complete agenda - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

ARC Summary August 13, 2010
was not sure that he could pay to have the work done. Fortunately, funds are being provided
from elsewhere for the Gubenatorial Fellow. That was one additional caveat for staff – that it is
getting additional help from a new, young person who will perhaps have some new bright ideas
that will help staff formulate something useful for the Council. Mr. Farr encouraged Dr.
Frederick and Ms. Ball to let staff know if they had specific ideas or suggestions. Staff really
needs these. Staff is floundering. Mr. Ballard added that this is a living, breathing thing that can
be adjusted many times. ARC won’t get it right by October for this category. It will be adjusted
as seen fit by the Board.
Public Comment and ARC Response on Climate Change and Other Categories
Dr. Richard Hilsenbeck said he didn’t see any reason why ARC couldn’t see the maps that TNC
produced. Maybe there is a reason that TNC didn’t want to share them, but TNC produced a
series of maps. This was not rocket science. TNC took all the projects in the state, looked at all
the managed areas, all the possibilities for uphill or inland migration of species and natural
communities due to sea level rise impacts. TNC then ranked every project as either suitable or
not or high priority. TNC reprioritized all the projects. If there was a nice project next to a very
small conserved archaeological project, that wouldn’t have scored well. If it was the Flint Rock
tract, for example though, part of the St. Joe Timberland project, abutting the St. Marks Wildlife
Refuge (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission just bought a piece of that ) – that connects
to a huge amount of managed area lands going inland up the Wacissa River. So, that would
score extremely high, something that would allow that inland migration. TNC looked at all those
projects all across the state. He reiterated that it really wasn’t rocket science, it was just a
spatial analysis of what the projects were, where they were, what they abutted and whether they
gave the highest opportunities for inland migration. TNC has that, a series of maps that can be
given to ARC. He didn’t see any reason why it would have to be paid for or have any staff work
done on it. Staff could tweak it as ARC sees fit. He thought that it could be given to ARC. He
would find that out that day.
Dr. Hilsenbeck also said that TNC would strongly support an archeological and historical
category. He said TNC would like to hear from Sandra (Stockwell) on this, but when TNC read
the legislation, they thought that ARC had to have the five categories, but they (including some
TNC attorneys) didn’t see any prohibition on ARC establishing additional categories. An
Archeological and Historic category is entirely appropriate and he thought ARC should do that.
He said that ARC could come up with the projects that would fit in that category on that day –
Pierce Mounds Complex, Okeechobee Battlefield, Windover Site. The group and staff from
Department of State could come up with the list this second. Why wait until October?
Second, he said that he thought ARC needed an Impasse category. That was really helpful in
the past. It would behoove ARC to establish that as long as there is no objection from the DEP
attorney or any other statutory interpretation. He also said he wanted to echo what Mr. Willson
said about the ranking formula. There will be no one perfect formula, Dr. Brock admitted this
himself, so one has to have intimate knowledge of the projects. How ARC gains that is still an
open question, but he didn’t think one could just rely on numerical values to do the rankings. He
said that it is a great tool for the public as Dr. Frederick threw out and Mr. Ballard embraced.
For example, put the Waterman Site through that. Not much was known about it, so put it
through the formula and just see where it scores. But, they would have had to have the data
from FNAI to do that for a project that hadn’t even been evaluated so it would be difficult to do,
but at least it would be out there for the public to use. He thought ARC was on the right track.
He continued by saying that when ARC was doing the ranking back in June for the first time, it
was pointed out somewhat facetiously that this first ranking didn’t really matter all that much
since there was no or little money available at this time. Having gone through that exercise in
June, things can be refined like the Climate Change category. He didn’t think that a project that
will be completely under water in a hundred years should be at the top of that category unless
it’s connected to something that will allow inland migration. He thought, though, that ARC
should rank again in December to set that clock for the yearly ranking in December, 2011, get
everything ironed out.
14