Ms. Barbara Conmy, Section Leader, South Florida Water Management District
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
To: Environmental Resource Program Manager , South Florida Water Management District Through: Ms. Barbara Conmy, Section Leader, South Florida Water Management District From: Walt Esser, Senior Environmental Scientist, Environmental Resource Solutions Date: November 8, 2019 Subject: Regulatory Conservation Easement Item for Governing Board Proposed Folder Name: Okeechobee Airport Conservation Easement Release Nearest Major Intersection: U.S. 98 and Northwest 20th Trail Project/Permit Number for which Recorded Conservation Easement (RCE) was received: __47-00447-P__________ Total acreage of current recorded RCE requested for release: 54.96 acres± Is there an existing management plan for the existing conservation easement? __X__Yes ____ No Special condition 23 of SFWMD Permit No. 47-00447-P (Application No. 960202-13) states that exotic/nuisance species shall be maintained below 5% of total vegetative cover. Are there multiple conservation easements for the original permitted project? Yes. Two easements were recorded over the upland and wetland areas. Both easements have identical legal descriptions and encumber the same areas. Year RCE was recorded: Recorded 9/30/1996, 06/08/1999. Requestor: Okeechobee County Requestor contact info (address): 304 North West 2nd Street, Okeechobee FL, 34972 OR Book/Page of Recorded CE to be released: 383/001 recorded 09/30/1996; 423/1184 recorded 06/08/1999. Current owner of CE release area: Okeechobee County Mitigation Bank to be used for replacement area: Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank Requestor Is: An entity with the power of eminent domain to condemn the conservation easement Yes ___ No __X___ Acting on behalf of an entity with the power of eminent domain to condemn the conservation easement Yes_____ No __X___ Reason for CE Request: FAA approval of Airport Layout Plan (ALP), allowing the release of federal funding for airport projects, and the enhancement of human safety. Release Acreage: Wetlands ______32.51 acres±_____ Uplands ____22.45 acres±______ Ecological Analysis: Summary: In exchange for a CE release, the entity making the request will offer the District something that would ensure that the District’s release of the conservation easement would not result in the loss of ecological value in the drainage basin in which the impacts for which the conservation easement served as mitigation occurred (or in which adverse impacts were prevented through conveyance of the conservation easement). Generally, the District will not view favorably requests to release conservation easements over small parcels of land that have low ecological value for conservation easements over other such parcels. Where the requestor seeks the release of such parcels, options for participation in the preservation of ecologically significant lands (e.g. mitigation bank credits, conservation easement adjacent to District lands) should be explored first. To establish relative ecological values, the District will generally use the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) to evaluate the ecological value. However, Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, which serves the basin in which the original impacts were mitigated, utilizes Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) credits. Therefore, WRAP credits will be purchased to ensure no ecological loss is experienced in the basin. Based on SFWMD calculations, release of the conservation easement that previously mitigated 15.48 acres of wetland impact would require purchase of 3.25 WRAP credits. This number represents the ecological lift associated with the placement of the conservation easement over the wetland areas. Conservation easement wetlands were each assigned two WRAP scores by SFWMD. One score represented the conservation easement wetlands as they currently exist, encumbered by the Conservation Easement. The wetlands were then assigned a WRAP score as they will exist after the removal of the conservation easement. The difference between the two scores represented the ecological value of the conservation easement. Environmental Resource Solutions and SFWMD representatives calculated that 3.25 WRAP credits from Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank will ensure that no loss of ecological functions will be experienced in the basin. Attachments (as applicable): (Important: All attachments must be named separately and sent as separate files for review) For CE Release Parcel: _X_ Legal description/survey sketch of the release area _X_ The original entire CE documents with all referenced exhibits (sketch and legal) and OR Book and Page _X_ 2008 FAA response to draft ALP _X_ WRAP analysis for release parcels For Mitigation Bank credits: _X_ Credit availability letter from Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank Justification for Conservation Easement Release Permit No. 47-00447-P was issued 6 March 1998 by the SFWMD authorizing the construction of a surface water management system. This permit authorized the impact of 15.48 acres± of wetland habitat. In order to offset wetland impacts, Okeechobee County recorded a Conservation Easement over 32.51 acres± of wetland and 22.45 acres± of upland habitat. This easement was recorded without the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Okeechobee County Airport (OBE) is a driver of regional and state-wide economy, with large impacts in Okeechobee County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) estimates the total economic output of OBE associated activities at $37,332,000.00 (Florida Department of Transportation, 2019, page 8). In November 2007 OBE submitted a draft Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA detailing plans for future airport expansion. This ALP includes proposed growth of both OBE infrastructure and local industry. Conservation easement wetlands and uplands are proposed for future development and airport expansion in the ALP. In March of 2008 the FAA responded, stating that approval of the ALP could not be granted due to the location of the recorded conservation easement. Wetlands are attractants for myriad species, and wetlands proximal to airports and flight operations represent a wildlife hazard for aviation safety. The placement of a conservation easement over adjacent wetlands adds a layer of protection to these wildlife attractants, decreasing the potential for removal of the wetlands for airport development. The protection of wildlife attractants is counter-intuitive to the FAA’s mission of aviation safety. Therefore, FAA approval of the ALP will not occur until the conservation easement is removed from the wetlands. Please see attached the March 2008 response of the FAA to the submitted draft ALP. Without FAA approval, federal funding will not be granted for airfield expansion or improvements. Additionally, the FAA will not assist OBE with funds for mitigation costs associated with future projects. Without federal assistance, further development of OBE and the surrounding industrial park will be unlikely. Alternative site analysis is difficult for this type of project; there is no County-owned land adjacent to the airport, or in the surrounding area, that would accomplish the project goals of replacing the mitigation while enhancing aviation safety. If conservation easements were placed over alternative proximal wetlands, the issue would remain the same. The possibility of replacing the conservation easements on-site on OBE owned property is not feasible. On-site replacement would not alleviate FAA concerns of protected wildlife attractants within airport property. In addition, encumbrance of on-site wetlands will limit the ability for future expansion of OBE and the Okeechobee Industrial Park. Per the draft ALP, development of additional aviation infrastructure is contemplated in this area. The benefits of replacing the encumbered areas with mitigation bank credit purchase include the following: Through mitigation bank credit purchase, the value of the encumbered areas will be replaced in a mitigation bank that will be perpetually monitored to ensure success The value of the mitigation for the previously permitted wetland impacts, which is currently subject to increasing adverse impacts, will be replaced with an amount of mitigation that will provide the originally intended ecological value Removal of the CE will allow the for the release of federal funding for OBE expansion projects that will further enhance the positive impact of OBE on local, regional, and state- wide economy. Replacement of the CE with mitigation bank credits will eliminate the additional level of protection from CE wetlands, allowing for the removal of these wetlands in accordance with the ALP. The removal of wildlife attracting wetlands will enhance aviation safety. This proposed release does not address the impact of any wetlands, only the removal of the conservation easement. Per Section 10.3.1.2 of the South Florida Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, off-site mitigation is preferred when: a. On-site mitigation opportunities are not expected to have comparable long-term viability due to such factors as unsuitable hydrologic conditions or ecologically incompatible existing adjacent land uses or future land uses identified in a local comprehensive plan adopted according to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or b. Off-site mitigation will provide greater improvement in ecological value than on-site mitigation. In conclusion, in order to offset wetland impacts associated with the construction of a surface water management system, a conservation easement was placed on 32.51 acres of wetland and 22.45 acres of upland habitat. This