Enhancing Conservation Land Management in Florida: Legislative Options

1. The Florida Legislature The Legislative Sunset Review Process Conservation Land Management: Options for Legislative Consideration Larry Novey Chief Legislative Analyst, OPPAGA

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 2

3. There are Over 9 Million Acres of Conservation Lands in Florida

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 2006-07 expenditures $219 million, 1,685.5 FTEs • Largest expenses - Capital improvements and resource management

5. Background The Water Management Districts own 2.7 million acres Fiscal Year 2006-07 expenditures $32 million, 147.5 FTEs 5

6. Agencies Demonstrate Mixed Resultsin 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.

7. Water Management DistrictPerformance Measures 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 7

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, trackprogress 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

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 9

10. Land Management Review ProcessShould 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.

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

12. Option 2: Create a Council to Coordinateand 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

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

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

15. Contacts • Larry Novey, Chief Legislative Analyst, 487-3768novey.larry@oppaga.fl.gov • Kara Collins-Gomez, Staff Director, 487-4257 collins-gomez.kara@oppaga.fl.gov • Claire Mazur, OPPAGA Sunset Project Coordinator and Chief Legislative Analyst, 487-9211mazur.claire@oppaga.fl.gov