EAC Agenda 08/06/2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
August 6, 2008
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") — Third Floor
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of July 2, 2008 meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Site Development Plan No. SDP-2007-AR 12003
Gridley Medical Center SDP
Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East
B. Environmental Impact Statement- EIS- 2007-AR-12622
Willow Run Quarry EIS
Sections 11-14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East
VII. New Business
VIII. Old Business (Item A. shall be heard no later than 9:15 a.m.)
A. Review Revised LDC Amendments
B. Update members on projects
IX. Subcommittee Reports
X. Staff Comments
A. Information from EAC given to CCPC via staff report— This is being done.
Please contact Summer with any questions or comments.
Xl. Council Member Comments
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
*******************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental
Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 30, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a
conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (252-6290). AFTER JULY 31, 2008 contact Susan
Mason at 252-2987 as Summer Araque will be out of the office.
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
July, 2 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, July 2, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at
Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Hughes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
Roger Jacobsen
David Bishof
Nick Penniman (Excused)
Michael V. Sorrell
Dr. Llew Williams (Excused)
Paul Lehmann
Noah Standridge
Quin Kurth
ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Brown-Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
William Lorenz, Director, Environmental Services
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager
Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 2, 2008
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")--Third Floor
I. Call to Order
Il. Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of May 5, 2008 and June 4, 2008 meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. Land Use Petitions - None
VII. New Business
A. Shoreline Calculation
VIII. Old Business (Item A. shall be heard no later than 9:15 a.m.)
A. SSA/SRA Discussion
B. Review Revised LDC Amendments
C. EAC motions for approval and discussions— BCC action May 13, 2008
D. School Board Reviews
E. Update members on projects
IX. Subcommittee Reports
X. Staff Comments
Xl. Council Member Comments
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
*******************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental
Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 26, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have
a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (252-6290).
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
July, 2 2008
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:02AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Dr. Hushon moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried
unanimously 8-0.
IV. Approval of May 5,2008 and June 4, 2008 meeting minutes
It was noted that the May meeting was held on May 7, 2008.
Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2008 meeting subject to
the following change:
US Army Corp to US Army"Corps"in the body of the minutes.
Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the minutes of the June 4, 2008 meeting. Second by
Mr. Lehmann. Carried unanimously 8-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Dr. Hushon will be absent for the August and September 2008 meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions -None
VII. New Business
A. Shoreline Calculations
Barbara Burgeson provided and update on the amendment request that is in
process in conjunction with input from a stakeholders group(representatives for
the marine industry, public, consultants, environmental advocacy groups, etc.).
The issue is utilizing shorelines located in conservation easements for boat slip
density calculations in relation to the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff has
identified the following options regarding density calculations:
• Exclude all shoreline outside any State or County conservation easement
• Include the shoreline outside County conservation easements
• Include all shorelines regardless if it is in a conservation easement
• Require a conditional use for any shoreline encumbered in conservation
easements with the requirement of public access
• Require public access as an obligation of the Growth Management Plan
• Make no changes until the Manatee Protection Plan is completed
She noted that the stakeholders had various positions based on their represented
interest and although staff has no specific recommendation at this time, the
Environmental Advisory Committee could make a recommendation on an option
if they so desire.
2
July, 2 2008
Mr. Jacobsen noted that any applications within the process should be considered
"grandfathered".
A discussion ensued whether the application needed to be submitted or approved
to be"grandfathered."
Mr. Kurth stated he had a conflict of interest and would not participate in voting
Mr. Bishof stated that restricting an applicant's use of the area(conservation
easements)might cause apprehension in granting easements in the future.
Barbara Burgeson noted that Collier County conservation easements would only
be placed (required) in those areas if they are the "highest quality habitat on site."
Mr. Bishof noted current conservation easements in xeric areas allow use of the
easement areas for calculating building density purposes. Further, boat slips
would need to be built outside the conservation areas with appropriate
environmental standards.
Speakers
Rich Yovanovich,Attorney, addressed the Council noting boat docks will be
built outside the preserve or conservation easement areas and applicants never
envisioned they would lose the easement area for boat slip density calculations.
The Manatee Protection Plan does not state that the area should not be counted in
density calculations. When density calculations are complete, the number of slips
constructed outside the easement area will be restricted by many other
environmental and engineering constraints to ensure the installations are
environmentally sound. This policy is not in any adopted County documents,
rather a"Staff Interpretation." He requests staff rescind the interpretation; further
the BCC did not approve (by 3-2 vote) an amendment request,which addressed
the interpretation. He requested the EAC provide staff direction as well.
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted that the issue was raised
when staff was consistently applying the Manatee Protection Plan and on April
24, 2007 Commissioner Coyle directed staff to prepare an amendment to not
allow conservation easement areas to be used for boat density slip calculations.
The motion was approved unanimously and staff continued to follow the direction
of the BCC. Staff submitted the directive to the EAC as well as the Planning
Commission with recommendations for approval. It returned to the BCC and
after discussion no action was taken and was sent back to "workshops." She
requested EAC input as the issue moves forward to prevent environmental or
detrimental impacts and would submit any necessary documentation if requested.
She supports Commissioner Coyle's recommendation of not allowing the areas
within conservation easements to be counted in boat slip density calculations.
Mr. Bishof moved that the Environmental Advisory Council recommend for the
purpose of calculating shoreline length relative to the Manatee Protection Plan,
that areas placed in conservation easements be counted toward the shoreline
3
July, 2 2008
total. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Motion carried 6 yes—1 no and 1 abstention.
Mr. Kurth abstained and Dr. Hushon voted "no."
Dr. Hushon voted no based upon concerns on mangrove impacts from boat docks
in general as the wake and various pollutants related to these facilities are
detrimental.
Chairman Hughes noted that beyond the density calculations utilizing
shorelines, the installation of boat docks are regulated with checks and balances to
ensure the upholding of environmental quality.
Break 10:58AM
Re-convened 11:13AM
VIII. Old Business (Item A. shall be heard no later than 9:15 a.m.)
A. SSA/SRA Discussion
This item was heard before Item VII A. Shoreline Calculations
Tom Greenwood,Comprehensive Planning presented a review of the Rural
Lands Stewardship Program and related 5 year Review currently in process via
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee. He noted the following:
• The Committee is attempting to complete the review by the Fall of
2008, this goal is not mandatory; a schedule of the Review Committees
activities was submitted to the Council
• Any changes proposed by the Committee may require changes in the
Land Development Code
• There are 190,000 acres in the program
• Some areas are categorized as environmentally sensitive areas creating
"Stewardship Sending Areas" (SSA's) where landowners voluntarily
remove certain land use restrictions with credits obtained to be
transferred to "Stewardship Receiving Areas"(SRA's) for development
purposes. The credits must be used in the SRA's.
• There have been 10 SSA's approved to date.
• To date, the Town of Ave Maria is the only approved Stewardship
Receiving Area that has been developed.
• The land uses are removed("stripped off') in layers, with a maximum
of 8 layers providing for an increasing number of credits granted after
each layer is removed.
• Should a landowner not participate in the program the underlying
zoning and land use restrictions remain in effect.
• There is a second level of"bonus credits"based on an approved and
completed restoration management plan for applicable lands.
• The agreements generated in the program are between the landowner,
Collier County and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Affairs.
• The Program is "market driven", with no guarantee that the Stewardship
Sending Area credits will be able to be utilized.
4
July, 2 2008
• The Panther Protection Program may be incorporated into this program
at a future date.
Mr. Bishof requested clarification on the assurance that the Stewardship
Easement Agreement generated within the program is "permanent"
Tom Greenwood stated it is in a permanent status for 3 reasons:
• All 3 parties (Landowner, Collier County and the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Affairs)must agree to terminate the
easement.
• The encumbrance is shown on the County land use maps for
enforcement.
• The documents are recorded in the County Land Records.
A discussion ensued whether or not this document is truly"permanent"in relation
to legal requirements and the State of Florida Statutes.
It was noted that the program is currently working successfully and the Review
Committee is studying any changes that may be required to improve the program.
Bill Lorenz, Director,Environmental Services stated that no information to
date has been received from the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
Environmental Advisory Council's request to review certain projects within the
Rural Lands Stewardship Program. At this point, staff will provide any
information regarding SSA(Stewardship Sending Areas) applications for
comments, but the Council will not be an official step in the"review process."
Dr. Hushon stated that is a poor decision based on the potential (fiscal and
environmental, etc.) impacts on the Iarge-scale developments(1000—5000 acres).
Bill Lorenz was referring to reviews for SSA's not SRA's.
Dr. Hushon stated that the Council should review SRA's as a step in the
application process.
A discussion ensued whether the projects should be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis or an automatic review; and whether the Council has the authority to review
any projects deemed"necessary."
Summer Brown-Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted that the memo
sent by the Council to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regarding the
issue had not been placed on a BCC agenda for consideration.
Mr. Standridge noted that the Land Development Code currently requires
Council review the project that abuts either Conservation Lands or is a
Development of Regional Impact. He noted that the processing of SSA's and
SRA's are different with the SSA's applications being voluntarily submitted by a
landowner.
Bill Lorenz requested clarification if the Council wants to review SSA's and/or
SRA's.
Chairman Hughes summarized the Council's request is to review any SSA's for
informational purposes. The Council has requested official review of SRA
applications via a memo to the BCC.
5
July, 2 2008
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney,outlined the LDC requirements for
Council review within the Program which are SRA's in Areas of Critical State
Concern, projects adjoining land designated as Conservation Lands (Stewardship
Areas). The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Charter allows the EAC to
review any petition, which requires approval of the Collier County Planning
Commission(CCPC)or the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) where staff
receives a request from the Chairman of the EAC, CCPC or BCC for that petition
to be reviewed by the EAC. He noted this provision is"petition" specific on a
case-by-case basis, which may add an objectionable "hurdle" for applicants who
rely on the language in the LDC.
Dr. Hushon noted that she is under the impression that the EAC's request to the
BCC includes an LDC amendment, which could have been part of this years LDC
Cycle of LDC amendments.
Speakers
Russell Priddy,Landowner, stated the request should include a Land
Development Code Change. He stated the program should identify the amount of
lands to be preserved and developed around this concept. He would not
recommend any changes in the SSA's process to incorporate EAC reviews.
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida stated an LDC amendment
should be undertaken and agrees the SSA's should remain as inexpensive and
simple a process as possible.
Mr. Jacobsen moved that the EAC would like to seek the appropriate method
for a Land Development Code amendment with an option to review Stewardship
Receiving Areas(SRA's). Second by Mr. Bishof.
Dr. Hushon stated she opposed the motion based on the "option to review" but
would support a"requirement to review."
Mr. Jacobsen amended the motion and moved that the EAC would like to seek
the appropriate method for a Land Development Code amendment to review
Stewardship Receiving Areas(SRA's). Second by Mr. Bishof.
Barbara Burgeson requested clarification if staff would require BCC pre-
approval before developing the amendment request.
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager stated the motion would not require a BCC
pre-approval for staff to prepare the amendment request.
Jeff Wright suggested the motion include the appropriate sections in the LDC for
the Amendment(Sections 4.8.07.F.1.g and 8.06.03.)
Mr. Jacobsen amended the motion and moved that the EAC would like to seek
the appropriate method for a Land Development Code amendment(Sections
4.8.07.F.1.g and 8.06.03) to review Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA's.)
Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 8-0.
6
July, 2 2008
Chairman Hughes directed staff to notify the Collier County Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of the above action.
B. Review Revised LDC Amendments
Dr. Hushon chaired this item.
Catherine Fabacher, Land Development Code Manager provided an updated
document of Land Development Code Amendment Requests containing pages
139-242. The document contained revisions based on Environmental Advisory
Council input at the June 4, 2008 meeting and staff review.
LDC PAGE: 3:14 & 3:23
LDC SECTIONS: 3.04.01 Generally; 3.04.02 Species Specific Requirements;
3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants; 3.04.04 Penalties for Violation:
Resort to Other Remedies
Page 139-154 of the document
A discussion ensued on the proposed language as follows:
• Page 153, 3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants, after the word
"encouraged"on line#7 stating that if the protected plants are on-site
they be included in the Preserve Management Plan cross referencing
Section 3.05.07.H.1 or other applicable sections.
• On page 153, 3.04.03, Requirements for Protected Plants, A statement
to encourage applicable conservancy groups to assist in plant relocation
(Natural Plant Society); Barbara Burgeson recommended that this not be
written into the code, however staff could obtain flyers from various
organizations to be passed on to applicants if necessary.
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the wording change(or similar language) -
Page 153, 3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants, after the word
"encouraged"on line#7 incorporating a statement if the protected plants
are on-site they be included in the Preserve Management Plan cross
referencing Section 3.05.07.H.1 (or other applicable Sections of the Land
Development Code). Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimously
8-0.
Chairman Hughes moved to approve the wording change—Page 140,
Section 3.04.01.A.4 to state "Endangered, threatened or commercially
exploited plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services as currently contained in Chapter 5B-40.0055 of the
Florida Administrative Code as of July 2008." Second by Mr. Lehmann.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
• Page 144 3.04.02.7.e. —ramifications of requiring a minimum of 25
acres for gopher tortoise relocation purposes, Barbara Burgeson stated
that the requirement is intended for"off-site"relocation. It was noted
7
July, 2 2008
that the wording appears within the "on-site"relocation area of the
section and may preclude "on-site"relocation in suitable areas less than
25 acres in size.
Dr. Hushon moved to incorporate language replacing Section 3.04.02.7.e(Page
144) and state `If Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits
on-site relocation and the Gopher Tortoise is healthy, the County accept the
determination if consistent with the Growth Management Plan." Second by
Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Barbara Burgeson noted that the language regarding 25 acres minimum might
need to be included for"off-site"relocation purposes, as the intention of the
requirement was to assist in defining"suitable habitat"where applicable to the
section of the amendment request.
Catherine Fabacher requested clarification if the amendment request was
approved with those changes or just specific language changes in individual
sections of the request.
Dr. Hushon noted that the motions were for specific language changes in sections
of the amendment request and asked if the request would be revised and returned
to the EAC for review.
Barbara Burgeson stated that the motions are approving specific
recommendations for language changes and staff may or may not incorporate the
changes, however a summary sheet will be provided to further Boards indicating
EAC (and others if applicable) recommendations as well as staff's
recommendation for approval or disapproval of proposed language.
LDC PAGE: 1:35-1:36; 3:28; 10:89-10:91; 10:96
LDC SECTIONS: 1.08.02, 3.05.05, 10.02.06
Page 155-161 of the document
Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the Amendment Request(LDC PAGE: 1:35-
1:36; 3:28; 10:89-10:91; 10:96-LDC SECTIONS: 1.08.02,3.05.05, 10.02.06).
Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 8-0.
LDC PAGE: 3:28.1 - 3:28.2
LDC SECTION: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Pages 163-170 of the document
The following items were discussed:
• Section 3.05.07B.2.vi (Page 167) -the ramifications of allowing
preserves requiring mechanical clearing to utilize off-site preservations
and the potential unnecessary reduction of on-site preserves and
possible inclusion of the language in Section 3.05.07.B.2.vii (Page 167)
for a 2:1 ratio of mitigation lands;
8
July, 2 2008
Catherine Fabacher stated this was a previous recommendation by the EAC and
staff disagreed with the requirement. She will research the reason and report back
to the Council at their next meeting.
Mr. Jacobsen expressed concern that the staff members were not present to
address those reasons.
Chairman Hughes stated that there is not adequate representation(staff)present
for the argument against the 2:1 ratio recommended by the EAC. Without any
staff information regarding the item, it could not be thoroughly discussed.
• Section 3.05.07A.1 —paragraph 2,(Page 164)—providing a definition
for"highly disturbed pastures"
• Section 3.05.07.A.7(Page 165)—ramifications of the wording"Re-
creation shall not be required for sites that were permitted to clear
vegetation and remain cleared"and whether individuals will be
encouraged to allow the land return with exotic vegetation to avoid
native vegetation requirements
Break— 12:25PM
Re-convene— 1:28
• Section 3.05.07.B.2.c.iii—paragraph 2, line 11 (Page 169)—discussion
on the merits of revising the language to allow donated lands to be
"used as mitigation purposes for other Federal, State or County permit
or approval"
Speaker
Nicole Ryan,Conservancy of Southwest Florida stated she agreed with the
language proposed by staff in Section 3.05.07.B.2.c.iii (Page 169), however,
recommends removing Section 3.05.07.B.2.a. vi-vii (page 167 — 168). Further,
she recommends that Section 3.05.07.B.2.b.ii (page 168) include language for
"Lands that are utilized as habitat, as during all or a portion of the life cycle of the
food source species for listed species"or similar language. In addition, Section
3.05.07.B.2.b.iii (Page 169) incorporating language for management fees for
donated land similar to the wording for monetary payments identified in Section
3.05.07.B.2.c.ii (Page 168). The Conservancy had provided this recommendation
previously. She clarified it would apply to lands donated to Conservation Collier.
Catherine Fabacher stated that she was notified that staff disagrees with this
recommendation(management fees for donated lands).
Mr. Jacobsen stated he appreciated the staff that was present, however was
disappointed that the staff members opposed to language changes were not in
attendance to provide reasons for the opposition to the Council for consideration.
Mr. Bishof moved that Section 3.05.07.B.2.c.iii rd
paragraph -line 8(Page
169) be revised from "Land donated to satisfy the offsite vegetation preservation
9
July, 2 2008
retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County, and must
not be used as mitigation for any other Federal,State or County permit
approval"to "Land donated to satisfy the offsite vegetation preservation
retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County." Second
by Mr. Jacobsen. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
Dr. Hushon moved to revise Section 3.05.07.B.2.c.iii,paragraph 2—last line
(Page 169) "conservation purposes."to "conservation purposes. If the land is
donated to Conservation Collier it shall have no less than 25%management fee
of the value of the land"or similar language as found in Section3.05.07.B.2.c.ii
(Page 168). Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Dr. Hushon moved to revise Section 3.05.07.B.2.b.ii(page 168) to include
"Lands that are utilized as habitat during all or a portion of the life cycle of the
food source species for listed species"or similar language(in addition to the
other lands qualified in the Section). Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried
unanimously 8-0.
Mr. Jacobsen left the meeting at 2:15pm
Mr. Bishof requested clarification if the preserves requiring mechanical clearing
to qualify for off site preservation are existing or proposed preserves.
Barbara Burgeson stated that the mechanical clearing section applies to
proposed preserves.
Mr. Bishof suggested the language in this section be clarified (3.05.07.B.2.a.vi)
Dr. Hushon moved to strike Section(s) 3.05.07.B.2.a.vi(page 167). Second by
Mr. Lehmann. Motion carried 6 yes—1 no. Mr. Bishof voted no.
Mr. Bishof stated that he favored clarifying the language as opposed to striking it
entirely.
LDC PAGE: LDC 3:39
LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 199 -202 of the document
Dr. Hushon noted that several recommendations by the EAC were not included
in the revised amendment request with respect to the following points:
• Section 3.05.07H.l.h.ii.a) -(Page 200) addition of language"and create
no adverse impacts"or similar wording in accordance with the GMP
requirements
• Section 3.05.07H.l.h.ii.b) - (Page 200)Provision of a definition of
"hydric soils"
• Section 3.05.07H.I.h.ii.c)—(Page 200)Not allowing discharges into non
hydric areas
10
July, 2 2008
• Section 3.05.07H.l.h.ii.c). iii —(Page 200 -201) Installation of control
structures with set levels to ensure non hydric soils are not inundated
with stormwater
• Section 3.05.07H.1.h.ii.f)—(Page 201) Requirement for restoration if the
preserve is damaged
• Section 3.05.07H.l.h.ii.g)—(Page 201)First sentence should be
amended to reference"Treated stormwater"
Catherine Fabacher noted that some previous requested changes were included
in the revisions however staff disagreed with some recommendations.
• Section 3.05.07H.i.h.ii.e)—(Page 201)Recommending stormwater
facilities should not be allowed within the preserve, clarification that
these areas should not be included in the preserve area.
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida re-iterated the position that
non-hydric soils should not receive stormwater as well as additional inclusion of
the GMP language regarding"no adverse impacts."
Chairman Hughes stated the amendment request should be revised and returned
to the Environmental Advisory Council for review.
LDC PAGE: 10:6— 10:14
LDC SECTION: 10.02.02 Submittal Requirements for All Applicants.
Pages 217-233 of the document
Catherine Fabacher reviewed the status of the requested EAC changes.
Jeff Wright,Assistant County Attorney recommended for Section
10.02.02.A.2.c.iii(Page 221)—the inclusion of language for the reference to the
Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) stating"as
may he amended from time to time"or similar language.
LDC PAGE: 10:104— 10:109
LDC SECTION: 10.02.06. Submittal Requirements for Permits
Pages 235-242 of the document.
Catherine Fabacher reviewed the status of the requested EAC changes.
LDC PAGE: 3:38 —3:39
LDC SECTION: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Pages 191- 194 of the document
Speaker
11
July, 2 2008
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern that the
language in the above section is not compatible with the stormwater in Preserves
Requirements (Section 3.05.07. H.1.h.f)- (Page 201)and a cross reference to the
section should be provided.
Mr. Bishof noted that in Section 3.05.07.H.l.g.vii —(Page 194)piesometers are
currently not allowed uses in preserves and references should be made to
"treated" stormwater throughout the section.
He also expressed concern that the monitoring requirements and subsequent
reporting may not accomplish the intended goal of maintaining on-going water
quality due to the possible lack of analysis of the information. Once the system
and associated development is constructed, if the water quality diminishes, it
would be difficult to institute changes in the system (enlarging the Stormwater
Lake, etc.). In addition, there is no long-term pre-development monitoring data
which would assist in analyzing the"adverse impacts" that may occur in the
future.
The Council noted that the intent is to collect the data and gain knowledge
whether or not approved projects are impacting existing water quality. It was
noted there is no monitoring of the preserves required at this point.
Nicole Ryan stated that the monitoring is important to determine what actually
happens once the project is constructed. She recommended ensuring the
monitoring procedure and subsequent data derived is accurate and leads to the
development of the necessary parameters to measure water quality.
Chairman Hughes stated the amendment request be submitted back to the EAC
for review.
Catherine Fabacher clarified that the following amendment requests are
returning for review.
LDC PAGE: 3:14& 3:23
LDC SECTIONS: 3.04.01 Generally; 3.04.02 Species Specific Requirements;
3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants; 3.04.04 Penalties for Violation:
Resort to Other Remedies
Page 139 - 154 of the document
LDC PAGE: 3:28.1 - 3:28.2
LDC SECTION: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 163 - 170 of the document
LDC PAGE: 3:38 —3:39
LDC SECTION: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 191-194 of the document
12
July, 2 2008
LDC PAGE: LDC 3:39
LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 199—202 of the document
LDC PAGE: 10:6— 10:14
LDC SECTION: Submittal Requirements for All Applicants.
Pages 217-223 of the document
C. EAC motions for approval and discussions—BCC actions May 13, 2008
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney acknowledged that he has received
notification via e-mail of Environmental Advisory Council member Roger
Jacobsen's resignation.
Jeff Wright provided an overview of Environmental Advisory Council Powers
and Duties and submitted a copy of their Charter to the Council. He reviewed
Sections 8.06.01 —8.06.03 and read Section 8.06.03, Powers and Duties into the
record. He noted EAC purview is environmental based and it can be difficult to
determine where"planning issues"end and "environmental concerns"begin. He
recommended that when the issue arises, members refer to their Powers and
Duties and overall Charter for direction.
Further, with a denial, specify the reason for denials and attempt to identify
sections within the Land Development Code or Growth Management Plan
applicable to the denial. If this is not possible, outline specific environmental
concerns for the record to ensure the decision will not be"called into question."
Dr. Hushon expressed a concern, specifically a member of the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC)indicated that concerns or conditions of approvals
(or the reason for conditions) generated by the EAC are not forwarded to the
CCPC via the Staff Report, minutes, etc.
Chairman Hughes requested that Staff begin submitting CCPC and Board of
County Commissioners' Staff Reports to EAC members for review to ensure
EAC decisions and concerns are incorporated into the report.
Summer Brown-Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted that that process
will be initiated.
D. School Board Reviews
Barbara Burgeson stated it was an administrative decision that if a School Board
project required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the EIS would not
require submission to the Environmental Advisory Council for review.
Chairman Hughes requested Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney research
this decision and report back to the EAC.
E. Update Members on projects
13
July, 2 2008
Barbara Burgeson reported that Esperanza Plaza, Standing Oaks, Tamiami Crossing
and Mocking Bird Crossing were approved.
•
IX. Sub-Committee Reports
None
X. Staff Comments
Barbara Burgeson stated that the November and December Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC) meetings will be held at the Community Development and
Environmental Services Building on Horseshoe Drive. Also, appointed EAC
member, Dan-en Brooks has resigned.
Summer Brown-Araque noted for logistic reasons, it is difficult to incorporate
EAC comments on LDC Amendment Requests within 30 days and recommended the
process incorporate a 60-day turnaround (requests be reviewed every other meeting
when necessary.)
XI. Council Member Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:02 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
lel
Chairman4illianTiighes
These Minutes we,re approved by the Board/Chairman on cr- J �-C>
as presented ✓ , or as amended
14
July, 2 2008
Barbara Burgeson reported that Esperanza Plaza, Standing Oaks, Tamiami Crossing
and Mocking Bird Crossing were approved.
IX. Sub-Committee Reports
None
X. Staff Comments
Barbara Burgeson stated that the November and December Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC)meetings will be held at the Community Development and
Environmental Services Building on Horseshoe Drive. Also,appointed EAC
member, Darren Brooks has resigned.
Summer Brown-Araque noted for logistic reasons, it is difficult to incorporate
EAC comments on LDC Amendment Requests within 30 days and recommended the
process incorporate a 60-day turnaround(requests be reviewed every other meeting
when necessary.)
XI. Council Member Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:02 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Chairman William Hughes
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended
14
2008
CYCLE 1
LDC
AMENDMENT
REQUEST
BACKUP
MATERIAL
Text underlined is new text to be addeg,
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development& Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Manager, Environmental Services
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2008 Cycle 1
LDC PAGE: LDC3:14& LDC3:23
LDC SECTION(S): 3.04.01 Generally
3.04.02 Species Specific Requirements
3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants
3.04.04 Penalties for Violation: Resort to Other Remedies
CHANGE: Include criteria for protection of selected listed plants.
Scrivener's error to correct lettering/numbering in section 3.04.02.
Update the gopher tortoise and bald eagle sections to reflect changes so
the Code is consistent with the FFWCC Bald Eagle (BE) and Gopher
Tortoise (GT) Management Plans approved last September 2007 and this
June 2008.
REASON: Required as part of the EAR-based GMP amendment to CCME Policy 7.1.6.
Policy 7.1.6 states the following:
"The County shall evaluate the need for the protection of listed plants and within one (1)
year of the effective date of this amendment adopt land development regulations
addressing the protection of listed plants."
Scrivener's error to correct lettering/numbering.
To be consistent with the FFWCC management plans for the BE and GT as
recommended by the EAC.
FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Where listed plants identified in this
amendment occur on site and where relocation is feasible, additional expense will be
incurred upon the applicant to relocate them. Management needs for listed plants will
have to be included in preserve management plans, where applicable.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
139
I:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11AmendmentsV2evisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term Alak
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Required as part of the EAR-based
GMP amendment to CCME Policy 7.1.6.
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created May 1, 2008.Amended June 11, 2008.
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.04.00 PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED,THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES
3.04.01 Generally
A. The purpose of this section is to protect species in the County, by including
measures for protection, management and monitoring and/or relocation of
endangered, threatened, of species of special concern, or species protected by
F.A.C., F.S. the Endangered Species Act or other approved guidelines, rules or
management plans (herein after referred to as protected species).,. listed or
protected by:
1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as
endangered, threatened, of species of special concern, species protected
by F.A.C; protection pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S.
2. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered or
threatened.
3. Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES).
4. Endangered, threatened or commercially exploited plants listed by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as further
identified in section 3.04.03.
B. Applicability and Exemptions.
1. General Applicability: Except as provided in 2. below, all new
development shall be directed away from listed species and their
habitats by complying with the guidelines and standards set forth in this
section.
2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from the provisions of this Section:
a. Agricultural operations that fall within the scope of sections
163.3162(4) or 823.14(6), Florida Statutes;
b. All development applications within the RLSA District, except as
specifically provided in section 4.08.00; and
140
t:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1 Wmendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL 813.doc
Text underlined is new text to Pe added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
c. All development applications within the NBMO, except as
specifically provided in section 2.03.08.
C. EIS and management plans.
1, Exemption. Single-family lots that are not part of a previously approved
subdivision or SDP shall not be required to prepare an EIS or a
management plan.
2. EIS. An EIS is required as set forth in section 10.02.02. The County shall
notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that
may be discovered.
3. Management and Monitoring Plans.
a. General Requirements, A wildlife management and monitoring
plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey
indicates listed or protected species are utilizing the site. These
plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land
uses away from listed or protected species and their habitats and
shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed or protected
species and their habitat from the negative impacts of proposed
development.
b. References. The following references shall be used, as
appropriate, to prepare the required management plans;
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS,
1999.
ii. Guidelinoc for tho Bald Eagle
Management Plan Adopted April 9, 2008 by the FFWCC
(and technical literature cited therein),
Region, USFWS, 1987. the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, the Migratory Bird and Treaty Act, and the
F.A.C. 68A-16.002 Bald Eagle protection.
iii. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise
•
(Gopherus polyphemus) Populations found on Lands
Slated for Large Scale development in Florida, Technical
Report No. 4, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, 1987 and the Gopher Tortoise Management
Plan Adopted September 2007 by the FFWCC (and
technical literature cited therein) .
iv. Ecology and development-Related Habitat Requirements
of the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens),
Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, 1991.
141
l:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
D. Protective measures. All developments applications subject to this section shall
adhere to the following:
1. General.
a. In those areas where clustering is permitted, all developments
shall be clustered to discourage impacts to listed species
habitats.
b. Open space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be
used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and
areas dominated by human activities.
c. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be
provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to
facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors.
d. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses, and signage shall
be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
e. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by
evidence, such as denning, foraging or other indications, priority
shall be given to preserving the habitat of that listed species, as
provided in section 4.06.04.
f. Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for all
preserves with listed or protected species on site or when the site
is known to be foraging habitat for listed or protected species.
g. Letters of technical assistance from the FFWCC and written
recommendations from the USFWS shall be deemed to be
consistent with the GMP.
E. Single-family platted lots, seven and one half (7 1/23 acres or less-++t--sizes shall
be exempt from the requirements set forth in section 3.04.02 B., when these lots
are not a part of a previous development which has been required to comply
with section 3.04.02 B. However, gopher tortoises shall be protected pursuant to
this section.
3.04.02 Species Specific Requirements
On property where the wildlife survey establishes that listed or protected species
are utilizing the site or where the site is capable of supporting listed or protected species
and such listed or protected species can be anticipated to potentially occupy the site, the
County shall, consistent with the GMP, consider and utilize recommendations and letters
of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development
orders. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis,
may change the requirements contained herein and any such change shall be deemed
142
l:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1'AmendmentslRevisions\EAC\3.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined Is new text to be added.
Bold text Indicates a defined term
to be consistent with this Code. The following specific species management and
protection plans shall be applicable, in addition to those required by other provision in
this section 3.04.00:
A. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
1. All gopher tortoises, their habitats, and the associated
commensals are hereby protected.
2. It is expressly prohibited to take, which means to harass, harm,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct, any gopher tortoise, and to alter,
destroy, or degrade the functions and values of their natural
habitat, unless otherwise provided for in this section.
3. All gopher tortoise burrows are protected, and it is prohibited to
intentionally destroy or take any such burrow by any means,
unless otherwise provided for in this section.
4. Personnel authorized by the FFWCC or the County may house
and relocate tortoises, as necessary and provided for in this
section.
5. When gopher tortoises are identified on-site, a protectionLandief
management and monitoring plan or off-site relocation and
monitoring plan shall be submitted to the County Manager or
designee for review and approval.
6. The protection,_ar4/er management and monitoring plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following items:
a. A current gopher tortoise survey, which shall be field-
verified by . the County Manager or
designee.
•
b. A proposal for either maintaining the population in place or
relocating it.
c. A site plan identifying the boundaries of the gopher tortoise
preserve.
d. The method of relocation, if necessary.
e. The proposed supplemental plantings, if needed.
f. Detail of the gopher tortoise preserve fencing.
g. An annual maintenance plan describing exotic removal
and vegetation management.
h. Identification of persons responsible for the initial and
143
1:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection or Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(081108)SL 5R.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
annual protection and/or management of the tortoises and
the preserve area. Suitable gopher tortoise habitat shall be
designated on the site plan at the time of the first
development order submittal. Suitable habitat preserved
on site shall be credited to the preservation requirement as
specified in section 3.05.00 of this LDC.
i. An annual monitoring plan in accordance with the
Gopher Tortoise Management Plan Adopted September
2007 by the FFWCC (and technical literature cited therein).
7. Suitable habitat shall be defined as having the following
characteristics:
a. The presence of well-drained, sandy soils, which allow
easy burrowing for gopher tortoises.
b. Appropriate herbaceous ground cover (if not present,
supplemental food sources shall be planted).
c. Generally open canopy and sparse shrub cover, which
allow sufficient sunlight to reach the ground.
d. Typically, includes the presence of an existing gopher
tortoise population.
e. Be a minimum of 25 acres for relocation purposes or may
be less if the population is existingand is healthy.
8. Off-site relocation and monitoring plans shall be permitted to meet
all or part of the on-site gopher tortoise habitat preservation
requirements under the following circumstances:
a. Where suitable habitat does not exist on-site;
b. Where a property owner meets the minimum on-site native
vegetation preservations requirements of this LDC with
and cannot provide appropriate
adequate suitable habitat for gopher tortoises as described
above; or
c. Where scientific data has been presented to the County
Manager or designee, and an environmental professional
opinion is rendered that the requirement to provido tho
required on sito gopher tortoise habitat preeervatieh area
on site will not be conducive to the long-term health of the
on-site population of tortoises.
9. If an off-site relocation monitoring plan is authorized under one (1)
or more of the above co tions criteria, approval of such a plan
shall require a FFWCC State permite
144
I:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1\Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Where appropriate, a combination of
on-site preservation and off-site relocation may be considered.
10. When relocating tortoises on-site, the density shall be reviewed on
a case-by-case basis, and shall be based on the
recommendations found in the Gopher Tortoise Management Plan
Adopted September 2007 by the FFWCC (and technical literature
cited therein) . • _ _ _ _ - _ . . _- -
11. When identifying the native vegetation preservation requirement
of section 3.05.07 of this LDC for parcels containing gopher
tortoises, priority shall be given to protecting the largest, most
contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of
active burrows, and for providing a connection to off-site adjacent
gopher tortoises' preserves. All gopher tortoise preserves shall be
platted with protective covenants, as required by this section and
section 3.05.07 H of-this-ABG or, if the project is not platted, shall
provide such language on the approved site development plan. It
shall be a priority to preserve scrub habitat, when it exists on-site,
for its rare unique qualities and for being one of the most
endangered habitats in the County, regardless of whether gopher
tortoises are relocated off-site.
12. Gopher tortoises shall be removed from all active and inactive
and abandoned burrows located within the area of construction
prior to any site improvement, in accordance with the
protection/management plan approved by County Manager or
designee.
13. Exemptions. Single family platted lots,
Of--less-in-size, shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in
subsections 5 through 11 above, when these lots are not a part of
a previous development which has been required to comply with
subsections 5 through 11. However, gopher tortoises shall be
protected pursuant to 1.—, 2 and 3 above.
B. Sea Turtle Protection.
1. The purpose of this section is to protect the threatened and
endangered sea turtles that nest along the beaches of the
County, by safeguarding sea turtle hatchlings from sources of
artificial light, and adult and hatchling sea turtles from injury or
harassment. The County shall adhere to state and federal
guidelines for the protection of sea turtles.
2. The requirements of this section apply when development or
lighting associated with development is located within three
hundred (300) feet of mean high water; when parking lots, dune
walkovers, or other outdoor lighting is proposed; and when
145
1:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1\Amendments1Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
reflective surfaces that will be illuminated by outdoor lighting will
be visible from the beach.
a. Outdoor lighting shall be held to the minimum necessary
for security and safety. Floodlights and landscape or
accent lighting shall be prohibited.
b. All lighting, including wall-mounted fixtures, pole lighting,
lights on balconies, and any other type of lighting not
specifically referenced by this section, shall be of low
intensity, and shall be fitted with hoods or positioned so
that the light sources, or any reflective surfaces illuminated
by such sources, shall not be visible from the beach.
c. Low profile luminaries shall be used in parking lots, and
such lighting shall be fitted with hoods or positioned so that
the light sources, or any reflective surfaces illuminated by
such sources, shall not be visible from the beach.
d. Dune crosswalks shall utilize low profile shielded
luminaries directed and positioned so that light sources, or
any reflective surfaces illuminated by such sources shall
not be visible from the beach. dune crossover lighting
shall be limited to the area landward of the primary dune.
e. If high intensity lighting is necessary, low pressure sodium
vapor luminaries shall be used and fitted with a hood or
positioned so that the light sources, or any reflective
surfaces illuminated by such sources, shall not be visible
from the beach.
f. Plates of tinted glass are required for windows that are
visible from the beach. The tinted glass shall be any
window or glazing that has an industry-approved light
transmittance value of forty-five (45) percent or less. Such
transmittance shall be limited to the visible spectrum (400
to 700 nanometers), and shall be measured as the
percentage of light that is transmitted through the glass,
inside to outside.
g. Temporary security lights at construction sites shall not be
mounted more than fifteen (15) feet above the ground.
Light sources, or any reflective surfaces illuminated by
such sources, shall not be visible from the beach.
3. For existing development, existing structures with any light
sources, or reflective surfaces illuminated by such sources, that
are visible from the beach, shall be in compliance with the
following:
146
l:\08 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1\Amendments Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL 013.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
a. All lights shall be turned off after 9:00 p.m. between May 1
and October 31 of each year, or fitted with a hood or
positioned so that the light sources, or any reflective
surfaces illuminated by such sources, shall not be visible
from the beach.
b. Lights illuminating dune crosswalks shall be turned off
after 9:00 p.m. between May 1 and October 31 of each
year, and must be modified to conform to the requirements
for new development in accordance with section
3.04.03(B) of this section.
c. Security and emergency exit lighting shall follow the same
requirements stated in section 3.04.03(C)(1) of this
section. If high intensity lighting is necessary, low pressure
sodium vapor luminaries shall be used and fitted with a
hood, or positioned so that the light sources, or any
reflective surfaces illuminated by such sources, shall not
be visible from the beach.
d. At least one (1) of the following measures shall be taken,
where applicable, to reduce or eliminate the negative
effects of interior light emanating from doors or windows
within the line of sight of the beach, where lights currently
illuminate the beach:
In windows facing the Gulf of Mexico, and all inlet
shorelines of these beaches, tinted window
treatments are required for windows that are visible
from the beach so that indoor lights do not
illuminate the beach. The tinted glass shall be any
window or glazing that has an industry-approved
light transmittance value of forty-five(45) percent or
less. Such transmittance shall be limited to the
visible spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), and
shall be measured as the percentage of light that is
transmitted through the glass, inside to outside.
ii. Rearrange lamps and other movable fixtures away
from windows.
iii. Use window treatments, including, but not limited
to, blinds and curtains, to shield interior lights from
the beach.
iv. Turn off unnecessary lights.
4. All publicly owned lighting with light sources that are visible from
the beach, or that illuminate reflective surfaces that are visible
from the beach, shall be turned off after 9:00 p.m. between May 1
147
1:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL 1313.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
and October 31 of each year, or shall be fitted with a hood, or
positioned so that the light sources, or any reflective surfaces
illuminated by such sources, are not visible from the beach.
5. It shall be unlawful, during the nesting season, to construct any
structure, add any fill, mechanically clean any beach, or grade
any dirt within 100 feet of the nesting zone of a beach where sea
turtles nest or may nest, without obtaining a construction in sea
turtle nesting area permit from the County Manager or designee.
a. If sea turtle nesting occurs within 100 yards of the
construction, measured parallel to the shoreline during
permitted construction activities, the nest area shall be
Flagged by the permittee and the County Manager or
designee informed prior to 9:00 a.m. of that morning.
b. Depending on nest location, in relation to intensive
construction activities, the County Manager or designee
may require that the nest(s) be relocated by the applicant.
c. Construction activities shall not interfere with sea turtle
nesting, shall preserve or replace any native vegetation
on the site, must maintain the natural existing beach
profile, and minimize interference with the natural beach
dynamics and function.
d. Construction or repair of any structure, including, but not
limited to, dune walkovers, seawalls, or other revetments,
sandbags, groins, or jetties, shall not be permitted during
sea turtle nesting season on any County beaches, except
if permitted structures are damaged by a named storm or
other declared natural disaster and the following conditions
are met:
1. Minor repair work (boards need to be nailed back to
•- • - -- - - - _ ` -•- •- -
2. Prior to any major repair work (greater than that
a. The appropriate permit from FDEP.
148
1.\08 Amend the LDC\2006-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061106)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
b. The location of all knewn sea turtle nests.
Community Development and
provide assistance in locating nests.
c. A survey by a qualified consultant locating
50 feet of the structure. Relocation of
burrows are in harms way of tho
d. Photographs of the site as it existed after
•
o. An aerial of the property showing the CCSL
line.
f. A copy of a CCSL variance or CCSL permit
their previously recorded GPS locations and
accuracy data to identify a 95% confidence
�. Minor structures, as defined by Florida Statutos
Subsection 161.055, of the Coastal Zono
a. Federal requirements for el
the 100 year flood level,
e.•- - -•- -• • - -
for-flee
c. Current building and life-safety codes,
d. Collier County and State of Florida
149
1:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
f. Any required Collier County zoning atad
requirements established, unless
compliance with such zoning or other
herein.
Minor repair work (boards need to be nailed back to
the existing intact structure, or a few boards need
to be replaced) that can be performed completely
from atop the structure is authorized after obtaining
the necessary approval of the FDEP and notifying
Collier County Environmental Services of that work.
ii. Prior to any major repair work (greater than that
described in 1 above) or reconstruction of any part
of the structure, the following information shall be
provided to so that staff can determine if the major
repair or reconstruction can occur prior to the end
of sea turtle nesting season:
a) The appropriate permit from FDEP.
b) The location of all known sea turtle nests.
Community Development and
Environmental Services (CDES) staff will
provide assistance in locating nests.
Construction activities shall not occur within
10 feet of these boundaries for viable nests.
c) A survey by a qualified consultant locating
any gopher tortoise burrows on site within
50 feet of the structure. Relocation of
gopher tortoises will be required when the
burrows are in harms way of the
construction activity.
d) Photographs of the site as it existed after
the storm to document the conditions of the
property.
e) An aerial of the property showing the CCSL
line.
150
l:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1\Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added,
Bold text indicates a defined term
f) A copy of a CCSL variance or CCSL permit
if required and building permit approving the
original construction of the structure.
q) Sea turtle nest locations will be
reestablished using their previously
recorded GPS locations and accuracy data
to identify a 95% confidence boundary.
Construction activities shall not occur within
10 feet of these boundaries for viable nests.
Nests will be considered viable for 80 days
from the time the nest was recorded unless
it can be proven that a particular nest has
been damaged by the storm and there is no
chance of any hatchlinqs.
e. Minor structures, as defined by Florida Statutes
Subsection 161.055, of the Coastal Zone Protection Act of
1985, shall be approved provided that they also comply
with:
Federal requirements for elevations above the 100-
year flood level,
ii. Collier County Building Code requirements for flood
proofing,
iii. Current building and life safety codes,
iv. Collier County and State of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection CCSUCCCL regulations,
v. Applicable disability access regulations of the
American Disability Act (ADA), and
vi. Any required Collier County zoning and other
development regulations with the exception of
existing density or intensity requirements
established, unless compliance with such zoning or
other development regulations would preclude
reconstruction otherwise intended by the Build back
Policy as determined by the Emergency Review
Board established herein.
6. The following shall be obligations for all property owners who have
had sand washed ashore (as a result of a storm) and deposited on
the dune and seaward of the CCSL. As supported by GMP
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 10.4
and Policy 10.4.8, construction seaward of the CCSL shall not
interfere with sea turtle nesting, will minimize interference with
151
l:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
.
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
natural beach dynamics, and where appropriate will restore the
historical dunes and will vegetate with native vegetation and help
in the restoration of natural functions of coastal barriers and
beaches and dunes.
The property owner may be prohibited from removing the
deposited sand when it is determined that the wash over was a
part of the natural rebuilding of the beach and dune system. Only
native salt tolerant beach or dune vegetation may be planted on
the deposited sand, after obtaining a Collier County CCSL permit.
This shall not apply to sand washed over onto yards that have
received the appropriate Collier County approvals for landscaping
seaward of the CCSL (such as single family homes along
Vanderbilt Beach).
7. It shall be unlawful for any person to kill, molest, or cause direct or
indirect injury to any species of sea turtle in Collier County or
within its jurisdictional waters. It shall be unlawful to collect or
possess any part of a sea turtle.
C. Florida Scrub Jay. Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay
(Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall conform to the guidelines contained in
Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall also provide for
a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or mechanical
protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall also
outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-
site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These
requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-
Species Recovery Plan, May 1999.
D. Bald Eagle. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
the required habitat management plans shall establish
protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain
types of activities during the nesting season. These
requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South
Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999 , the Bald
Eagle Management Plan Adopted April 9, 2008 by the
FFWCC (and technical literature cited therein), the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act the Migratory Bird and
Treaty Act, and the F.A.C. 68A-16.002 Bald Eagle
protection.
E. Red-cockaded woodpecker. For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), the required habitat protection plan shall outline measures to
avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts to
foraging habitat. Where adverse effects can not be avoided, measures
shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate or
mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall be consistent
with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999.
152
l:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
F. Florida black bear. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus
americanus floridanus) may be present, the management plans shall
require that garbage be placed in bear-proof containers, at one or more
central locations. The management plan shall also identify methods to
inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black
bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat suitable for black bear
shall be considered in the management plan.
G. Panther. For projects located in Priority I and Priority II Panther Habitat
areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of
undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther
(Fells concolor coryt) by directing intensive land uses to currently
disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood
hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense
land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks,
passive recreational areas, golf courses). Golf courses within the REMU
district shall be designed and managed using standards found in that
district. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls
for these permitted uses and shall address the opportunity to utilize
prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetative
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These
requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-
Species Recovery Plan, May 1999, and with the provisions set forth in
this section.
H. West Indian Manatee. The management and protection plans
requirements based upon the Manatee Protection Plan for the West
Indian Manatee are set forth in section 5.05.02.
(Ord. No. 05-27, § 3.J)
3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants
The following plants shall be retained on site when located within preserves. When
located within areas to be developed, the these plants shall be relocated to on-site
preserves if the on-site preserves are able to support the plants and the relocation is
considered feasible, as determined by the County Manager or designee. Listed plants
already common within the preserve may not have to be relocated to the preserve.
Where retention or relocation of plants to on-site preserves is not feasible or needed,
relocation to on-site open space areas or suitable locations off site is encouraged.
Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis
Cardinal airplant Tillandsia fasciculata
Clamshell orchid Encyclia cochleata
Cowhorn orchid Cvrtopodium punctatum
Curtis milkweed Asclepias curtissii
Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata
Golden creeper Ernodea liftoralis
Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana
153
l:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\RevisionslEAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
inkberry Scaevola olumieri
Prickly apple Cereus gracilis
Satinleaf Chrvsoohvllum olivaeforme
Simpson's stopper Mvrcianthes fragrans var. simpsonii
Twisted airplant Tillandsia flexuosa
Wild cotton Gossvpium hirsutum
3.04.03 3.04.04 Penalties for Violation: Resort to Other Remedies
Violation of the provisions of this section or failure to comply with any of its
requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person or firm who violates this
section or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be
fined, or imprisoned, or both, as provided by law. Each day such violation continues shall
be considered a separate offense. Each taking of a gopher tortoise shall constitute a
separate violation. It is not the intent to include tortoises that may be accidentally injured
or killed during an approved relocation procedure that is done by a qualified consultant,
in accordance with their protection/management plan. Any other person, who commits,
participates in, assists in, or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a
separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided. The county, in addition to the
criminal sanctions contained herein, may take any other appropriate legal action,
including but not limited to injunctive action, to enforce the provisions of this section.
154
l:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1VAmendments\Revislons\EAC13.04.00 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed
Species-Listed Plants LDRs(061108)SL BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Environmental Advisory Council
Collier County Planning Commission
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Manager, Environmental Services
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2008
LDC PAGE: LDC l:35-LDC 1:36, LDC3:28, LDC 10:89-LDC I 0:91, LDC 10:96
LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02, 3.05.05, 10.02.06
CHANGE: Require a vegetation removal permit and provide determining criteria for
removal of vegetation containing nests or cavity trees of protected or listed animal
species.
Revise the "native vegetation definition" in accordance with the new definition adopted
with the EAR-based GMP amendments to Conservation and Coastal Management
Element(CCME).
Background: Recently authorization was given via e-mail from the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to a property owner of a single-family lot in Pine Ridge, to cut down a slash
pine tree containing an active bald eagle nest. Current State and Federal rules and the
adopted April 9, 2008 FFWCC Bald Eagle Management Plan require that a permit be
issued when taking a bald eagle nest. No take permit was issued from either the FFWCC
or USFWS for removal of this nest.
There is no permit required for removal of dead trees with cavities or nests of listed or
protected animal species. They are protected when they are in preserves or areas of
protected vegetation, and are protected through the threatened, endangered, and listed
species protection of the Code and Growth Management Plan.
Currently there are no specific criteria in the LDC that would allow for removal of a tree
with a nest or cavity of a protected or listed animal species.
In response to the above referenced incident staff received direction from the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) to prepare an LDC amendment to preclude this from happening in the future. In
order to address the concerns of both the EAC and CCPC, the Code should be amended
as follows.
155
I:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1 Amendments\RevisionslEAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text Indicates a defined term
1. Reinsert in the LDC the definition for"protected vegetation"and include as part of the
definition, dead woody vegetation with nests or cavities of protected or listed animal
species. When the LDC was re-codified, the definition of protected vegetation was
deleted.
2. Include in the vegetation removal permit exceptions subsection of the LDC, the
requirement for permits when listed or protected animal species are utilizing the
vegetation.
3. Include in the vegetation removal permit subsection of the LDC a provision to allow
for the removal of vegetation containing a nest or cavity tree of listed or protected animal
species, with specific criteria.
4. Include in the vegetation removal permit enforcement and penalties subsection of the
LDC, fines for removal of vegetation containing nests or cavity trees of protected or
listed animal species.
REASON: To address the concerns of the Environmental Advisory Council and Collier
County Planning Commission, and to prevent the unauthorized removal of vegetation
containing nests or cavity trees of protected or listed animal species.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: A vegetation removal permit will be required
to request removal of vegetation containing a nest or cavity tree of listed or protected
animal species.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 1.08.02, 3.05.05, 10.02.06
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The change in "native vegetation
definition" is required as part of the EAR-based GMP amendment to CCME Policy 6.1.1
(I).
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version created April 16, 2008. Amended
June 11, 2008.
Amend the LDC as follows:
1.08.02 Definitions
Vegetation, Category I Invasive Exotic: Invasive exotic vegetation that alters
native vegetation communities by: displacing native plant species, changing the
structure or ecological functions of native plant communities, or hybridizing with native
species; which includes all species of vegetation listed on the 2003 Florida Exotic Pest
Plant Council's List of Invasive Species, under Category I.
156
l:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added,
Bold text indicates a defined term
Vegetation, Category ll Invasive Exotic. Invasive exotic vegetation that has
increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered native plant communities
by displacing native plant species, changing the structure or ecological functions of
native plant communities, or hybridizing with native species.
Vegetation, exotic: A plant species introduced to Florida, purposefully or
accidentally from a natural range outside of Florida. The terms Exotic vegetation and
Nonnative vegetation are interchangeable. Exotic vegetation includes Naturalized
Vegetation, and Category I and Category II Invasive Exotics.
Vegetation, native: Native vegetation means native southern Floridian species as
determined by accepted valid scientific references identified in section 4.06.05C. Where
this Code refers to, or requires retention of, existing native vegetation, the term native
vegetation is further defined as - _ . - ' . _. •• _ • _ .°. - ,.. __ .
• "' - -.-- - - -' • - • - - - • - • --=- -- a vegetative community
having 25 percent or more canopy coverage or highest existing_vegetative strata of
native plant species.
Vegetation, naturalized: Exotic vegetation that sustains itself outside cultivation,
but is not prohibited exotic vegetation.
Vegetation, prohibited exotic: Category I or Category II Invasive Exotic
Vegetation limited to those enumerated in section 3.05.08 of this Code.
Vegetation, protected: Any living. woody plant (tree, shrub or groundcover) and
any living or dead, woody plant (tree,shrub or groundcoverl that has a nest or cavity of a
listed or protected animal species (see Section 3.04.00). Nuisance invasive vines and
nuisance invasive groundcover are not protected vegetation.
3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
The County Manager or designee may approve an application for vegetation
removal permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the
layout and design of the proposed development to preserve existing vegetation and to
otherwise enhance the aesthetic appearance of the development by the incorporation
of existing vegetation in the design process. Relocation or replacement of vegetation
may be required as a condition to the issuance of an approval in accordance with the
criteria set forth in this section. In addition, a vegetation removal permit may be issued
under the following conditions:
A. Protected vegetation is a safety hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
public services, utilities, or to an existing structure.
B. Diseased or otherwise unhealthy vegetation, as determined by standard
horticultural practices, and, if required, a site inspection by the County
Manager or designee.
C. A final local development order has been issued which allows removal
of the protected vegetation.
157
I:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EACl3.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
D. Compliance with other codes and/or ordinances may involve protected
vegetation removal.
E. Replacement of non-native vegetation shall be with native vegetation
and shall be subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee.
Replacement vegetation shall comply with the standards of section
4.06.05 and shall include the following minimum sizes: one gallon ground
cover; seven (7) gallon shrubs; fourteen (14) foot high trees with seven
foot crown spread and dbh (diameter at breast height) of three inches.
Replacement native vegetation shall be planted within fourteen (14)
calendar days of removal.
F. On a parcel of land zoned RSF, VR, E, or other nonagricultural,
noncommercial zoning district in which single-family lots have been
subdivided for single-family use only, a vegetation removal permit may be
issued for any permitted accessory use to that zoning.
G. The proposed mangrove alteration has a DEP permit, or meets the
permitting standards in the Florida Administrative Code. However,
mangrove removal or trimming shall be prohibited in all preserves or
areas used to fulfill the native vegetation preservation requirements.
H. Removal of vegetation for approved mitigation bank sites (as defined by
the Florida Administrative Code); state, federal or county approved or
endorsed environmental preservation, enhancement, or restoration
projects, shall be permitted. Vegetation removal permits issued under
these criteria are valid for the period of time authorized by such agency
permits.
Vegetation relocation plan. If vegetation relocation is proposed by the
applicant prior to site development plan, construction plan or other final
approvals, a vegetation relocation permit(vegetation removal permit) may
be issued by the County Manager or his designee provided that it can be
demonstrated that early transplantation will enhance the survival of the
relocated vegetation. The vegetation relocation plan shall document
methods of relocation, timing of relocation, watering provisions,
maintenance and other information as required by the County Manager or
his designee.
J. Landscape plant removal or replacement. The removal or replacement of
approved landscaping shall be done in accordance with the regulations
that guide the landscape plans reviews and approvals in section 4.06.00.
A vegetation removal permit will not be issued for the removal or
replacement of landscape plants. That approval must be obtained through
an amendment process to the landscape plan or as otherwise authorized
by permit by the Collier County Landscape Architect.
K. Removal of vegetation for firebreaks approved by the State of Florida,
Division of Forestry, shall be permitted. The width of the approved
clearing shall be limited to the minimum width determined necessary by
the Division of Forestry.
158
1:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
L. A State or Federal permit issuance depends on data that cannot be
obtained without preliminary removal of some protected vegetation. The
clearing shall be minimized and shall not allow any greater impacts to the
native vegetation on site than is absolutely necessary. Clearing shall be
limited to areas that are outside any on-site preserves, as identified on
the PUD master plan, Plat/Construction Plans or Site Development Plan.
M. In conjunction with a Collier County approved Preserve Management
Plan, native vegetation clearing may be approved only when it is to
improve the native habitat or to improve listed species habitat.
N. Conservation Collier projects which may need minimal clearing for
parking, pathways for walking, or structures that may not require site plan
approvals.
0. Early clearing will be allowed as part of a final review of an SDP or PPL,
after the Environmental Services Review Staff approves the necessary
components of the project to ensure the appropriate environmental
protection and preservation on site. This can only be allowed after the
following are completed and approved: 1) final configuration and
protection of the preserve is complete, 2)the conservation easements are
completed and approved by both the environmental review staff and the
county attorney's office, 3) the environmental review staff has approved
the clearing of the site through the site clearing/preservation plan, 4)
copies of all applicable Federal, State, and Local permits must be
submitted and reviewed against the site clearing/preservation plan. This
early clearing does not authorize approval for excavation, spreading fill,
and grading. That must be approved through a preliminary work
authorization process in accordance with section 10.02.04.4.f. If for any
reason the underlying SDP or PPL is not approved, the property owner
will be responsible for revegetation of the site in accordance with Section
4.06.04.A.1.a.vii.
P. Removal of living or dead vegetation with any nest or cavity of a listed or
protected animal species.
1. Removal of the vegetation containing a nest or cavity may be
allowed when:
a. The vegetation is located on a parcel of land subdivided for
single-family use only, and is located in such a manner
that either:
the principal structure cannot be constructed, or
ii, all access to the property is impeded.
b. The protected vegetation poses an imminent threat to
human safety.
159
1:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1 emendments1Revisions\EAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061106)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
2. In order for vegetation containing a nest or cavity to be removed,
the following conditions shall also be met:
a. The vegetation is located outside of a preserve or an area used to
fulfill the native vegetation preservation requirements of this Code,
unless it poses an imminent threat to human safety.
b. Permits shall be obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
authorizing the removal of the nest or cavity tree, in accordance
with state and federal permit requirements.
* *
10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
* * * * * * * * * * *
C. Vegetation Removal permit requirements.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
2. Application contents. Application for a vegetation removal permit shall be
submitted to the County Manager or his designee in writing on a form
provided by the planning services department. The application shall
include the following information:
a. A generalized vegetation inventory which includes:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ii. Generalized written assessment and evaluation. The
generalized vegetation inventory shall be accompanied by
a brief written assessment of the plant communities which
have been identified on the site. The assessment shall
include an evaluation of character and quality of the plant
communities identified, including their rarity, viability, and
such other physical characteristics and factors that may
affect their preservation, and presence of any listed or
protected species. The inventory assessment and
evaluation shall be prepared by a person knowledgeable in
the identification and evaluation of vegetative resources,
such as a forester, biologist, ecologist, horticulturist,
landscape architect, or certified nurseryman.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Vegetation removal permit exceptions. The following exceptions shall
apply when there are no listed or protected animal species utilizing the
vegetation.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
160
1:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1\Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061106)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
E. Enforcement and penalties.
1. Fines.
a. The failure of a property owner or any other person to obtain an
approved permit as required in this section shall constitute a
misdemeanor and each protected living, woody plant, constituting
protective vegetation, removed in violation of this Code shall
constitute a separate and distinct offense and upon conviction
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation or
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 60 days, or by
both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to or in lieu of the
penalties provided by general law for violation of ordinances, the
board of county commissioners may bring injunctive action to
enjoin the removal of vegetation in violation of this Code.
Removal of vegetation with a nest or cavity of a protected or listed
animal species pursuant to section 10.02.06 C. violation shall be
subject to a fine of$5,000 per nest or cavity tree. With regards to
eagle nests, each eagle, chick and eqq using the nest that is
removed, shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and shall
be subject to separate and individual fines of$5,000 each.
b. The failure of a property owner or any other person, who obtains
an agricultural clearing permit or provides notice of agricultural
clearing pursuant to Section 10.02.06 D., to put the subject
premises into a bona fide agricultural use shall constitute a
misdemeanor and each protected living, woody plant, constituting
protective vegetation, removed in violation of this Code shall
constitute a separate and distinct offense and upon conviction
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation or
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 60 days, or by
both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to or in lieu of the
penalties provided by general law for violation of ordinances, the
board of county commissioners may bring injunctive action to
enjoin the removal of vegetation in violation of this Code.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
161
I:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\RevisionslEAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
This page intentionally left blank.
162
I:\08 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1Vimendmenis\Revisions\EAC13.05.05 P nest-cavity protection(061108)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development& Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2008 Cycle 1
LDC PAGE: LDC3:28.I —LDC3:28.2
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Clarify how the"native vegetation definition" is interpreted.
Relocate the "Exceptions" sub-section criteria to the "General Standards and Criteria"
sub-section.
Clarify single-family preserve setback requirements.
Include criteria for off-site native vegetation retention alternatives as required by the
EAR-based GMP amendments to Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCM E).
REASON: Change made to clarify the native vegetation definition. Currently no criteria
are written on how the native vegetation definition is applied, requiring staff to apply the
definition on a project by project basis. Clarification of the native vegetation definition
will help applicants during the permitting process with the County.
Change made to clarify single-family preserve setback requirements. Unless otherwise
required in the RFMU District, single-family residences are exempt from the native
vegetation retention requirements and from having on site preserves, but not from
preserve setback requirements.
"Off-site native vegetation retention alternatives" are required as part of the EAR-based
GMP amendment to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10).
FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: How the native vegetation definition is
applied has a direct bearing on the amount of native vegetation found on a piece of
property and subsequently the amount required to be preserved. This in turn had a direct
affect on the acreage of land that can be developed. On the other hand, preserved native
163
I:\08 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 11AmendmentstRevisions\EAC\3.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
vegetation within a development is esthetically pleasing and often enhances property
values.
Off-site alternatives to the native vegetation retention requirement will allow applicants
(both government and private) to develop more of their property.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None affected.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT:
"Off-site native vegetation retention alternatives" are required as part of the EAR-based
GMP amendment to CCME Policy 6.1.I (10).
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created May 5, 2008. Amended June I I, 2008.
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.05.07 Preservation Standards
All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate, at
a minimum, the preservation standards contained within this section.
A. General standards and criteria. The following criteria shall be used to
administer the preservation standards in all areas of the County.
1. The preservation of native vegetation shall include all naturally
occurring strata including canopy, under-story and ground cover
emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, except as
otherwise provided in sub-section 3.05.07 H.1.e.
Herbaceous weedy ruderal type vegetation characteristic of
roadsides and highly disturbed pastures shall not be counted as
native plant species for the purpose of this definition.
2. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and
criteria of this Section shall be set aside as preserve areas,
subject to the requirements of sub-section 3.05.07 H. Sins-le-family
3. Native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall be
selected in such manner as to preserve the following, in
descending order of priority, except to the extent that preservation
is made mandatory in sub-sections 3.05.07 F.3. and 3.05.07
G.3.c.:
a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed
species or that serve as corridors for the movement of
164
I:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1'Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
wildlife;
b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks;
c. Onsite wetlands having an accepted functionality WRAP
score of at least 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment Score of at least 0.7;
d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland
area as defined in section 3.05.07 A.3.c above;
e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods; and
f. All other native habitats.
4. Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site and to
adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors.
5. To the greatest extent possible, native vegetation, in quantities
and types set forth in section 4.06.00, shall be incorporated into
landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native
plant communities and to encourage water conservation.
6. Where vegetation has been legally cleared, the amount of native
vegetation used to calculate the preservation requirement will be
that amount present at the time of development order or land use
petition application, if the site was legally cleared. Where
vegetation has been illegally cleared, the amount of native
vegetation used to calculate the preservation requirement will be
that amount present at the time prior to the illegal clearing.
Criteria to determine the legality and criteria for the clearing are
found in Sections 10.02.06 and 3.05.05.
7. Re-development sites. Preservation of native vegetation shall be
calculated based on the acreage of native vegetation existing at
the time of the prior development order submittal. Redevelopment
shall not allow a site to become more non-conforming with regards
to the required amount of native vegetation. Re-creation shall
not be required for sites that were permitted to clear vegetation
and remain cleared.
8. Right-of-way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway
construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including
utilities within the Right-of-way acquisition area are exempt from
preservation requirements.
9. Unless otherwise required in the RFMU District, single-family
residences shall be exempt from the native vegetation retention
requirements and from having on site preserves. Setbacks to
165
I:\08 Amend the 11/W008-Cycle 1 AmendmentslRevisions\EAC13.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text-sti - .. - et . . .
Bold text indicates a defined term
preserves shall be in accordance with section 3.05.07.
10. Development standards_pursuant to section 4.02.14 shall apply to
all development, including single-family, within the ACSC.
11. Created preserves are allowed subject to the criteria in sub-
section 3.05.07 H.1.e.
B. Specific standards applicable outside the RFMU and RLSA districts.
Outside the RFMU and RLSA Districts, native vegetation shall be
preserved on-site through the application of the following preservation
and vegetation retention standards and criteria,
- - -• --- - -• - _ . -- . This Section shall not apply to
1. Required preservation.
Development Type Coastal High Non-Coastal High
Hazard Area Hazard Area
Less than 10% Less than 5 10%
2.5 acres acres
Equal to or Equal to or
greater 25% greater than 5 15%
Residential and Mixed
than 2.5 acres and less
Use development than 20 acres
acres
Equal to or 25%
greater than
20 acres
Golf Course 35% 35%
Less than 5 10% Less than 5 10%
Commercial and acres acres
Industrial development
and all other non- Equal to or Equal to or
specified development greater 15% 15%
types than 5 greater than 5
acres acres
Industrial development 50%, not to exceed 50%, not to exceed
(Rural-Industrial District 25% of the project 25% of the project
only) site site.
a. whore the parcel -. _-. . __ __ _ •- _ _._ . •_
166
1:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.07 A-8 Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
2. Off-site vegetation retention.
a. Applicability. A property owner may request that all or a
portion of the Collier County native vegetation
preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for
only the following situations and subject to restrictions
listed below.
Properties zoned commercial or industrial with
preserves less than 2 acres in size.
ii. Park sites with individual preserves less than one
acre in size.
iii. Essential service facilities other than parks, any
size preserves.
iv. Preserves less than one acre in size.
v Affordable housing projects with a BCC approved
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The
maximum percent of native vegetation retention
allowed offsite shall be no more than the percent of
affordable housing units allowed under the
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement
without limitation as to size of the preserve.
vi. Preserves requiring mechanical clearing of exotic
vegetation in order to restore the habitat, as
determined by the County Manager or designee.
vii. Preserves overrun by Category 1 invasive exotics,
as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council,
and other aggressive non-native vegetation and
where restoration is not possible, as determined by
the County Manager or designee. Preserves not
previously overrun with this type vegetation and
which arrive at this state due to lack of
management, shall mitigate off site at a ratio of 2 to
1.
viii. Created preserves where previous restoration
requirements have not been successful, as
determined by the County Manager or designee, or
167
1:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
•
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
where preserves have not been planted in a
manner which mimics a natural plant community.
b. Restrictions, when one or more of the following situations
occur.
Xeric scrub and hardwood hammocks which are
one acre or more in size, mangrove, coastal dune
and strand environments, and native habitats
known to be utilized by listed species or that serve
as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall not
be allowed to have the native vegetation
preservation retention requirement provided offsite.
ii. Preserves shall remain on site if located adjacent to
major flowways, natural water bodies, estuaries,
preserves (not meeting the offsite preservation
criteria herein), conservation acquisition areas,
wildlife corridors, and protected or listed species
nests, buffers and foraging habitat.
iii. Remaining portions of preserves left onsite must be
a minimum of one acre in size and must not meet
the offsite criteria of vi, vii and viii above, unless
preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying
for offsite vegetation retention. Remaining
preserves less than one acre in size may also be
provided offsite.
c. Off-site Alternatives.
Off-site native vegetation retention requirements
may be met by monetary payment or by land
donation.
ii. Applicants shall make monetary payment to
Conservation Collier for the purchase and
management of off-site conservation lands within
the county. The monetary payment shall be
equivalent to the average per-acre value found in
an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the
number of acres to be preserved off-site, plus no
less than 25 percent of that amount as an
endowment for management of off-site land. The
appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of
the land as if the requested zoning is in place. The
appraisal shall be provided by the applicant and
must be reviewed and approved by the Review
Appraiser of the Real Estate Services Division.
Sites valued at over $500,000 shall require two
appraisals with the monetary value to be
168
I:\08 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1 Wmendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
established at the average of the two appraisals.
Appraisal(s) are valid for only 6 months. One
hundred percent of the monetary payment must be
made prior to final site plan/construction plan
approval. The County will develop the appropriate
fee schedule to review the appraisal(s).
iii. In lieu of monetary payment, applicants may
choose to donate land to Conservation Collier or to
another government agency. In the event of
donation to Conservation Collier, the applicant may
acquire and subsequently donate land within the
project boundaries of Winchester Head, North
Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, another multi-parcel
project or any other land designated by
Conservation Collier, or contiguous to existing
preserved lands.
Applicants choosing to donate land shall be
required to demonstrate that the land to be donated
contains native vegetation communities equal to
or of higher priority as described in 3.05.07(A) than
the land required to be preserved on site. In no
case shall the acreage of land donated be less than
the acreage of land required to be preserved on
site. Land donated to satisfy the offsite vegetation
preservation retention requirement must be located
entirely within Collier County and must not be used
as mitigation for any other Federal, State or County
permit or approval.
Donations of land for preservation shall be made to
a federal, state or local government agency
established or authorized to accept lands for the
conservation and management of land in
perpetuity, subject to the policies and procedures of
the receiving entity. The deed to the receiving entity
shall specify that the receiving entity will accept and
manage the land in perpetuity for conservation
purposes.
Evidence that donations of land for preservation
have been accepted by and donated to the entity
stated above shall be made prior to final site
plan/construction plan approval. Exotics shall be
removed in accordance with the time frames
provided in 3.05.07 H (2).
* * * * * * * * * * *
169
l:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revlslons\EAC13.05.07 A-B Native Veg Definition Single-Family
Preserve Setback Clarification Off-Site Veg Retention Alternatives(061108)SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development&Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2008 Cycle 1
LDC PAGE: LDC3:38-- LDC3:39
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Implement requirements of the GMP with regard to preserve management
plans and how they address natural diversity, stormwater management and agency
approved listed species management plans.
REASON: Required as part of the EAR-based GMP amendments to the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element(CCME).
Policy 6.1.1 (6)states the following:
"A management plan shall be submitted for all preserve areas identified by specific
criteria in the land development regulations to identify actions that must be taken to
ensure that the preserved areas will function as proposed. The plan shall include methods
to address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, stormwater
management (if applicable), and maintenance of permitted facilities. If applicable, a
listed species monitoring program shall be submitted pursuant to Policy 7.1.2 (2)(i)."
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Additional costs may be incurred on the part
of the applicant, where applicable, to address additional monitoring and maintenance
requirements associated with the requirements of the GMP.
Preserves less than 5 acres in size and where listed or protected species are not utilizing
the preserves will not be required to submit a preserve management plan, but only be
required to implement basic maintenance and signage requirements. Time and expense
will be saved on the part of the applicant and staff in not having to prepare and review
management plans for these smaller preserves.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None affected.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Required as part of the EAR-based
GMP amendments to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (6)
OTHER NOTESIVERSION DATE: Created April 14, 2008. Amended June 17, 2008.
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.05.07 Preservation Standards
* * * * * * * * * * * *
191
l:108 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1\Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.07 H.1.g Preserve Management Plans(061708)
SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
H. Preserve standards.
1. Design standards.
f
g. Preserve management plans. Criteria i, it, vi and vii below
are required for all preserves whether a management plan
for the preserve has been approved or not. Preserve
Management Plans shall be required for all preserves 5
acres or more in size or where listed or protected species
are utilizing the preserves. The Preserve Management
Plan shall identify actions that must be taken to ensure that
the preserved areas will maintain natural diversity and
function as proposed. A Preserve Management Plan shall
be included on the approved site plans and shall include
the following elements:
General Maintenance. Preserves shall be
maintained in their natural state and must be kept
free of refuse and debris.
ii. Exotic vegetation Removal, Non-native
vegetation, and Nuisance or Invasive Plant Control.
eExotic vegetation removal and maintenance
plans shall require that Category I Exotics be
removed from all preserves. All exotics within the
first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve
shall be physically removed, or the tree vegetation
cut down to grade and the stump treated. Exotics
within the interior of the preserve may be approved
to be treated in place if it is determined that
physical removal might cause more damage to the
native vegetation in the preserve. When prohibited
exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the
vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with
an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved
herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied.
Control of exotics shall be implemented on a yearly
basis or more frequently when required, and shall
describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion
byla-sahib-Red exotic vegetation of the site in
perpetuity. Non-native vegetation and nuisance or
invasive plants shall be removed from all
Preserves.
`=- - - - - - - - - - -- - . =--
being complied with. The individual's name,
192
I:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.07 H.1.g Preserve Management Plans(061708)
SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
-- = - - -
:- over the
management of the precervo. At that timo, tho
information regarding the person hired by the
manager shall be responsible for annual
an EIS, as set forth in section 10.02.02 A.3.
Designation of a Preserve Manager. A Preserve
Manager shall be responsible for providing the
developer/property owner with technical assistance
regarding management needs for the preserve and
compliance with the Preserve Management Plan.
At a minimum the Preserve Manager shall have the
same qualifications as are required for the preparer
of an EIS, as set forth in sub-section 10.02.02 A.
The individual's names, address and phone
number shall be listed on the Preserve
Management Plan. The same information shall be
provided regarding the developer/property owner.
iv. Wildlife Habitat Management. Where habitats must
be managed with regards to the species utilizing
them, Wildlife Habitat Management strategies may
be required to provide for specialized treatment of
the preserve. Where protected species are
identified, management strategies shall be
developed and implemented in accordance with
section 3.04.00. Where site conditions require
prescribed burns, a fire management plan will be
developed and implemented. The County will
accept state and federal management plans as
long as they are consistent with the requirements of
the LDC.
v. Fire Management, Habitats requiring special land
management practices to control fire or to maintain
species diversity in the absence of fire, must be
included as part of the preserve management plan.
Where prescribed burns are not an option, habitat
management plans shall include removal of dead
vegetation and periodic thinning of vegetation, as
appropriate for the habitat type and surrounding
land uses. Habitat management plans shall be
193
l:\08 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 1\.mendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.07 H.1.g Preserve Management Plans(061708)
SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
consistent with County approved wildlife
management plans.
vi. Protection During Construction and Signage After
Construction. The Preserve Management Plan shall
address protective measures during construction
and signage during and after construction that are
consistent with section 3.05.04.
vii. Monitoring for stormwater in preserves. A
monitoring program must be implemented for
Preserve Areas that will receive stormwater. The
monitoring program must include provisions to
record monthly ground and surface water levels
and appropriate protocols to conduct annual
vegetation surveys. The monitoring program must
extend for a period of 5 years, with annual reports
submitted to the County. A baseline report must be
submitted in accordance with a schedule contained
in the Preserve Management Plan. Thereafter,
annual reports are required for 5 years and must be
submitted to the County no later than 30 days after
the anniversary date of the baseline report. The
County will accept wetland monitoring reports
submitted to the South Florida Water Management
District as long as the reports conform to the
minimum requirements provided herein and
address all of the Preserve Area receiving
stormwater.
viii. Inspections and Monitoring. The property owner
shall provide for inspections of the preserve by the
Preserve Manager on a yearly basis at a minimum
or more frequently when required to insure the
preserve functions as intended. The Preserve
Manager and the property owner shall retain copies
of written Monitoring reports in accordance with
required inspections of the preserve and make
them available to Collier County upon request.
ix. A preserve site plan with FLUCFCS Codes for each
of the habitat types within the preserve must be
included as part of the preserve management plan.
The location of pathways and other approved uses
within the preserve must be included on the site
plan.
194
I:\O8 Amend the LDC\2008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3,05.07 H.1.g Preserve Management Plans(061708)
SL.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Manager, Environmental Services
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services
AMENDMENT CYCLE#OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2008
LDC PAGE: LDC 3:39
LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Add criteria to allow for treated stormwater within wetland or hydric
preserve areas when the additional stormwater will either benefit the preserve or will
have no negative impact on the native vegetation or listed species in the preserve or to the
uplands or listed species within or adjacent to the preserve.
REASON: There are times when it is appropriate for stormwater to be directed into
preserves and this amendment defines those times.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: This will reduce the time staff spends on
requests of this type since there will be criteria to utilize. Restrictions on the types of
preserves which can be used for stormwater management may have a financial affect on
applicants who want to maximize development of their site.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: Required as part of the EAR-based
GMP amendments to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (5) (b).
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version dated April 29, 2008. Amended June
18, 2008.
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.05.07 Preservation Standards.
H. Preserve standards.
1. Design standards.
h. (See Recreational Uses in Preserves amendment)
•
199
1:108 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 1'Amendments\Revislons\EAC13.05.07 1i.1.h.ii-Stormwater Uses in preserves
(061808)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
ii Treated stormwater subject to the following criteria.
a) Stormwater discharges entering the
preserve must be treated to meet the water
quality volumetric requirements of Section
5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review For
Environmental Resource Permit
Applications Within the South Florida Water
Management District. (SFWMD February
2006) and meet the requirements of the
Interim Watershed Management regulations
•
of Section 3.07.00. Discharge of treated
stormwater into a preserve shall be in a
controlled manner to prevent erosion, scour,
and to promote even distribution.
b) Treated stormwater may be discharged into
portions of preserves that are comprised of
jurisdictional wetlands, uplands comprised
solely of hydric soils, uplands that serve as
buffers around the wetland, in accordance
with the approved SFWMD Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP), or a combination
thereof. The hydric nature of the soils must
be field verified by an environmental
professional.
c) Where preserves include non-hydric soils
and uplands, treated stormwater may be
discharged to the preserves provided the
following are met:
i) No listed species are present;
ii) The upland portion of the preserve
area is a mesic type environment
which (1) does not contain xeric
oaks, including myrtle oak, live oak
and sand live oak, with scattered
patches of mostly bare white sand
and a very scattered overstory of
slash pine, or (2) a closed canopy
forest of xeric oaks, including myrtle
oak, live oak, and sand live oak, with
a scattered overstory of slash pine
or sand pine and little groundcoveri
iii) Demonstration that the upland
portion of the preserve is not
inundated for more than 10 days
200
l:\08 Amend the LDC12008-Cycle 11Hmendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.07 H.1.h.ii-Stormwater Uses in preserves
(061808)BB.doc
Text underlined is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
during a reference wet season. For
the purpose of this subsection, the
reference wet season is May 1996
through October 1996. In this
context, inundation means water
levels at or above the average
ground surface of the preserve.
d) Treated stormwater may be discharged in
wetland portions of preserves with listed
species, but shall have no negative impact
on those listed species.
e) When treated stormwater discharges are
allowed in preserves, the associated
stormwater facilities such as berms, swales,
or outfall structures, may be located within
the preserve, but the area of such facilities
can not count towards the native vegetation
preservation requirement pursuant to
Section 3.05.07. These facilities are not
subject to setback requirements as found in
sub-section 3.05.07.H.3. These facilities
must be placed in a drainage easement.
f) Where treated stormwater discharges are
allowed in a preserve, the Preserve
Management Plan as required in sub-
section 3.05.07.H.1.a must address
potential maintenance problems and shall
also provide for a monitoring program.
Compatible vegetation must be planted to
replace any vegetation that may be lost over
time in the preserve.
q) Stormwater shall be allowed in upland
preserves in the RLSA - WRA areas in
accordance with Section 4.08.00 Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District
standards and Procedures.
h.) A property owner may request deviations
from the above regulations, 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii.
Staff shall review the plans and proposed
deviations to ensure wetlands in the
preserve will receive a benefit and uplands
in the preserve will receive no adverse
impact from the deviations being proposed.
The process for granting deviations shall
follow the procedure as set forth in the
201
1:108 Amend the UDC\2008-Cycle 11Amendments\Revisions\EAC13.05.07 H.1.h.ii-Stormwater Uses in preserves
(061808)BB.doc
Text underlined Is new text to be added.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Appeal Section (8.06.10) for the EAC, and
shall be heard at a public hearing of the
EAC.
202
I:\08 Amend the WC\2008-Cycle 1\Amendments\Revisions\EAC\3.05.07 H.1.h.ii-Stormwater Uses in preserves
(061808)BB.doc
,�A
Item VI. B
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF August 6th, 2008
NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No: Environmental Impact Statement- EIS-2007-AR- 12622
Petition Name: Willow Run Quarry EIS
Applicant/Developer: Willow Run Land Trust
Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Maureen S. Bonness, Ph.D
II. LOCATION:
Sections 11-14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This project is not being evaluated for permitted or conditional uses. The site
currently under review is an expansion of an already permitted project. The
expansion requires the project's associated EIS to be updated (more than five
years old) per the LDC section 10.02.02 A.2 , undergo full environmental
review, and establish Collier County preserve locations consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be
designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters
and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh
water(discharge)to the estuarine system.
C
' EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 9
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 because the only
substantial pollution danger is from silt and erosion and the excavation is far
from the property boundary. The fill piles will be screened and otherwise
protected for erosion control.
Permitting for this site first began in 1986 as shown on the timeline in the EIS
(page 3). This project is consistent with policy 6.1.1 regarding the selection of
preserves. The property site contains 548.7 acres of which 242.4 acres remains
as native vegetation on site. Native vegetation preservation requirements for
industrial development of greater than 5 acres in the Urban Designated Area is
15%. This project straddles the Urban Area and the Rural Fringe Sending
lands. The proposed clearing areas are located in both the Urban and Rural
Fringe zones. The permitted mine in the Rural Fringe is exempt from native
vegetation retention requirements under Policy 6.1.6. Therefore, this project
shall dedicate to Collier County approximately 82 acres (15% of the entire site)
of native vegetation in a permanent conservation easement (EIS Exhibit 14b).
The area shown in the conservation easement location contains approximately
46 acres of upland Gopher Tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) habitat where
approximately 66 active and 29 inactive burrows are located.
As required by Policy 6.1.1, the preserve area will be placed under a permanent
conservation easement dedicated to Collier County (EIS Exhibit 14b). The
current draft Conservation Easement submitted for this project is not sufficient.
Approval of the vegetation removal permit for additional clearing will not be
granted until the Conservation Easement document is found to be sufficient.
As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from
the site and maintained in perpetuity.
The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of
the review packet for this submittal.
As required by Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the wetlands have been verified by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE)permitting process. (EIS Exhibit 15).
As required by Policy 6.2.4, the project has provided mitigation for impacts to
wetlands as required by the FDEP and USACE (EIS Exhibit 15).
As required by Policy 6.2.6, the required preserve area is identified on the
preserve management plan(EIS Exhibit 14c).
As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted in
accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
• EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 9
(FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines on the
property and is contained in the EIS (Section 4.g.i and Exhibit 11).
As required by Policy 11.1.2, correspondence was sent to the Florida
Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR)regarding
possible archaeological or historical sites within the project area. In a letter
dated November 26, 2007, the DHR stated that the no significant
archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the project area(EIS
Exhibit 15).
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater:
As with all ongoing excavations, stormwater management in the traditional
sense is not an issue with this project. The excavation sits in Agricultural
zoned land with a Conditional Use to allow mining.
Unless they are dewatering offsite, mining operations are not a source of water
quantity concern. They generally dewater into other existing excavations
within their own site, if at all. Mines of this size that sort aggregates must
undergo permit review by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The only water quality concerns will be from construction vehicle fluid leaks,
dust, and sediment transport; which are standard concerns for all construction
projects and all of which will be controlled at the site.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The property site contains 548.7 acres of which 242.4 acres remains as native
vegetation on site according to the definition in the GMP and LDC. On site
native vegetation communities include palmetto praire (15.1 +acres), pine
flatwoods (84.3 ± acres), pine- mesic oak (1.6 +acres), cabbage palm (2.8
+acres), mixed hardwoods (1.5 ± acres), cypress (6.1 ± acres), cypress,-pine-
cabbage palm (145.10 ± acres), and wet praire (1.8 ± acres). Additional
FLUCFCS descriptions on-site include mineral processing (79.9 ± acres), rock
quarries (191.80 ± acres), Brazilian pepper (0.6 ± acres), inland ponds and
sloughs (4.4 acres), previously cleared lands (11.7 ± acres), and roads and
highways (2.0± acres) as shown on the FLUCCS map in the EIS (Exhibit 2).
C
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 9
C
Wetlands:
The project site has approximately 158.8 acres of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP)jurisdictional wetlands of which 138 ± acres
are within the state conservation easement (FDEP permit 110134951-003 EIS
Exhibit 15). On site wetland communities consist of cypress (6.1 ± acres),
cypress,-pine-cabbage palm (145.10 ± acres), pine- mesic oak (1.6 ±acres),
cabbage palm (2.8 ±acres), mixed hardwoods (1.5 ± acres), and wet praire (1.8
± acres). The proposed project will impact approximately 14.8 acres of
wetlands. FDEP required the conservation easement, which includes future
littoral zone plantings, to be recorded prior to all mining. Thus some of this
clearing request includes wetlands. Of the 14.8 acres of proposed wetlands to
be cleared, 6.2 acres are within the conservation easement and will be restored
as littoral zones at the completion of the mining. The remaining 8.6 acres are
outside of the conservation area and are proposed to become deep lake at the
completion of the mining. All 14.8 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands in this
clearing request are within the permitted impact areas per FDEP (Permit #
110134951-003 EIS Exhibit 15) and the USACE (Permit # 199604158 (IP-SB
EIS Exhibit 15), for which mitigation has largely been completed, with the
exception of the future littoral zone creation. The locations of the proposed
wetland impacts are shown in the EIS (Exhibit 10). The overall plan within
current permitted activity has minimized wetland impacts by permanently
preserving and enhancing the highest quality wetlands on site, impacting the
lowest quality wetlands, avoiding impacts to wetlands (with some compromise
to preserve high wildlife value uplands), and reducing the mine size such that
there was sufficient preserve acreage on-site to fulfill mitigation requirements.
Compensation for wetland impacts on the project site has been accomplished
through the establishment of a perpetual preserve where the habitat value
onsite has been increased by exotic control and eradication, appropriate burn
frequencies, and control of trespassers.
Preservation Requirements:
The property site contains 548.7 acres of which 242.4 acres remains as native
vegetation on site. Native vegetation preservation requirements for industrial
development of greater than 5 acres in the Urban Designated Area is 15%.
This project straddles the Urban Area and the Rural Fringe Sending Lands.
The proposed clearing areas are located in both the Urban and Rural Fringe
zones. The permitted mine in the Rural Fringe is exempt from native
vegetation retention requirements under GMP Policy 6.1.6 as well as LDC
section 2.03.08 A.1.b., where expansions of previously approved conditional
uses prior to June 19th, 2002 are exempted from the RFMU's Sending Lands
higher preserve requirements. Collier County issued the conditional use permit
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 9
(permit # 97-16 EIS Exhibit 15) in 1997. Therefore, this project shall dedicate
to Collier County a minimum of 82 acres (15% of the entire site) of native
vegetation in a permanent conservation easement (EIS Exhibit 14b). The area
shown in the conservation easement location contains approximately 46 acres
of upland Gopher Tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) habitat where approximately
66 active and 29 inactive burrows are located. The 1998 FDEP permit
emphasized minimization and avoidance of wetland impacts. However, after
consultation with the USACE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), mining and preserve boundaries were revised to preserve high value
upland wildlife habitat and enhance continuity with the adjacent Picayune
conservation area.
Listed Species:
Gopher Tortoise
During January 2007, a gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrow survey
was conducted on this site (EIS Exhibit 11). Gopher tortoises reside only in the
northeast uplands (approximately 46 acres) which is also a recipient site and
preserve for relocated tortoises as confirmed by staff on a site visit. The only
exception are four burrows that were found during a May 2008 survey of the
0.7 acre upland area adjacent to the tortoise preserve. An FFWCC permit
request has been submitted (permit request 4185) to relocate the tortoises back
into the preserve. Once the permit is obtained and after the tortoises are
relocated, a silt fence barrier will be installed around the 0.7 acre upland to
prevent re-entry. The data from the above mentioned survey estimated the
population of gopher tortoises to be at approximately 60 individuals. Since
that survey, the preserve has received three tortoises relocated under FFWCC
relocation permits. According to the FFWCC, the carrying capacity in the
preserve is 84 tortoises.
The burning of palmetto prairie is done every 2-5 years which increases the
sunlight for the growth of forage species and for the increase in thermo-
regulation for the tortoises. When mining activity is near the tortoise occupied
areas, a silt fence is installed to prevent tortoises from entering the construction
area. If gopher tortoises are found during the surveying of the areas to be
cleared for the quarry expansion, they will be relocated to the on-site gopher
tortoise preserve and an FFWCC relocation permit shall be obtained and a copy
shall be forwarded to Environmental Services staff.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker(RCW)
Although no Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) (Picoides borealis) have been
fes► seen or heard on the project site, the Willow Run Quarry Preserve has an RCW
•
, EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 9
Safe Harbor Agreement (EIS Exhibit 12) with FFWCC which manages the
uplands for RCW. In addition to burning the uplands every 3-5 years, the mid-
story is reduced, exotics are controlled, vines are removed from the trunks of
large pine trees, and extra care is taken to ensure large pines are not adversely
affected while burning. Annual reports are provided to the FFWCC Safe
Harbor coordinator concerning changes in habitat or RCW population
numbers.
Florida Panther
The preserved area includes a variety of habitats preferred by Florida panthers
(Felis concolor coryi). Prey densities are expected to increase throughout the
preserve as a result of reducing invasive vegetation and implementation of
prescribed burns. Slow speed limits (30mph) are imposed on all quarry traffic.
Trespassing in the preserve is controlled which reduces the potential hunting of
panther prey and general disturbance from human vehicle traffic. All required
panther mitigation has been satisfied.
Wading Birds (white ibis, wood storks, little blue heron, snowy egret, tri-
colored heron, and roseate spoonbill)
Preferred foraging areas for the above wading birds in the preserve are the pop-
ash sloughs and these areas have been enhanced by the elimination of exotic
vegetation. Swales created for the project's water management also serve as
foraging habitat. Once the mining is completed, over 20 acres of littoral zone
will be created, thus expanding potential foraging habitat.
Florida Black Bear
The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) utilizes a variety of
habitats on site. The abundance and variety of food sources will be
significantly increased by the combination of exotic control and prescribed
burning. Saw palmetto fruit is a very important food source for bears each
autumn, and saw palmetto fruit production is stimulated by burning.
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Big Cypress fox squirrels (Sciurus niger avicennia) will benefit from the general
habitat improvement. Exotic removal and prescribed burns will provide more
open ground cover. Fox squirrels are not known to occur in the proposed
clearing areas. However, prior to clearing, the area will be surveyed for nests.
If any nests are found, buffers of 125 feet will be maintained around each nest
tree until the nest is found to be inactive or abandoned.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 9
C
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Environmental Impact Statement -EIS-2007
AR- 12622 with the following conditions:
Stormwater Management:
None
Environmental:
1. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission relocation permit shall
be obtained for any gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) found on site
prior to the proposed clearing activities and a copy shall be forwarded to staff
2. Provide a report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the
relocation of the gopher tortoises within thirty days of relocation. The report
must contain the following information: the number of burrows excavated,
the number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site.
3. All required preserve and listed species management plans will be
incorporated as part of the Vegetation Removal and amended Excavation
Permits.
C
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 9
Now
PREPARED BY:
1111
TAN CHRZANO ;/.KI, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING ' IEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
7-7/
C S VARCO DATE
E ' -IRONMENTAL SPECIALIS61T
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
C
C
. EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 9
C
REVIEWED BY:
L/ r'
SU MAS N DATE
P CIP kL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
EN I EERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
WA !:'AM D. LO' :1 Z, Jr., '.E. DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
C
•
JEFFHTrje. D1-Nos
ATE
ASSIS T COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
J• 'PH K. SCHMITT �j
ATE
•• MUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
A i MINIS TRATOR
C
Item VI. A
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF August 6th, 2008
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No: Site Development Plan No. SDP-2007-AR12003
Petition Name: Gridley Medical Center
Applicant/Developer: Dennis Lynch
Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 3.56 acres, is located at 12200 Tamiami Trail East,
across from Lely Resort Planned Unit Development, in Section 33, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING DESCRIPTION
West- General Intermediate District(C-3) Undeveloped
East- General Intermediate District(C-3) Developed
Commercial
North - Planned Unit Development(PUD) US 41 and then
developed residential
South - Planned Unit Development(PUD) Developed residential
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The petitioner is Sunderland Associates, LLC, represented by Michael Herrera, P.E.. of
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and they are requesting a Site Development Plan to
�i be known as the Gridley Medical Building, which proposes a three story medical office
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 8
building totaling 38,367 square feet. This site has a zoning designation of C-3, and will
interconnect with the developed commercial property to the east and provide a future
interconnection with the undeveloped commercial property to the west. The subject
property, consisting of 3.56 acres, is located at 12200 Tamiami Trail East, across from
Lely Resort Planned Unit Development, in Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject property is within the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District and is
designated Urban (Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to
Parcel 19 (Folio number 00447640007), this parcel is deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) by means of FLUE Policy 5.11, and Parcel 20 (Folio number
00447680009) is deemed consistent with the FLUE Policy 5.10. These parcels are
identified on the "consistent by policy" maps, which is a component of the Future Land
Use Map Series. Therefore, this property may be developed in accordance with the C-3
Zoning District.
CONCLUSION: The subject SDP may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use
Element of the GMP.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries
shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative
impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that
discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance
the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water(discharge)to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic
or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected
detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during
storm events
C
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 8
This project is consistent with policy 6.1.1 regarding the selection of preserves. The
property site contains 3.67 acres of which 3.67 acres shall be considered native
vegetation. A portion of the property has been cleared and was not determined to be
legally cleared, therefore the ten percent native vegetation requirement shall be based on
the entire parcel. Four active gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrows were
identified and confirmed by staff on a site visit. The required preserve acreage amount
is insufficient (less than 5 acres) for the long term survival of this species on site. The
wetlands on site are of poor quality with Wetland rapid Assessment Procedures (WRAP)
scores below 0.65 (0.46 and 0.59 EIS exhibit 29). The proposed native upland
vegetation preserve of 0.37 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 10% of the
existing native vegetation on site.
As required by Policy 6.1.1, the preserve area will be placed under a permanent
conservation easement dedicated to Collier County.
As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from the site
and maintained in perpetuity.
The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of the
review packet for this submittal.
As required by Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2,the wetlands have been verified by the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as part of the SFWMD permitting
process. (EIS exhibits 30 and 31).
As required by Policy 6.2.4, the project shall provide offsite mitigation for impacts to
wetlands as required by the SFWMD (EIS exhibits 30 and 31).
As required by Policy 6.2.6, the required preserve area is identified on the preserve
management plan(EIS Exhibit 22 and 23) as part of the site development plan.
As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted in accordance with
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines on the property and is contained in the EIS
(Exhibit 19).
As required by Policy 11.1.2, correspondence was sent to the Florida Department of
State Division of Historical Resources (DHR)regarding possible archaeological or
historical sites within the project area. In a letter dated August 7th, 2007, the DHR stated
that the no significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the
project area(EIS Exhibit 18).
C
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 8
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Management:
Gridley Medical Building is Site Development Plan AR 12003. It was reviewed by
Collier County review staff and by the South Florida water management District and
received SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit 11-02802-P on January 8, 2008.
Since the Preserve appears to be isolated from the water management system, the water
management aspects of this Site Development Plan are exempt from review by the EAC.
The site discharges through a control structure, CS-1, toward the north into Tamiami
Trail East (US 41). The structure is a 40 inch wide by 53 inch log drop inlet with a weir
crest at elevation 9.05 NGVD 29 and 1 ea, 3inch diameter circular orifice at elevation
4.7 NGVD 29. The receiving body is the US 41 roadside drainage swale.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The property site contains 3.67 acres of which 3.67 acres is native vegetation according
to the definition in the GMP and LDC. A portion of the property has been cleared and
was not determined to be legally cleared. Therefore the ten percent native vegetation
requirement shall be based on the entire parcel. On site native vegetation communities
include pine flatwoods (0.88± acres), cypress, pine, cabbage palm with exotics (1.40
±acres), a freshwater marsh(0.21± acres), and disturbed lands (1.18± acres) as shown on
the FLUCCS map in the EIS (Exhibit 10).
Wetlands:
The project site has approximately 1.61 acres of South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands. On site wetland communities consist of
cypress, pine, cabbage palm with exotics (1.40 ±acres) and a freshwater marsh (0.21±
acres). The proposed site plan will impact the total 1.61 acres of wetlands. The
applicant has purchased 0.53 freshwater forested mitigation credits from the Big Cypress
Mitigation Bank and 0.36 freshwater forested credits from Panther Island Mitigation
Bank to offset the wetland impacts associated with this project. A SFWMD
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) has been issued for this project (Permit Number
11-02802-P EIS Exhibit 30). The project is currently being permitted through the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A copy of the permit shall be forwarded to Collier
County upon issuance. This SDP will not be approved until the project design is
consistent with all required permits.
C
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 8
Preservation Requirements:
The property site contains 3.67 acres of which 3.67 acres is native vegetation according
to the definition in the GMP and LDC. The proposed upland native vegetation preserve
of 0.37 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 10% of the existing 3.67 acres of
native vegetation on site. As part of the 0.37 acre required preserve, 0.05 acres of
mixed hardwoods shall be created in accordance with the LDC section 3.05.07. H.
1.e.i(c) which states "Where preservation requirements cannot be accommodated, the
landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground cover,
shrubs, and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to quickly re-create the lost
mature vegetation. These areas shall be identified as created preserves." In order to
fully comply with the preservation standards (LDC 3.05.07.A.3), the project is required
to have a preserve entirely composed of pine flatwoods. Due to various constraints from
site design and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), SWWMD, USACE,
and Collier County, having the preserve area composed entirely of pine flatwoods was
not possible. The created preserve area shall be planted according to the above LDC
standards and the planting plan is contained in the EIS (Exhibits 26 and 27).
Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a preserve area is shown to be
consistent with the GMP. Four active gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrows
were identified and confirmed by staff on a site visit. The required preserve acreage
amount is insufficient (less than five acres) for the long term survival of this species on
site. An offsite relocation permit (# WR08229) has been obtained from FFWCC (EIS
Exhibit 24). The wetlands on site are of poor quality with WRAP scores below 0.65
(0.46 and 0.59 EIS Exhibit 29).
Listed Species:
A listed species survey for this project site was conducted in October, 2007 (EIS
Exhibit 19). Four active gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrows were identified
on the disturbed portion of the site as shown in the EIS (Exhibit 21). The required
preserve acreage amount is insufficient (less than five acres) for the long term survival
of this species on site. An offsite relocation permit has been obtained from FFWCC,
permit # WR08229 (EIS Exhibit 24). Although the Florida panther has not been
observed on site, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has requested additional
information during consultation with the USACE on the permit due to panther telemetry
readings within two miles of the project site. The USFWS is requesting an evaluation
of the percent increase in traffic from the project zone. A copy of the permit shall be
forwarded to Collier County upon issuance.
C
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 8
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Site Development Plan No. SDP-2007-AR 12003 with
the following conditions:
Stormwater Management:
None
Environmental:
1. A copy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit shall be forwarded to Collier
County upon issuance. Construction plans shall be consistent prior to Site
Development Plan approval.
2. Provide a report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the
relocation of the gopher tortoises within thirty days of relocation. The report must
contain the following information: the number of burrows excavated, the number of
tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site.
3. A Bear Management Plan shall be provided on the site development plans as
required by the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and
Coastal management Element and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
C
d► r�
as NIddRaJ
v • ligiiir.A0.
'.
. o.
.,
00;r
' \
f/303 to..."41114
. IS
93 a
_
z
S' C
6-BC
S6 t6
s-e>
99 9111111
i4 1
M§ 9-9S
,,, \�'o o I /AO 1NVaowao04 sa 19L 99
Odd. r �3�
46
«3n n,33 ,-,=.30-,,a,3. N
Q
J
3 . '. ,
lc III 4.
O i
a 0
.
..-, i
/N' , r, _ ,.
_,.
,„,
.. : 4' ,_
4iU•UUP■■■■U■IiUUiPWW
' , . ,,., . . , : 4444,1„,..............-0.‘,44,0441 \-, ocs,4..,,,,,,
i -441e: 4".<('-' \-t-
���,'t c-. 'is
4
_ ... , 7.,-- . ,, 4:1
.,., ((( - -'rirt ''',„ -- ,_ _ -
/ i
•/41.%"
z a o`' a
a ` ..'' fir yds
4.
\;'4.411'''
.., /
/ . 1 I k i t ' ,,.,.
r
a
i ,6 7-\
V
IF
Y .z. 11 �.
od
O
.XVII
4 , ! _..... ,
� ,,, �a .
��� i..........
....t,..- - , . !., �. , ,
as oNe1snw kma o
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
S I'AN CHRZAN V" SKI, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
/ C�HRIIS D'ARCO DATE
(....ENVIRONMENTAL
VIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
C
(i0 <aey.
CHRISTINE WILLOUGHBY DE
PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
r
•
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 8
C
REVIEWED BY:
7- 2-a
SUSAN MASON DATE
P CIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
r
.�� 67-07 02
LIAM D. LO of NZ,.r., P.E. DATE
E INEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
C
fio(c
JEFF GHT DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
7//070
JO.EPH K. SCHMITT DATE
C I MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&
NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
C