OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY The Legislative Sunset Review Process Larry Novey Chief Legislative Analyst, OPPAGA The Florida Legislature Conservation Land Management: Options for Legislative Consideration

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 2 Scope  We reviewed several aspects of state agency and water management district land management Performance of agencies conducting land management activities Land management review process  We developed several options for legislative consideration

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 3 There are Over 9 Million Acres of Conservation Lands in Florida

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 4 Background  The state owns 5.8 million acres  DACS, DEP, & FWCC are the primary land managers Each agency manages for a different purpose  Fiscal Year expenditures $219 million, 1,685.5 FTEs Largest expenses - Capital improvements and resource management

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 5 Background  The Water Management Districts own 2.7 million acres  Fiscal Year expenditures $32 million, FTEs

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 6 Agencies Demonstrate Mixed Results in Land Management State Agency Performance Measures  DACS - exceeded standard for number of state forest visitors, but did not meet standards for providing forest-related technical assistance and for the number of acres authorized for prescribed burning.  DEP - exceeded standard for increasing the percentage of visitors to state parks, but did not meet standard for percentage of managed acres with invasive species controlled.  FWCC - exceeded standard for the number of acres managed for wildlife.

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 7 Water Management District Performance Measures  In general, water management district measures provide information about the volume of land management activities conducted, acres of land currently under restoration, and acres of invasive aquatic and upland plants. Four districts (South Florida, Southwest Florida, St. Johns River, and Suwannee River) reported completing between 87% and 98% of their planned management activities. Districts managed 137,463 acres of land infested with invasive nonnative upland plants

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 8 Land Management Performance Measures Need Improvement  However, these measures provide limited information and hinder the state’s ability to identify the conservation status of lands, track progress towards achieving conservation and recreation goals, and assess funding needs. Measures are limited and not consistent across state agencies and water management districts Water management district measures lack adopted standards

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 9 Land Management Performance Measures Need Improvement  The Legislature could direct land managing agencies to establish and report performance measures on the condition and uses of conservation lands, including Percentage and number of acres of public lands that are open to various recreational uses Percentage and number of acres identified for restoration activities that attain restoration goals Percentage and number of acres of managed lands in good/fair/poor condition Status of endangered/threatened/ special concern species on publicly managed conservation areas Percentage and number of acres burned according to the agency’s prescribed burning schedule

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Land Management Review Process Should Be Enhanced  Agencies’ ability to manage conservation lands would also be strengthened if the land management review process were modified. Specifically, land management plans should be improved, including requiring water management districts to utilize statutory plan criteria; more information should be provided to land management review participants; more time should be provided to conduct the reviews; and the results of the reviews should be better reported to stakeholders.

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 11 Option 1: Maintain Current Land Management System  ADVANTAGES ­ Agencies would retain the ability to focus on specialized land management activities related to mission and goals ­ Would preserve the established funding mechanism  DISADVANTAGES ­ Current structure may not provide adequate mechanisms for coordinating activities across agencies ­ Agency mission may limit types of land management activities on state lands

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 12 Option 2: Create a Council to Coordinate and Oversee Land Management  ADVANTAGES ­ Establishing a separate council would increase focus on land management ­ Would increase accountability and oversight ­ Council could make recommendations on how to distribute land management funds based on legislative priorities  DISADVANTAGES ­ Would increase administrative costs ­ Land management agencies may disagree with council’s priorities

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 13 Option 3: Centralize Land Management Activities Under One State Agency  ADVANTAGES ­ Would consolidate policy and decision making ­ Would centralize accountability and oversight ­ Would eliminate duplication of land management activities currently conducted by multiple agencies (e.g. invasive plant control, prescribed burning)  DISADVANTAGES ­ Transition may be difficult, including issues associated with integrating staff from agencies with various missions and goals ­ May be objections from agencies

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 14 Option 4: Centralize All Land Management Activities Under a New Entity  ADVANTAGES ­ Land management would be sole focus of new entity ­ Would consolidate policy and decision making ­ Would centralize accountability and oversight ­ Would eliminate duplication of land management activities currently conducted by multiple agencies (e.g. invasive plant control, prescribed burning)  DISADVANTAGES ­ Transition may be difficult, including issues associated with integrating staff from agencies with various missions and goals ­ May be objections from agencies

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 15 Contacts  Larry Novey, Chief Legislative Analyst,  Kara Collins-Gomez, Staff Director,  Claire Mazur, OPPAGA Sunset Project Coordinator and Chief Legislative Analyst,