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
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 2006-07 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 2006-07 expenditures $32 million, 147.5 FTEs
OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 6
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.
OFFICE OF PROGRAM POLICY ANALYSIS & GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 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
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 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.
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, [email protected]
Kara Collins-Gomez, Staff Director, [email protected]
Claire Mazur, OPPAGA Sunset Project Coordinator and Chief Legislative Analyst, [email protected]
Top Related