 list of projects that are included as inlet management 18 projects; requiring that certain projects be 19 considered separate and apart from other specified 20 projects; revising the ranking criteria to be used by 21 the department to establish certain funding priorities 22 for certain inlet-caused beach erosion projects; 23 revising provisions authorizing the department to 24 spend certain appropriated funds for the management of 25 inlets; deleting a provision authorizing the 26 department to spend certain appropriated funds for 27 specified inlet studies; revising the required 28 elements of the department’s report of prioritized 29 inlet management projects; revising the funds that the 30 department must make available to certain inlet 31 management projects; requiring the department to 32 include specified activities on the inlet management 33 project list; deleting provisions requiring the 34 department to make available funding for specified 35 projects; deleting a requirement that the Legislature 36 designate a project as an Inlet of the Year; requiring 37 the department to update and maintain a report 38 regarding the progress of certain inlet management 39 projects; revising the requirements for the report; 40 deleting certain temporary provisions relating to 41 specified appropriations; amending s. 161.161, F.S.; 42 revising requirements for the comprehensive long-term 43 management plan; requiring the plan to include a 44 strategic beach management plan, a critically eroded 45 beaches report, and a statewide long-range budget 46 plan; providing for the development and maintenance of 47 such plans; deleting a requirement that the department 48 submit a certain beach management plan on a certain 49 date each year; requiring the department to hold a 50 public meeting before finalization of the strategic 51 beach management plan; requiring the department to 52 submit a 3-year work plan and a related forecast for 53 the availability of funding to the Legislature; 54 amending s. 375.041, F.S.; requiring certain funds 55 from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to be used for 56 projects that preserve and repair state beaches; 57 providing effective dates. 58 59 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 60 61 Section 1. Effective July 1, 2018, subsection (14) of 62 section 161.101, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 63 161.101 State and local participation in authorized 64 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion 65 control.— 66 (14) The intent of the Legislature in preserving and 67 protecting Florida’s sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to 68 direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state’s most 69 severely eroded beaches,and to prevent further adverse impact 70 caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal 71 armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual 72 project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal 73 input from local coastal governments, beach and general 74 government interest groups, and university experts. The 75 department shall adopt by rule a scoring system to determine 76 annual project funding priorities. The scoring system must 77 consist of the following criteria equally weighted within the 78 following specified tierscriteria to be considered by the79department in determining annual funding priorities shall80include: 81 (a) Tier 1 must account for 20 percent of the total score 82 and consist of the tourism-related return on investment and the 83severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland84development, and recreational and/oreconomic impact of the 85 project. The return on investment of the project is the ratio of 86 the tourism-related tax revenues for the most recent year to the 87 amount of state funding requested for the proposed project. The 88 economic impact of the project is the ratio of the tourism 89 related tax revenues for the most recent year to all county tax 90 revenues for the most recent year. The department must calculate 91 these ratios using state sales tax and tourism development tax 92 data of the county having jurisdiction over the project area. If 93 multiple counties have jurisdiction over the project area, the 94 department must assess each county individually using these 95 ratios. The department shall calculate the mean average of these 96 ratios to determine the final overall assessment for the 97 multicounty projectbenefits. 98 (b) Tier 2 must account for 45 percent of the total score 99 and consist of the following criteria: 100 1. The availability of federal matching dollars, 101 considering federal authorization, the federal cost-share 102 percentage, and the status of the funding award;.103 2. The storm damage reduction benefits of the project based 104 on the following considerations: 105 a. The current conditions of the project area, including 106 any recent storm damage impact, as a percentage of volume of 107 sand lost since the most recent beach nourishment event or most 108 recent beach surveys. If the project area has not been 109 previously restored, the department must use the historical 110 background erosion rate; 111 b. The overall potential threat to existing upland 112 development, including public and private structures and 113 infrastructure, based on the percentage of vulnerable shoreline 114 within the project boundaries; and 115 c. The value of upland property benefiting from the 116 protection provided by the project and its subsequent 117 maintenance. A property must be within one-quarter mile of the 118 project boundaries to be considered under the criterion 119 specified in this subparagraph; and 120 3. The cost-effectiveness of the project based on the 121 yearly cost per volume per mile of proposed beach fill 122 placement. The department shall also consider the following when 123 assessing cost-effectiveness pursuant to this subparagraph: 124 a. The existence of projects with proposed structural or 125 design components to extend the beach nourishment interval; 126 b. Existing beach nourishment projects that reduce upland 127 storm damage costs by incorporating new or enhanced dune 128 structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation 129 projects; 130 c. Proposed innovative technologies designed to reduce 131 project costs; and 132 d. Regional sediment management strategies and coordination 133 to conserve sand source resources and reduce project costs. 134 (c) Tier 3 must account for 20 percent of the total score 135 and consist of the following criteria:Theextent of local136government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to137the project, including a long-term financial plan with a138designated funding source or sources for initial construction139and periodicmaintenance.140 1.(d)Previous state commitment and involvement in the 141 project, considering previously funded phases, the total amount 142 of previous state funding, and previous partial appropriations 143 for the proposed project; 144 2. The recreational benefits of the project based on: 145 a. The accessible beach area added by the project; and 146 b. The percentage of linear footage within the project 147 boundaries that is zoned: 148 (I) As recreational or open space; 149 (II) For commercial use; or 150 (III) To otherwise allow for public lodging 151 establishments;.152(e)Theanticipated physical performance of the proposed153project, including the frequency of periodic planned154nourishment.155 3.(f)The extent to which theproposedproject mitigates 156 the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on 157 adjacent beaches; and.158(g)Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally159sensitive applications to reduce erosion.160(h)Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or161adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles.162(i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach163erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning,164design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of165identifiable cost savings.166 4.(j)The degree to which the project addresses the state’s 167 most significant beach erosion problems based on the ratio of 168 the linear footage of the project shoreline to the cubic yards 169 of sand placed per mile per year. 170 (d) Tier 4 must account for 15 percent of the total score 171 and consist of the following criteria: 172 1. Increased prioritization of projects that have been on 173 the department’s ranked project list for successive years and 174 that have not previously secured state funding for project 175 implementation; 176 2. Environmental habitat enhancement, recognizing state or 177 federal critical habitat areas for threatened or endangered 178 species which may be subject to extensive shoreline armoring or 179 recognizing areas where extensive shoreline armoring threatens 180 the availability or quality of habitat for such species. Turtle 181 friendly designs, dune and vegetation projects for areas with 182 redesigned or reduced fill templates, proposed incorporation of 183 best management practices and adaptive management strategies to 184 protect resources, and innovative technologies designed to 185 benefit critical habitat preservation may also be considered; 186 and 187 3. The overall readiness of the project to proceed in a 188 timely manner considering the project’s readiness for the 189 construction phase of development, the status of required 190 permits, the status of any needed easement acquisition, the 191 availability of local funding sources, and the establishment of 192 an erosion control line. If the department identifies specific 193 reasonable and documented concerns that the project will not 194 proceed in a timely manner, the department may choose not to 195 include the project in the annual funding priorities submitted 196 to the Legislature. 197 198 IfIn the event thatmore than one project qualifies equally 199 under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall 200 assign funding priority to those projects shown to be mostthat201areready to proceed. 202 Section 2. Subsection (20) of section 161.101, Florida 203 Statutes, is amended to read: 204 161.101 State and local participation in authorized 205 projects and studies relating to beach management and erosion 206 control.— 207 (20) The department shall maintain active project lists, 208 updated at least quarterly,listingson its website by fiscal 209 year in order to provide transparency regarding those projects 210 receiving funding and the funding amounts,and to facilitate 211 legislative reporting and oversight. In consideration of this 212 intent: 213 (a) The department shall notify the Executive Office of the 214 Governor and the Legislature regarding any significant changes 215 in the funding levels of a given project as initially requested 216 in the department’s budget submission and subsequently included 217 in approved annual funding allocations. The term “significant 218 change” means a project-specific change or cumulative changes 219 that exceed the project’s original allocation by $500,000 or 220 that exceedthosechanges exceeding25 percent of thea221 project’s original allocation. 222 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2., if there is 223 surplus funding, the department must provide a notification and 224 supporting justificationshall be providedto the Executive 225 Office of the Governor and the Legislature to indicate whether 226 surplusadditionaldollars are intended to be used for inlet 227 management projects pursuant to s. 161.143 or for beach 228 restoration and beach nourishment projects, offered for 229 reversion as part of the next appropriations process, or used 230 for other specified priority projects on active project lists. 231 2. For surplus funds for projects that do not have a 232 significant change, the department may use such funds for the 233 same purposes identified in subparagraph 1. The department shall 234 post the uses of such funds on the project listing web page of 235 its website. No other notice or supporting justification is 236 required before the use of surplus funds for a project that does 237 not have a significant change. 238 (b) The department shall prepare a summary ofspecific239 project activitiesfor the current fiscal year, their funding 240 status, and changes to annual project lists for the current and 241 preceding fiscal year.shall beprepared byThe department shall 242 include the summaryandincludedwith the department’s 243 submission of its annual legislative budget request. 244 (c) Funding for specific projects on annual project lists 245 approved by the Legislature must remain available for such 246 projects for 18 months. A local project sponsor may at any time 247 release, in whole or in part, appropriated project dollars by 248 formal notification to the department. The department, which249 shall notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the 250 Legislature of such release and. Notification mustindicate in 251 the notification how the project dollars are recommended 252intendedto be used after such release. 253 Section 3. Subsections (2) through (5) of section 161.143, 254 Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 255 161.143 Inlet management; planning, prioritizing, funding, 256 approving, and implementing projects.— 257 (2) The department shall establish annual funding 258 priorities for studies, activities, or other projects concerning 259 inlet management. Such inlet management projects constitute the 260 intended scope of this section and s. 161.142 and consist of 261include, but are not limited to,inlet sand bypassing, 262 improvement of infrastructure to facilitate sand bypassing, 263 modifications to channel dredging, jetty redesign, jetty repair, 264 disposal of spoil material, and the development, revision, 265 adoption, or implementation of an inlet management plan. 266 Projects considered for funding pursuant to this section shall 267 be considered separate and apart from projects reviewed and 268 prioritized in s. 161.101(14). The funding priorities 269 established by the department under this section must be 270 consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in 271 ss. 161.101(14), 161.142, and 161.161(1)(b). In establishing 272 funding priorities under this subsection and before transmitting 273 the annual inlet project list to the Legislature under 274 subsection (4)(5), the department shall seek formal input from 275 local coastal governments, beach and general government 276 associations and other coastal interest groups, and university 277 experts concerning annual funding priorities for inlet 278 management projects. In order to maximize the benefits of 279 efforts to address the inlet-caused beach erosion problems of 280 this state, the ranking criteria used by the department to 281 establish funding priorities for studies, activities, or other 282 projects concerning inlet management must include equal 283 consideration of: 284 (a) An estimate of the annual quantity of beach-quality 285 sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or 286 inlet channel. 287 (b) The severity of the erosion to the adjacent beaches 288 caused by the inletand the extent to which the proposed project289mitigates the erosive effects of the inlet. 290 (c) The overall significance and anticipated success of the 291 proposed project in mitigating the erosive effects of the inlet, 292 balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches, 293 and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet-affected 294 shorelines. 295 (d) The extent to whichexistingbypassing activities at an 296 inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements 297 when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed 298 project, the availability of beach-quality sand currently not 299 being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with 300 which such beach-quality sand may be obtained. 301 (e) The cost-effectiveness of sand made available by a 302 proposed inlet management project or activity relative to other 303 sand source opportunities that would be used to address inlet 304 caused beach erosionThe interest and commitment of local305governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate306the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet307management project and their financial plan for funding the308local cost share for initial construction, ongoing sand309bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance. 310 (f) The existence of a proposed or recently updatedThe311previous completion or approval of a state-sponsoredinlet 312 management plan or a local-government-sponsored inlet study 313 addressingconcerning the inlet addressed by the proposed314project, the ease of updating and revising any such plan or315study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan’s or study’s316recommendations concerningthe mitigation of an inlet’s erosive 317 effects on adjacent beaches. 318 (g) The degree to which the proposed project will enhance 319 the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment 320 projects, thereby reducing the frequency of such periodic 321 nourishment projects. 322 (h) The project-ranking criteria in s. 161.101(14) to the 323 extent such criteria are applicable to inlet management studies, 324 projects, and activities and are distinct from, and not 325 duplicative of, the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)-(g). 326 (3) The department may pay from legislative appropriations 327 up to 75 percent of the construction costs of an initial major 328 inlet management project component for the purpose of mitigating 329 the erosive effects of the inlet to the shoreline and balancing 330 the sediment budget. The remaining balance of such construction 331 costs must be paid from other funding sources, such as local 332 sponsors. All project costs not associated with an initial major 333 inlet management project component must be shared equally by 334 state and local sponsors in accordance with, pursuant to s.335161.101 and notwithstandings. 161.101(15), pay from legislative336appropriations provided for these purposes 75 percent of the337total costs, or, if applicable, the nonfederal costs, of a338study, activity, or other project concerning the management of339an inlet. The balance must be paid by the local governments or340special districts having jurisdiction over the property where341the inlet is located. 342(4) Using the legislative appropriation to the statewide343beach-management-support category of the department’s fixed344capital outlay funding request, the department may employ345university-based or other contractual sources and pay 100346percent of the costs of studies that are consistent with the347legislative declaration in s. 161.142 and that:348(a) Determine, calculate, refine, and achieve general349consensus regarding net annual sediment transport volumes to be350used for the purpose of planning and prioritizing inlet351management projects; and352(b) Appropriate, assign, and apportion responsibilities353between inlet beneficiaries for the erosion caused by a354particular inlet on adjacent beaches.355 (4)(5)The department shall annually provide an inlet 356 management project list, in priority order, to the Legislature 357 as part of the department’s budget request.The list must358include studies, projects, or other activities that address the359management of at least 10 separate inlets and that are ranked360according to the criteria established under subsection (2).361 (a) The department shall designate formakeavailable at362least 10 percent of the total amount that the Legislature363appropriates in each fiscal year for statewide beach management364forthe three highest-rankedprojects on the current year’s 365 inlet management project list, in priority order, an amount that 366 is at least equal to the greater of: 367 1. Ten percent of the total amount that the Legislature 368 appropriates in the fiscal year for statewide beach management; 369 or 370 2. The percentage of inlet management funding requests from 371 local sponsors as a proportion of the total amount of statewide 372 beach management dollars requested in a given year. 373 (b) The department shall include inlet monitoring 374 activities ranked on the inlet management project list as one 375 aggregated subcategory on the overall inlet management project 376 listmake available at least 50 percent of the funds377appropriated for the feasibility and design category in the378department’s fixed capital outlay funding request for projects379on the current year’s inlet management project list which380involve the study for, or design or development of, an inlet381management project. 382(c) The department shall make available all statewide beach383management funds that remain unencumbered or are allocated to384non-project-specific activities for projects on legislatively385approved inlet management project lists. Funding for local386government-specific projects on annual project lists approved by387the Legislature must remain available for such purposes for a388period of 18 months pursuant to s. 216.301(2)(a). Based on an389assessment and the department’s determination that a project390will not be ready to proceed during this 18-month period, such391funds shall be used for inlet management projects on392legislatively approved lists.393 (5)(d)The Legislature shall designate one of the three394highest projects on the inlet management project list in any395year as the Inlet of the Year.The department shall update and 396 maintain an annualannuallyreport on its websiteto the397Legislatureconcerning the extent to which each inlet project 398designated by the Legislature as Inlet of the Yearhas succeeded 399 in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent 400 beaches and in,mitigating the inlet’s erosive effects on 401 adjacent beaches. The report must provide an estimate of the 402 quantity of sediment bypassed, transferred,and transferringor 403 otherwise placedplacingbeach-quality sandon adjacent eroding 404 beaches, or in such beaches’ nearshore area, for the purpose of 405 offsetting the erosive effects of inlets on the beaches of this 406 state. 407(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), and for the4082016-2017 fiscal year only, the amount allocated for inlet409management funding is provided in the 2016-2017 General410Appropriations Act. This paragraph expires July 1, 2017.411 Section 4. Effective July 1, 2018, subsection (1) and 412 present subsection (2) of section 161.161, Florida Statutes, are 413 amended, a new subsection (2) is added to that section, and 414 present subsections (2) through (7) are redesignated as 415 subsections (3) through (8), respectively, to read: 416 161.161 Procedure for approval of projects.— 417 (1) The department shall develop and maintain a 418 comprehensive long-term beach management plan for the 419 restoration and maintenance of the state’s critically eroded 420 beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Straits 421 of Florida. In developing and maintaining thisthe beach422managementplan, the department shall: 423 (a) Address long-term solutions to the problem of 424 critically eroded beaches in this state. 425 (b) Evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and 426 determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach 427 erosion. With respect to each inlet determined to be a 428 significant cause of beach erosion, the plan shall include:4291.the extent to which such inlet causes beach erosion and 430 recommendations to mitigate the erosive impact of the inlet, 431 including, but not limited to,recommendations regardinginlet 432 sediment bypassing; improvement of infrastructure to facilitate 433 sand bypassing; modifications to channel dredging, jetty design, 434 and disposal of spoil material; establishment of feeder beaches; 435 and beach restoration and beach nourishment; and4362. Cost estimates necessary to take inlet corrective437measures and recommendations regarding cost sharing among the438beneficiaries of such inlet. 439 (c) EvaluateDesigncriteria for beach restoration and 440 beach nourishment projects, including, but not limited to,:4411.dune elevation and width and revegetation and 442 stabilization requirements,;and 4432.beach profilesprofile. 444 (d) ConsiderEvaluatethe establishment of regional 445 sediment management alternatives for one or more individual 446 beach and inlet sand bypassing projectsfeeder beachesas an 447 alternative todirectbeach restoration when appropriate and 448 cost-effective, and recommend the location of such regional 449 sediment management alternativesfeeder beachesand the source 450 of beach-compatible sand. 451 (e) Identify causes of shoreline erosion and change, 452 determinecalculateerosion rates, and maintain an updated list 453 of critically eroded sandy beaches based on data, analyses, and 454 investigations of shoreline conditionsandproject long-term455erosion for all major beach and dune systems by surveys and456profiles. 457 (f)Identify shoreline development and degree of density458andAssess impacts of development and coastal protection 459shorelineprotectivestructures on shoreline change and erosion. 460 (g) Identify short-term and long-term economic costs and 461 benefits of beaches to the state of Florida and individual beach 462 communities, including recreational value to user groups, tax463base, revenues generated, and beach acquisition and maintenance464costs. 465 (h) Study dune and vegetation conditions, identify existing 466 beach projects without dune features or with dunes without 467 adequate elevations, and encourage dune restoration and 468 revegetation to be incorporated as part of storm damage recovery 469 projects or future dune maintenance events. 470 (i) Identify beach areas used by marine turtles and develop 471 strategies for protection of the turtles and their nests and 472 nesting locations. 473 (j) Identify alternative management responses to preserve 474 undeveloped beach and dune systems and,to restore damaged beach 475 and dune systems. In identifying such management responses, the 476 department shall consider, at a minimum,andto prevent477inappropriate development and redevelopment on migrating478beaches, and considerbeach restoration and nourishment, 479 armoring, relocationand abandonment, dune and vegetation 480 restoration, and acquisition. 481 (k) Document procedures and policies for preparing post 482 storm damage assessments and corresponding recovery plans, 483 including repair cost estimatesEstablish criteria, including484costs and specific implementation actions, for alternative485management techniques. 486 (l) Identify and assessSelect and recommendappropriate 487 management measures for all of the state’s critically eroded 488 sandy beachesin a beach managementprogram. 489(m) Establish a list of beach restoration and beach490nourishment projects, arranged in order of priority, and the491funding levels needed for such projects.492 (2) The comprehensive long-term management plan developed 493 and maintained by the department pursuant to subsection (1) must 494 include, at a minimum, a strategic beach management plan, a 495 critically eroded beaches report, and a statewide long-range 496 budget plan. The long-range budget plan must include a 3-year 497 work plan for beach restoration, beach nourishment, and inlet 498 management projects that lists planned projects for each of the 499 3 fiscal years addressed in the work plan. 500 (a) The strategic beach management plan must identify and 501 recommend appropriate measures for all of the state’s critically 502 eroded sandy beaches and may incorporate plansbeprepared at 503 the regional level taking into accountbased uponareas of 504 greatest need and probable federal and local funding. Upon 505 approval in accordance with this section, such regional plans, 506 along with the 3-year work plan identified in subparagraph 507 (c)1., shallbe components of the statewide beach management508plan andshallserve as the basis for state funding decisions 509upon approval in accordance with chapter 86-138, Laws of510Florida.Inaccordance with a schedule established for the511submission of regional plans by the department, any completed512plan must be submitted to the secretary of the department for513approval no later than March 1 of each year.These regional514plans shall include, but shall not be limited to,515recommendations of appropriate funding mechanisms for516implementing projects in the beach management plan, giving517consideration to the use of single-county and multicounty taxing518districts or other revenue generation measures by state and519local governments and the private sector.Prior to finalizing 520 the strategic beach managementpresenting theplanto the521secretary of the department, the department shall hold a public 522 meeting in the regionareasfor which the plan is prepared or 523 through a publicly noticed webinar.The plan submission schedule524shall be submitted to the secretary for approval. Any revisions525to such schedule must be approved in like manner.526 (b) The critically eroded beaches report must be developed 527 and maintained based primarily on the requirements specified in 528 paragraph (1)(e). 529 (c) The statewide long-range budget plan must include at 530 least 5 years of planned beach restoration, beach nourishment, 531 and inlet management project funding needs as identified, and 532 subsequently refined, by local government sponsors. This plan 533 shall consist of two components: 534 1. A 3-year work plan that identifies beach restoration, 535 beach nourishment, and inlet management projects viable for 536 implementation during the next 3 ensuing fiscal years, as 537 determined by available cost-sharing, local sponsor support, 538 regulatory considerations, and the ability of the project to 539 proceed as scheduled. The 3-year work plan must, for each fiscal 540 year, identify proposed projects and their current development 541 status, listing them in priority order based on the applicable 542 criteria established in ss. 161.101(14) and 161.143(2). Specific 543 funding requests and criteria ranking, pursuant to ss. 544 161.101(14) and 161.143(2), may be modified as warranted in each 545 successive fiscal year, and such modifications must be 546 documented and submitted to the Legislature with each 3-year 547 work plan. Year one projects shall consist of those projects 548 identified for funding consideration in the ensuing fiscal year. 549 2. A long-range plan that identifies projects for inclusion 550 in the fourth and fifth ensuing fiscal years. These projects may 551 be presented by region and do not need to be presented in 552 priority order; however, the department should identify issues 553 that may prevent successful completion of such projects and 554 recommend solutions that would allow the projects to progress 555 into the 3-year work plan. 556 (3)(2)Annually,The secretary shall annually present the 557 3-year work plan to the Legislature. The work plan must be 558 accompanied by a 3-year financial forecast for the availability 559 of funding for the projects, based on funds dedicated in s. 560 375.041recommendations for funding beach erosion control561projects prioritized according to the criteria established in s.562161.101(14). 563 Section 5. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 564 375.041, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 565 375.041 Land Acquisition Trust Fund.— 566 (3) Funds distributed into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund 567 pursuant to s. 201.15 shall be applied: 568 (b) Of the funds remaining after the payments required 569 under paragraph (a), but before funds may be appropriated, 570 pledged, or dedicated for other uses: 571 1. A minimum of the lesser of 25 percent or $200 million 572 shall be appropriated annually for Everglades projects that 573 implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set 574 forth in s. 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning 575 Project subject to Congressional authorization; the Long-Term 576 Plan as defined in s. 373.4592(2); and the Northern Everglades 577 and Estuaries Protection Program as set forth in s. 373.4595. 578 From these funds, $32 million shall be distributed each fiscal 579 year through the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the South Florida 580 Water Management District for the Long-Term Plan as defined in 581 s. 373.4592(2). After deducting the $32 million distributed 582 under this subparagraph, from the funds remaining, a minimum of 583 the lesser of 76.5 percent or $100 million shall be appropriated 584 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year for the 585 planning, design, engineering, and construction of the 586 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as set forth in s. 587 373.470, including the Central Everglades Planning Project 588 subject to Congressional authorization. The Department of 589 Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management 590 District shall give preference to those Everglades restoration 591 projects that reduce harmful discharges of water from Lake 592 Okeechobee to the St. Lucie or Caloosahatchee estuaries in a 593 timely manner. For the purpose of performing the calculation 594 provided in this subparagraph, the amount of debt service paid 595 pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds issued after July 1, 2016, 596 for the purposes set forth under paragraph (b) shall be added to 597 the amount remaining after the payments required under paragraph 598 (a). The amount of the distribution calculated shall then be 599 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to 600 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the 601 purposes set forth under this subparagraph. 602 2. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million 603 shall be appropriated annually for spring restoration, 604 protection, and management projects. For the purpose of 605 performing the calculation provided in this subparagraph, the 606 amount of debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) for bonds 607 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under 608 paragraph (b) shall be added to the amount remaining after the 609 payments required under paragraph (a). The amount of the 610 distribution calculated shall then be reduced by an amount equal 611 to the debt service paid pursuant to paragraph (a) on bonds 612 issued after July 1, 2016, for the purposes set forth under this 613 subparagraph. 614 3. The sum of $5 million shall be appropriated annually 615 each fiscal year through the 2025-2026 fiscal year to the St. 616 Johns River Water Management District for projects dedicated to 617 the restoration of Lake Apopka. This distribution shall be 618 reduced by an amount equal to the debt service paid pursuant to 619 paragraph (a) on bonds issued after July 1, 2016, for the 620 purposes set forth in this subparagraph. 621 4. A minimum of the lesser of 7.6 percent or $50 million 622 shall be appropriated annually for projects that preserve and 623 repair the state’s beaches as provided in s. 161.091(3). The 624 calculation provided in this subparagraph shall be performed 625 using the same formula as described in subparagraph 2. 626 Section 6. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this 627 act shall take effect July 1, 2017.