Suwannee River Water Management District

Excellence in Land Management Program

October 22, 2004

Prepared by Bob Heeke

Sr. Land Resources Manager

Suwannee River Water Management District

9225 CR 49

Live Oak, FL 32060

The Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD)is a subdivision of the State of Florida created in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972". Water Management Districts were created for the purpose of managing water supplies on a regional basis. This is accomplished through regional planning, flood control, technical assistance, water resource permitting and land acquisition and management programs.

The SRWMD has been acquiring and managing lands since the middle 1980’s to implement its policy of "nonstructural floodplain management". This program has been funded through a portion of the documentary stamp tax on real-estate transactions, deposited in the Water Management Lands Trust Fund, and several state-wide bond issues for land acquisition including the "Preservation 2000 Program" and its successor, the "Florida Forever Program".

In the development of the SRWMD FY 2004 Workplan and Budget, it was determined that a better method of defining measurable goals and objectives for the management of the district-owned lands was needed. This proposed program was intended to define "Excellence" in managing these public resources and thereby create a mechanism to measure attainment of that goal. It is believed that this "scorecard" can be used to better communicate services provided and public accountability to both internal and external audiences.

General information regarding the SRWMD land management program:

• SRWMD owns in fee or has real-estate interests 270,000 acres of forestland for protection of floodplains, stream buffers, wetlands and associated habitat.
• Multiple-use management that emphasizes water resources protection, maintenance and restoration of the natural state and condition, and provisions for public access and recreation is a guiding policy.
• There is a need for quantifiable objectives for the entire land management program.
• The District became a Licensee in 2003 to "Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standards" (SFIS) and will comply with those standards for sustainable forest management.
• Goals and Measures are needed to demonstrate achieving specified goals over time.
• This "Excellence" program must utilize currently available data or require minimal new data collection.

There are two main challenges inherent in putting the "Excellence in Land Management" (ELM) Program on the pathway to success.

• Consensus Building Process

The Consensus Building Process is characterized by meetings, workshops and presentations designed to bring disparate individuals and groups to a common understanding and acceptance of the ELM Program. These individuals and groups include internal and external constituents.

• Technical Process

The Technical Process was more focused on the SRWMD staff that would be responsible for implementing and reporting on the status of Measures and Indicators that would be the numbers behind the message. This was a collaborative process with all land management staff participating.

The focus of this paper will be on the Consensus Building Process. While some of the same techniques were used during the technical discussions, those issues are beyond the scope of this report.

A situation assessment was conducted before the project was started (Appendix A). The assessment identified many interests groups that could have a stake in the outcome. All groups were expected to have similar ability to participate in the process and similar opportunity to do an end- around if they were not satisfied. It was hoped that the open process could keep all the players at the table.

The plan was to develop a focus group to review the details of existing guidelines and policies. They would then interact with staff, serving only as technical advisors, on how to develop the metrics for the proposed policies. The focus group product would be vetted with the Governing Board and then made available to public comment through multiple town-hall type meetings.

As a process plan revision, SRWMD Governing Board, Management and staff were realized to have significant primary interests in the development of the program. Without their approval the project might fail. More thought and a revised plan was needed to incorporate these "interests groups" into the process.

As a policy, the SRWMD actively seeks input on its programs because it realizes it needs the approval of its constituents and local governments to be successful with District programs. Therefore, participation by a wide cross-section of constituents was desired. The key was to get people to participate on a project that did not impact their interests directly.

It was determined to use a private consultant to oversee the implementation of the plan. There is a perception, sometimes, that staff may be selling their viewpoints rather than being completely open to public perspective. The firm Glatting Jackson was selected to facilitate the various meetings identified in the plan.

After the Kickoff meeting, a change of strategy was developed. The staff and consultant would develop a "straw man" of the proposed program. The Governing Board would act as the focus group for the process. It was determined that this would be a more effective approach to keep the Board engaged throughout the term of the project. The staff would also be more involved in development and thus have more "ownership" of the program. Two meetings of invited parties would be used to get feedback instead of three general public meetings in different geographic areas. (The meeting of invited stakeholders was advertised throughout the District to give interested parties an option to attend.)

The meeting schedule and meeting goals are outlined as follows:

Key:

GJ – Glatting Jackson, Consultant

SM – SRWMD Senior Management, including Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director

PM – SRWMD Project Manager

GB – SRWMD Governing Board

LMS – SRWMD Land Management Staff

C – Cooperators, including federal, state, and local government land management partners

S – Stakeholders, including cooperators, local elected officials, conservation easement landowners, state SFI members, recreation groups, land management review team members, environmental groups, neighboring landowners, general public

* - Projected activities.

The stakeholder’s public hearing will be held on October 26, 2004. Invitations were mailed to over 100 persons from various district mailing lists. If general concurrence is reached at this meeting, the proposed Goals and Measures (Appendix B) will be considered acceptable. Staff will then finalize details as to the metrics to be used for each measure and the "equation" on how to summarize individual numbers from indicator data up to the measures. Final review by the Governing Board is planned for January 2005.

An early oversight in this project was to focus on external participants to the potential exclusion of the internal stakeholders who authorized the project.

The process should not be rigid and binding (unless required for reasons outside the facilitator’s control). Incorporating suggestions that increase participation (since it was a main goal) were important to the potential success of the project.

The more people and time involved in the process means communication becomes more difficult. However, the payoff is increased buy in, less revisiting of agreed upon issues and an overall acceptance of the process as well as the product.

Situation Assessment

Appendix B

SRWMD Preliminary Goals and Measures

GOAL 1: RESOURCE PROTECTION – Protect, enhance and/or restore natural, archaeological, and historical resources on lands owned by the District.

Measure increases or decreases in:

• Public ownership of land within optimal boundary
• Quality of resources
• Quantity of resources
• Ecological connectivity within and among conservation lands
• Percentage of forest that is representative of historical communities
• Sustainable Forestry Initiative audit compliance

GOAL 2: PUBLIC USE - Provide opportunities for compatible resource-based recreation and education.

Measure increases or decreases in:

• Public satisfaction with recreation/education experience
• Quantity of access, facilities
• Quality of access, facilities
• Negative impacts from public use

GOAL 3: COMMUNICATION - Coordinate with public and private stakeholders in the management of District lands.

Measure increases or decreases in:

• Percentage of properties with current management plans
• Stakeholder involvement (web site hits, participation)
• Satisfaction of stakeholders regarding District communications
• The number of public meetings
• The number of inter-agency coordination meetings

GOAL 4: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - Manage District lands in an efficient manner to protect resources within SRWMD annual budget.

Measure increases or decreases in:

• Management costs/acre of District lands
• Management costs/acre compared to other Districts
• revenues from public use, timber harvest, etc
• Contributions from external funding sources, including grants, volunteer hours
• Compliance with maintenance standards