The Legislative Sunset Review Process

OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

The Legislative Sunset Review Process

Larry NoveyChief 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


There are Over 9 Million Acres of Conservation Lands in Florida


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


Background

The Water Management Districts own 2.7 million acres

Fiscal Year 2006-07 expenditures $32 million, 147.5 FTEs


Agencies Demonstrate Mixed Results

in Land ManagementState 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.


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


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


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 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.


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


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


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


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


Contacts

Larry Novey, Chief Legislative Analyst, [email protected]

Kara Collins-Gomez, Staff Director, [email protected]

Claire Mazur, OPPAGA Sunset Project Coordinator and Chief Legislative Analyst, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



The Legislative Sunset Review Process

Documents

Transcript of The Legislative Sunset Review Process