Loading...
EAC Agenda 11/05/2008 oLl_I ", 74, - . Collier CountyGovernment Communication & Customer Relations Department (239) 252-8848 3301 E. Tamiami Trail www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 October 21, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2008 9:00 A.M. "` The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council will meet Wednesday, November 5 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Rooms 609/610, located at Community Development and Environmental Services Division, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples. The agenda includes, but is not limited to: Land Use Petitions In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information contact: Summer Araque at 239-252-6290. -End- ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA November 5, 2008 9:00 A.M. CHANGE OF LOCATION: Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Room 609/610 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of the October 1, 2008 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2005-AR-8674 Hilton Hills RPUD Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East VII. New Business A. Background of RLSA program VIII. Old Business B. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports A. Habitat Advisory Committee Update from Chair X. Staff Comments A. Update members on RLSA Review Phase II B. December and January meetings at CDES XI. 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 October 30, 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. October 1,2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 1, 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 Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused) ,.� Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Paul Lehmann Quin Kurth ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 1, 2008 r� 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 September 3, 2008 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A.Site Development Plan No. SDP-2006 -AR 9022 Abercia South SDP Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East B. Environmental Impact Statement-EIS-2008-AR-13641 Magnolia Pond Residential Subdivision EIS Section 33,Township 49 South, Range 26 East VII. New Business A. Sunshine Laws Presentation VIII. Old Business A. 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 September 25, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition(530- 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. October 1,2008 I. Call to Order Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:00AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr.Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr.Lehmann. Carried unanimously7--0. IV. Approval of September 3,2008 meeting minutes Dr. Williams moved to approve the minutes of the September 3,2008 meeting. Second by Mr.Lehmann. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Steve Williams,Assistant County Attorney noted member participation via tele- conference,requires a quorum be physically present and formally vote to allow the participation. Summer Araque,Environmental Specialist noted it was her understanding Mr. Standridge will not be present for the December meeting. Mr. Sorrell noted he is attempting to re-arrange his schedule to be present. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Site Development Plan No. SDP-2006-AR 9022 Abercia South SDP Section 33,Township 49 South,Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in. B. Environmental Impact Statement-EIS-2008-AR-13641 Magnolia Pond Residential Subdivision EIS Section 33,Township 49 South,Range 26 East Rae Anne Boylan of Boylan Environmental Consultants requested permission, and it was granted by the Council,to address both items A. and B. simultaneously as the projects are interrelated. Mr. Standridge arrived at 9:10AM She noted the following: • She is the consultant for item B. and Passarella&Associates are the consultants for item A. • The projects were originally in the same PUD, (Collier Blvd.Mixed Use Commerce Center) • The parcel is north of I-75 and West of Collier Blvd 2 October 1,2008 • The site is 70.18 acres consisting of Pine Flatwoods areas with varying degrees of exotic invasion. • The site contains a 1.39 acre"poor quality"isolated wetland infested with Melaleuca • The only listed Species documented occupying the site are Gopher Tortoises. • The projects are presented together as it is an existing PUD which was approved in November of 2001 (PUD#00-16). • The site plan was revised with the major change being the relocation of the Preserve area to the western portion of the site which will incorporate the major amount of gopher tortoise burrows and habitat. Permits will be obtained for re-locating the existing Tortoises to the on-site Preserve. • There has been an Indigo Snake,Big Cypress Fox Squirrel and Black Bear Management Plan prepared for the projects. • The plan requires impacts to the wetland which will be mitigated off-site via the Big Cypress or Panther Island Mitigation Bank as required by the various Agencies. A discussion ensued regarding the definition of"heavy equipment,"which is referenced in the Environmental Impact Statement and its relation to the statement "it will not be utilized in clearing the Preserve." Rae Ann Boylan stated"large machinery"will not be utilized in clearing the Preserve, as the exotic removal will be completed"manually." Mr.Penniman requested clarification if the preserve is adequate size to accommodate the Gopher Tortoises on site,the qualifications of the Consultant (Boylan and Associates) for Managing the Preserve and an overview of the Management functions. Rae Ann Boylan noted the area is adequate in size. As the Preserve Manager, she has a degree in Biology, a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering Sciences and worked in this Region since 1982. The procedures includes Consultants meeting with the contractor hired to perform the work, ensure the silt fences are installed properly,review any chemicals utilized and the oversight of the installation of any plantings, etc. The Preserve is monitored via field reviews at least twice a year.Monitoring reports are filed on an annual basis with any maintenance recommendations forwarded to the landowner. Mr.Bishof asked how the control elevation of 8.5' for the surface water management system was established. Jim Carr,Consultant for the landowner stated the elevation was established utilizing determinations for surrounding projects. They were soil borings completed in 8/07, which indicated 3-foot depth from ground to water table and the elevation has been approved by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 3 October 1,2008 Mr.Bishof expressed concern the SFWMD policy may be causing adverse environmental impacts in the region. Stan Chrzanowski,PE,Engineering Manager noted historically(15—20 years ago),against the advice of Collier County,the SFWMD determined all the projects in the region should drain north to the Golden Gate Canal,while the existing topography in the region drains south. The existing(SFWMD)Staff are now required to make decisions based on the historic determination and may be the reason some of the Preserves in the region are functioning poorly. Mr.Bishof noted this determination is causing the draining of the wetlands in the area and expressed a concern over its impact on the protection of wetlands and water resources within the County. Chairman Hughes agreed,but when this issue is raised, it is subsequently brought to the attention of the Environmental Advisory Council that SFWMD issues are not in their purview. Chairman Hughes requested clarification if permits change of this nature,would they come before the EAC for review in the future. If a Site Plan approval expires or lapses,the previous conditions exist and may waive the requirement for a new EAC hearing. Susan Mason,Principal Environmental Specialist noted all the Land Development Code changes have not been approved by the Planning Commission as of yet,and the Council should review any latest versions of the proposed Land Development Code Amendments on the Collier County website and provide input as necessary. Mr.Sorrell expressed concern that fees generated in Wildlife Preservation ($43M for Gopher Tortoise relocation)are not being re-invested into data collection by various Agencies for the provision of accurately updated habitat maps. Rae Ann Boylan agreed and noted the data regarding Black Bear habitat in Collier County is approximately 10 years old. Mr. Sorrell noted the Florida Panther data provided is from 2005 and the data on 4 other species is 10 years old. Mr.Bishof noted there is a website(provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission)which provides updated Florida Panther data more current than the information provided. Rae Ann Boylan stated she has seen the most recent data, and there is no"Florida Panther denning"on site. The information provided is data and not an official map readily available in a public use format(it is data points requiring software for interpretation and mapping). Chris D'Arco,Environmental Specialist clarified no mechanical clearing is allowed in Preserves and would ensure this is indicated in the Preserve Management Plan. 4 • October 1, 2008 Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1) A FWCC relocation permit shall be obtained for those gopher tortoises that are located within the development area to be relocated to the on-site native preserve area on the residential portion of the PUD. The FWCC relocation permit shall be obtained prior to the performance of any gopher tortoise related activities and prior to commencement of any construction activities. Staff will have the opportunity to inspect the recipient preserve prior to on-site relocation. 2) Please provide a report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the relocation of gopher tortoise within thirty days of relocation. Please provide in the report the number of burrows excavated, the number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site. 3) The SDP will not be approved until a copy of the SFWMD permit is forwarded to environmental staff upon issuance and reviewed for consistency. 4) For SDP-2006-AR 9022,please provide the following: A) The required primary and accessory preserve setbacks on the site development plans. B) Include the gopher tortoise relocation and Management Plan on the front index of the Site Development Plans. r\ C) Provide the Florida Department of Transportation-Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCFS)descriptions on sheet two of the Site Development Plans. D) Provide a Florida Black Bear management plan on the site plans. Mr.Lehmann requested clarification if the exotic vegetation was to be removed from the site into perpetuity. Chris D'Arco stated this is a standard Code(Land Development Code) requirement and would be indicated on the site plans. Mr.Lehmann noted the word"please"should be removed from any of the language contained in the above recommendations. Chairman Hughes noted he met the landowner in the hall,but did not discuss the project. Mr.Penniman moved to recommend to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners approval of the 2 projects(Site Development Plan No. SDP-2006-AR 9022 Abercia South SDP Section 33, Township 49 South, Range East and Environmental Impact Statement—EIS-2008-AR-13641, Magnolia Pond Residential Subdivision EIS,Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East)subject to the word`please"be eliminated in the language in 5 ti October 1,2008 the Staff recommendations(listed above). Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Penniman noted the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and the Audubon Society sponsored a carbon footprint audit for the City of Naples,which was completed last summer and presented to the City of Naples. The audit determined the City of Naples only utilizes 3 percent of the total energy consumed in the City. This information was forwarded to the Natural Resources Manager of the City to take any steps necessary to further reduce energy consumption. Collier County Audubon and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida are considering offering this opportunity to Collier County. He requested Environmental Advisory Council feedback on the issue;the service would be provided at no cost to the taxpayers. Mr.Standridge move to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the Energy Audit be performed Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Standridge will draft a letter to be forwarded to necessary parties outlining the official action. Mr.Hughes moved to recommend a risk assessment be performed on the sea level rise in relation to the developments in Collier County. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Chairman Hughes will submit a memo to(any necessary parties)regarding this official action. VII. New Business A. Sunshine Laws Presentation Jeff Klatzkow,County Attorney provided an overview on the requirements on the Sunshine Law highlighting the following: • Board meetings must be publicly noticed and minutes are required to be taken. • All Collier County Boards are subject to the Sunshine Law. • It applies when two members of a Governing Board discuss an issue that may come before the Board. • Board members should not e-mail each other;questions should be directed to Staff liaisons. • One-way communication of an issue is allowed by a member;however comments back from other members are prohibited. He recommended this practice(one way communicating with members)be prohibited as it may lead to problems(members inadvertently returning a comment, etc.). Further, Staff may not act as an intermediary between comments. • He recommended Board member not participate in`Slogs" 6 October 1,2008 • Site inspections should be conducted alone,not with another member. • For a member to participate by telephone,they must have an"extra- ordinary circumstance". A member participating by phone may not be counted toward the constitution of a quorum. For participation a favorable vote of members constituting a quorum is required. • Possible penalties for violations are imposition of fines and/or jail time. • He recommended any member that has consulted or worked on an issue that comes before a Board to disclose this fact. They may participate in discussion,but may not vote. They are not required to leave the room during the proceedings;however it may be advisable to avoid perceptions of impropriety. B. Election of new Chair and Vice-Chair The officers of the EAC shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman. Officers' terms shall be for 1 year,with eligibility for re-election. The chairman and vice-chairman shall be selected by a majority vote at the organizations meeting and thereafter at the first regular meeting of the EAC in October of each year. The chairman shall preside at all meetings of the EAC.The vice- chairman shall perform the duties of the chairman in the absence of incapacity of the chairman. Mr.Penniman moved to appoint William Hughes as Chairman and Dr. Judith Hushon as Vice Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Council. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Summer Araque will re-submit the documentation regarding the Environmental Advisory Council Mission Statement and place the item on next month's agenda. A discussion ensued regarding the availability of current updated habitat species maps and if any action should be taken by the EAC. It was noted the information should contain historic compiled data,not just the most recent data. Updated information is available on-line via State and/or Federal Agencies. It was noted the Developers might not be providing the most recent information as indicated in the testimony today. Summer Araque noted Staff could provide a presentation regarding the parameters involved in December. A discussion ensued regarding the status of the Land Development Code Amendments. Summer Araque stated the Jones Mine had a 1-year review approval of last year. IX. Sub-Committee Reports 7 , October 1, 2008 None X. Staff Comments A. November,December and January meetings to be held at CDES B. Reminder: Special meeting of EAC on November 12,20008 to review RLSA Staff noted the following: • Recent aerial photos(2007/2008)of the County are available with built up areas superimposed • If a member is not present for a meeting,provide any necessary comments for distribution • There will be an Energy Symposium on October 10, 2008 at Florida Gulf Coast University XL Council Member Comments ■ Mr. Standridge suggested an overview of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program be placed on the November 4, 2008 Agenda prior to the Special Meeting on November 12,2008. • Chairman Hughes requested Staff provide a report on the status of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee at the next meeting. XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:10 AM. ***** COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented ,or as amended 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to review and approve the February, 2008 Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee entitled, "Rural Land Stewardship Area Five- Year Review, Phase 1-Technical Report" for use in the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District Phase 2 Report and authorize transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs OBJECTIVE: That the Collier County Board of County Commissions [BCC] review and approve the attached "Rural Land Stewardship Area Five-Year Review, Phase 1- Technical Report", as approved and accepted by the 13-member Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee ["Committee"] during its February 5, 2008 regular meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Council [EAC] and Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC], and to authorize transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs for its review in accordance with Policy 1.22 of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay [RLSAO] of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. The Phase 1 Report documents actual data and experience in the RLSAO since its inception in 2002 and will be utilized as a partial basis for Committee deliberations during the preparation of the Phase 2 Report, scheduled to be released for review in late 2008, which will include possible recommendations to amend the RLSAO as set forth in the GMP. CONSIDERATIONS: Attached is a list of the Committee members appointed by the BCC for one-year terms in accordance with Resolution 2007-173 and its schedule to complete its review of the RLSAO. The RLSAO is implemented by Section 4.08.00 of the Land Development Code [LDC]. The RLSAO has been recognized in Florida, regionally and nationally for visionary methodology to preserve environmentally significant land, to protect agricultural land, and to direct compact growth to suitable locations with limited environmental and habitat value. The RLSAO District and the LDC amendments, which implement the RLSAO District, are known broadly as the "Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed in response to Administration Commission Final Order No. AC99-002, requiring a "Rural and Agricultural Assessment". Prior to the establishment of the State of Florida Rural Lands Stewardship Area program in 2001 under section 163.3177(11)(d), Florida Statutes, Collier County initiated a rural lands program for its eastern rural lands to meet the requirements of the Final Order of the Administrative Commission. The Collier County RLSAO program is not currently subject to the requirements of the RLSA statute. 1 Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO requires a comprehensive review of the RLSAO upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the RLSAO into the Land Development Code. This review is due in 2008. The following is Policy 1.22. Policy 1.22 The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources local, state, federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. During its March 6, 2008 meeting, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) approved and accepted the report as submitted by the Committee with the following recommendations/comments: o Page 3....WRA-Water Retention Area. Better define or qualify what is meant by the words, "that provide water quality and other natural resource value". o Page 8...Section 3. Add a cross reference, and include as an exhibit to the Phase 1 report, Table 1 of the Stage #1 RLSA report entitled, "Data Sets and Publications Obtained for Use in the Immokalee Area Study". o Page 13...add a concluding paragraph. o Very good report overall. The EAC's comments have not yet been incorporated into the Phase 1 report pending further direction from the BCC. 2 During its May 1, 2008 meeting, the Collier County Planning Commission recommended to the BCC the acceptance of the Phase 1 Technical Report with the proviso that the BCC requests the Committee, during its Phase 2 deliberations, to address the attached nine- page list of questions and concerns as provided to staff during the May 1 meeting. Attached are copies of February 12 and March 24, 2008 letters addressed to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Secretary Thomas G. Pelham in response to the DCA's critical comments regarding the Collier County RLSAO as contained in the report entitled, "Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature" dated December 31, 2007. Staff has a major concern that the DCA may require a major overhaul of the RLSAO even though the RLSAO is not subject to the statutory rural lands stewardship program. This concern is evidenced by the highly critical remarks set forth in the DCA's statutorily mandated Annual Report, dated December 31, 2007, pertaining to statutory rural land stewardship programs throughout Florida. Even though Collier County's RLSAO is not subject to the Florida Statutes Rural Lands Stewardship Program, the inclusion of the review of the Collier County RLSAO program was without merit and in direct conflict with the statutory review provisions. It should be noted that the BCC will have to provide direction regarding scheduling proposed amendments, either a part of the regular once a year GMP amendment cycle or as a special cycle during the 2009 calendar year. It is possible that the Legislature in the future may attempt to limit local governments to one amendment cycle per year. This provision was set forth in Growth Management Plan Legislation which failed to pass during the past Legislative session which ended on May 4, 2008. During the Legislative session, it was noted that the DCA could be charged with preparing a massive rewrite of Chapter 163 which would include changes to GMP amendment cycles and exemptions from cycle limitations. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO requires a five-year review to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth within the RLSAO. The Phase 1 report issued by the Committee represents the first step in this review and assessment and is consistent with Policy 1.22. Approved by Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact was detailed within the Executive Summary related to BCC Resolution 2007-173 and includes expenses incurred for placing advertisements in the newspaper for committee meetings, staff liaison time (Comprehensive Planning Department, Transportation Division, Environmental Services Department, and the County Attorney's Office) , and related out-of-pocket costs. These costs are being paid through the FY07 and FY08 approved budgets. Future costs will most likely result from proposed amendments, to the RLSAO of the GMP, to the LDC, and potentially the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Proposed amendments by the BCC will be based upon recommendations from the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee, the EAC, the CCPC, and objections, recommendations, and comments from the DCA. The fiscal 3 impacts of the specific amendments cannot be determined at this time and will be contingent on the extent of the amendments proposed after completion of the public participation phase of the review and subsequent BCC direction. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IGMP1 IMPACT: The preparation of the Phase 1 report and the preparation of the Phase 2 report (currently underway) is consistent with Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Additionally, any approved amendments to the GMP will result in the appropriate amendments to the LDC,to be presented to the BCC for its approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners review and approve the February, 2008 Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee entitled, "Rural Land Stewardship Area Five-Year Review, Phase 1-Technical Report" for use in the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District Phase 2 Report and Authorize Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. PREPARED BY: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department 4 From: NGPIV@aol.com [mailto:NGPIV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:19 PM To: BrownAraqueSummer Subject: Re: RLSA Phase II Summer-This is important. I understand the RLSA Review Commitee, at today's meeting, discussed the possibility of circumventing the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and the Planning Commission (CCPC)by going directly to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with their Phase II recommendations. The logic is that recommendations will ultimately end up as Comp Plan amendments, which have to go through the two advisory boards, and the process would be truncated by not bringing Phase II to the EAC and CCPC. I regard this as"changing the rules in the middle of the game."The RLSA Review Committee came to us with their Phase I Technical Review; we had the opportunity to comment on it and to pass along recommendations to the CCPC and BCC. We were told at that time that the RLSA Review Committee would be coming back with their Phase II proposals(probably in November). Further, I believe you were recently seeking an alternate date in December for the EAC to hear the RLSA Review Committee's Phase II recommendations. There is a note from Ron Hamel, Chairman of the Review Committee in my files,that the Phase I report was a"first step in a comprehensive review of the program." If the report to the EAC was the first step...are they now going to pull away from the second step? Further, dealing with the Phase II recommendations as a whole is a lot more productive than dealing with the more technical, and sometimes isolated, language of Comp Plan amendments. As I understand it, this changing of the rules is to be discussed at the next RLSA Review Committee 9:00 a.m. meeting next Tuesday, October 21st, at the county offices on Horseshoe Drive. I believe the members of the EAC should be aware of this possible attempt to circumvent the established process to avoid EAC and CCPC review of the Phase II recommendations-probably the single most important issue affecting the environment of Collier County today. Please forward this other members of the EAC . Thank you, Nick Penniman 11411) A'toatoN In 2002 the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area(RLSA)was adopted into the County's growth management initiatives.Nowhere in Florida or the nation had this type of landmark planning initiative taken place, and the implementation and outcome were uncertain. Over the past three months,the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee has had the opportunity to assess the achievements of the program during its first five years in operation. The learning curve was steep, and a great deal of committee time and energy was spent on becoming reacquainted with the complex mechanics of the program. I am glad to say the committee was successful in absorbing the details of the program and evaluating the status to date. The report before you,provides a quantitative synopsis of how far along the program has come in protecting environmentally valuable lands and establishing communities in the far eastern lands of the county. This Phase I Technical Review is the first step in a comprehensive review of the program. It lays the foundation to evaluate how the objectives and policies have resulted in reaching the goals of the RLSA. The Committee has worked very well together, and on Feb 5th,voted unanimously to forward the Phase I Technical Review to the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning Commission,the Board of County Commissioners, and the Department of Community Affairs. +110 Ron Hamel, Chairman Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee r , RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PHASE I - TECHNICAL REVIEW This Phase I -Technical Review is a requirement of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22). The review is intended to provide an assessment of activity that has occurred within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) over the past five years, 2003- 2008. It is the role of the committee to assist in determining whether the activity presented in the review supports or does not support the goals of the Collier County RLSA, which is to: - protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses - direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat �. - enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations - discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques The Phase I review is intended to focus on the specific items detailed in Policy 1.22 (see below.) An evaluation of the RLSA Group 1-5 policies will occur during the Phase II of the review process. The information presented in this report represents the current status of the RLSA program. The intention of the program is to encourage the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) that private landowners voluntarily limit land-uses on through a Stewardship Easement in exchange for Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). GMP FLUE 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the RLSA program in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. The RLSA program was created through a collaborative community based planning process involving county residents,area property owners,and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee.The creation of the program was driven by data and evaluated by the committee and public over the course of 33 meetings.For more information on the sources of data used and analysis methods,see the Rural Lands Study Stage I and the Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee.Both are available through Collier County Government.http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=2300 1 2 Definitions (LDC 4.08.01): ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including: row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses. Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including: pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses. Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the future. FSA - Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the RLSA District. Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007 GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE). HSA -Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses, Agriculture- Group 1, Agriculture—Support Uses, Agriculture- Group 2. Land Use Matrix(Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 B.4., with each Land Use Layer displayed as a single column. Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, WRA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Open Lands. Areas outside the ACSC or HSA, FSA, or WRA with Natural Resource Index values less than 1.2. 3 Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA. R1. (GMP RLSA Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive credits. R2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. SRA -Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for the development of a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. SSA -Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or more Land Use Layers. Stewardship Credit(Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B. Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through the designation of SRAs. WRA -Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value. 4 1. Identify the amount of land designated as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA), and other* Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). *Other SSA lands include Open designated lands Attached Map 1 shows an overview of the entire Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) with lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA and Open. Table 1-A provides a summary of the acreage of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending Areas since the RLSA program inception (5-yrs). The 5-yr percentage column shows that of all lands within the RLSA designations, a total of thirteen percent have been protected to date within a SSA. Thirty percent of all FSA and HSA designated land has been protected to date. The acreages in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. Table 1-A Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved Total Rl S lel SSA"Acres Approved 5-yr Percentage''' Des it(on Acres FSA 31,100 9,206 30% HSA 40,000 12,283 31% WRA 18,200 44 0.2% Open 93,100 2,593 3% Total 1.132, 24,126 1 %,;', Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements Note- Acreages listed in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. Margin of error may be+/- 1%. Table 1-B Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending RISA �:. . .. v m f esiI-SA n Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentageat FSA 31,100 10,619 34% HSA 40,000 17,703 44% WRA 18,200 3,034 17% Open 93,100 474 < 1 To : 18g,440 31,830 _ 17% Source: SSAs under review and property owners • 5 Table 1-C Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending RLSA SSA Acres Approved& Total Acres 5-yr Percentage Pending ending FSA 31,100 19,825 64% HSA 40,000 29,986 75% WRA 18,200 3,078 17% Open 93,100 3,067 3% Total 182,400 66,966 31% Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their designations. • Map 1A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1B illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones, within SSAs approved and pending; and • Map 1 E illustrates all 55,956 acres of all lands within SSAs approved and pending. Note- all map acreages are rounded to the nearest acre, margin of error+/-1%. To provide further information on the approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas, Tablet-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been approved by the county. Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Collier County and one of the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures. Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agricultural uses remain, including: row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar activities, including agricultural support uses. Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain, including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture use. All other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land. 6 Table 1-D Each SSA Approved &Pending Acreage Type and Land Use Levels Remaining I SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-1 Ag-2 Other Total Acres " TY.Pe.. SSA 1 FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58 SSA 2 FSA 653.65 704.14 704.14 HSA 50.49 SSA 3 FSA 509 1,078.64 2,116.91 3,195.54 HSA 2,686 SSA 3a HSA 248.9 220.6 n/a* SSA 4 FSA 198.18 654.01 585.91 1,239.92 HSA 1,041.74 FSA 196.0 SSA 5 HSA 1,629.8 1,852.3 1,852.3 Open 26.5 SSA 5a FSA 1.7 651.3 n/a* HSA 649.6 Conservation SSA 6 FSA 4,926.2 2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1 HSA 4,984.9 FSA 399.6 SSA 7 HSA 486.5 985.4 985.4 Open 99.3 FSA 1,619.9 SSA 8 HSA 1,247.9 815.0 4,484.5 5,299.5 Open 2,432.0 Open 34.2 FSA 556.5 50.1 SSA 9 WRA 43.5 739.3 Earth Mining 789.4 HSA 155.2 Total Approved 24,123.88 5,26035 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88 FSA 0 SSA 10** Application WARA A 5'85 i 5,861 Submitted Open 6 FSA 1,191 SSA 11** Application HSA 2,212 3,700 Submitted WRA 198 Open 99 FSA 1,788 SSA 12** HSA 2,933 4,791 Pre-app meeting held WRA 0 Open 70 FSA 4,232 n SSA 13** HSA 1,313 7,430 Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,616 Open 269 • 7 SSA# ' Type e' Acres [ Ag 1 Ag-2 Other Total Acres SSA 14** FSA 1,048 Application HSA 663 1,713 Submitted WRA 1 Open 0 FSA 2,196 SSA 15** HSA 1,827 5,259 Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,209 Open 27 FSA 164 SSA 16** HSA 2,901 3,077 Pre-app meeting held WRA 9 Open 3 Total Pending 31,830 nta** n/a** rya** 31,830 TOtal 55,953.88 55,953.88 Approved+Pending Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary, SSAs under review, and property owners * SSAs 3A&5A are amended applications to include restoration areas.Acreage is already included in 3&5. **SSAs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 have yet to be approved by the county and data is included where available as informational only. The FSA and HSA overlays were designed to incentivize protection of the major regional flowways within the RLSA and the large landscape-scale mosaic of native habitats and agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs. These lands provide major hydrological and ecological linkages within the region. As depicted on Map 1E, of the 31,100 acres designated as FSA, 19,825 acres of FSA (64% of total FSA) are protected via approved and pending SSA designations. Approved and pending SSAs also account for 29,986 acres of HSA overlay areas (75% of total HSA). Map 1F illustrates the existing and pending SSA lands protect from intensive development a large extent of lands targeted for public acquisition by Florida Forever and its predecessor programs. SSAs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 protect the vast majority of Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands within the RLSA, which were first delineated in the 1970's. SSAs 8 and 11 protect lands within the Collier County portion of the Devil's Garden Florida Forever project. Additionally, SSAs 3, 4, and 5 were designated specifically to protect an important landscape linkage for the Florida panther across CR 846, which has a high incidence of panther-vehicle interactions. These designated SSAs will allow for the eventual establishment of fenced wildlife crossings. SSAs 6, 10, and 12 comprise 20,000 acres along the southern portion of the RLSA, protecting high-quality panther habitats that are directly adjacent to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). � i 8 2. The amount and location of land designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). As shown in Table 2-A, the Town of Ave Marie SRA approved by the county in 2002 contains 5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria University. The proposed Town of Big Cypress is anticipated to be the second SRA proposed in the Collier RLSA. The pre-application and DRI information list the town as 2,798 acres. The SRA application is expected to be filed in the summer of 2008. Table 2-A SRA Acreage SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit Uses(Acres) Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027 Town of Big Cypress SRA* 2,798 pending Total 6,798 1,027 *proposed The attached Map 2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria SRA and the proposed location of the Town of Big Cypress. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA, however, lands having high ecological vale, such as lands within an FSA or HSA, generate more credits per acre than the "Open" designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of Stewardship Sending Areas using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The methodology includes: 1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and 2) The number of land use layers being eliminated. There are also additional incentive Credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs within the RLSA District; such as early entry bonus Credits, slough/strand index upgrade (buffer area Credits), and restoration (R1 and R-2) Credits. Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. A. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED As of December, 2007, there have been a total of 9 SSAs that have been approved; totaling 24,126 acres. As shown in Table 3-A these 9 SSAs have been assigned a total of 59,451.49 Stewardship Credits including Early Entry, R-1 and R-2 Credits. However, the R-2 Credits that have been assigned are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed. 9 Table 3-A Stewardship Credit Summary SSA# Acres Total Credits Assigned R-2 Credits 1 146.58 263.6 0 2 704.14 1,268.1 0 3 3,195.54 4,675.3 0 3A* 0 606.6 0 4 1,239.92 1,676.7 0 5 1,852.3 2,938.3 0 5A* 0 1,504.9 0 6 9,911.1 25,525.1 4,286.4 7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 TOTAL 24,123.88 59,451.49 9,187,4'' Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements *SSAs 3A&5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas. Acreage is already included in SSAs 3&5. B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized 28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B). Table 3-B Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria Credits Credits Held for Total Credits Transferred and SSA# Acres Future Use(includes Assigned Utilized for Town of Ave Maria R-2} 1 146.58 263.6 263.6 0 2 704.14 1,268.1 1,268.1 0 3* 3,195.54 4,675.2 4,675.3 0 4 1,239.92 1,676.7 1,676.7 0 5* 1,852.3 2,938.3 2,938.3 0 6 9,911.1 25,525.1 17,836.5 7,688.6 Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements. *SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were transferred and utilized for Ave Maria. SSAs 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C). The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517.9. Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed. There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and R-2 Credits. 10 Table 3-C Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use SSA# Acres Total Credits, R-2 Credits Credits Currently Assigned and Assigned Available for not Utilized Utilization 3A 0 606.6 0 606.6 5A 0 1,504.9 0 1,504.9 6 9,911.1 7,688.6 4,286.4 3,402.2 7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 4,034.2 8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 7,576.5 9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 4,481.1 TOTAL 15,985:4 30,792.9' 9,187A 21,605.5 Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of study and time of review. Maps 4, 4A and 4B illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002, and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C). Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of agriculture uses in 2007. Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without the RLSA program are shown. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200- level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. Free-range cattle grazing within naturally vegetated communities accounts for approximately 65,000 acres, but are not included in the 2002 or 2007 data. It should be noted that of the 65,000 free-range cattle grazing acres, the approved SSAs have protected 15,690 acres of this agriculture use. Table 4-A below summarizes agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the uses 2007 and shows the relative percentage change of each. Table 4-A 2002/2007 Agricultural Type Comparison 2002 With Without New 2007 Agricultural Type ACRES RLSA RLSA Ag ACRES CHANGE Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3.13% Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35% Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 16,129 -9.71% Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9.10% Specialty 1,651 1,201 -27.26% TOTAL 94,498 -5,058 -480 +427 89,397±.01% -5.40% Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property Owners, and aerial photo interpretation. 11 Table 4-B 2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses 2002 Agricultural Type ACRES Citrus 839 Fallow 177 Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572 Pasture/Rangeland 429 Row Crop 2,562 Specialty 449 TOTAL 5,027± 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program- Approximately 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture uses since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining. Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions. Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program- A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from r� agricultural usage without using the RLSA program. Two areas totaling 233 acres received Conditional Use approval from Collier County to convert from agricultural use to earth mining and recreational activities. Land was purchased by Collier County and converted to conservation containing 237 acres of agriculture. Two conditional use excavations are pending and total 1,126.65 acres. In addition, there is 427 acres of new agriculture. Table 5-A 2007 Land Converted to Non-agricultural Use Without With RLSA RLSA Ag Land Conversion Program Program Conditional Use for earth mining -210 Conditional Use for recreation -33 Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned ag) -237 Ave Maria -4,455 SSA Conservation -553 SSA mining -50 TOTAL ACRES -480 -5,058 New Agriculture +427 Sources: Conditional Use Approvals CU-02-AR-3537. CU-01-AR1225, Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area Resolution, SSA 3A and 5A, SSA 9 and Collier County Property Appraiser Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions. 12 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. A total of 15 acres have been purchased in the RLSA by the South Florida Water Management District (unknown amount). Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres. The total purchase price of the property was$5.3 million, with a $300,000 contribution from the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. Table 7-A documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within approved SSAs. To date, restoration activities have been initiated on SSAs 6, 8, and 9. Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program. Restoration 1 (R1) lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive (R1) credits (GMP RLSA Policy 3.11). Restoration 2 (R2) lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land management measures required after restoration occurs. The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration design, data collection (e.g., water table data), obtaining of state and federal permits for restoration, and/or multiple years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria. The types of restoration listed in Table7-A are described below: Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities resulting in a functional increase in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee flowways. May also include areas where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and or exotic removal within drained areas or excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging distance of a rookery. Other Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA. Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of"preferred" habitat adjacent to or connecting with existing occupied habitat. See Map 3A for the location of all areas designated for restoration. 13 Table 7-A Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs .--� Location Restoration Type Acres SSA 3A Wading Bird (R1) 248.9 SSA 5A Wading Bird (R1) 651.3 Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0 SSA 6 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 619.2 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 24.8 Large Mammal Corridor(R1, R2) 331.9 SSA 7 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 75.7 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 51.4 SSA 8 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 74.9 Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5 SSA 9 Large Mammal Corridor(R1, R2) 61.0 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 58.9 TOTAL, 3344� r'. Total R1 acres=900± Total R2 acres=2444.5± Source: SSA applications 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. The RLSA Program as adopted does not allow for the use of Credits outside of the RLSA Overlay Area, nor is there any existing method to use such Credits in the Urban designation of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Such a change would require thorough analysis and an amendment to the GMP and RLSA Overlay Area Goals, Objectives and Policies. C N. COd.;\T F" FAL ,' "$(l `;�jF' z ,", ,..-FL--e s.„ A , ,. , ,,, . , - , -- ,,_ ., , s , , ,...„, , ,, „ ,.....„.„ .,,,.. i, ,,, f- r ' ''''' \'`,:\ \,..\„,_,_ I., ..,„,,,,,, IL , ` z s aw -r ''' MOK ILF.E'446 0111111111111111 .. zni a .I i it i Ok gh r- r,,.,, j Sb rice „. f N Nei,. '"' \ � + \ ' �" T IMMOR9LEERD - _ � iis ..�..✓.., + 4 ,.+..+'f� +rte:...,.,' r 'bM i r -\ a '111111 ,.. cP,1 i- '`1 ;a f URA `}'''s -, r 101,....... c,.., ,,.,,„ ,., � tVRA i^ t_„c-- „7 s �p :. 111' OIL WELL RD F 3 OIL y;_ � �• �� �a iia , + , // GOLDEN GATE BLVD k, t r I i I I S .,',, L E G E NI) Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary , Area of Cdtical State Concern I'` ..., 500-Foot Restoration Zone f -Flowway Stewardship Area / N ®Habitat Stewardship Area Open Stewardship Area Permitted Water Retention Area r-u-� RLOViAY : MAP 1 C 3 w N i:es COLLIER RLSA FIVE YEAR REVIEW S,p 82 t.=\ , t„,,, 1,• ••• 84.'"'- '''''''"N 3 \'''''"‘t, \la\N93'''s kik'4"'..\,.,,o'r dir'w y r Pc s IMM 01‘.4 LEE 4110.4 .. i.S: II '.,, Flowway 1 & .1 FW Arca (FSA) 03 \ ' V * Ut 0 to. 76 Luc hc ----. \Lme m 0, OIL WELL RD 0 ,„-'''''' fr GOLDENGATEBLVD N rbc• h k.. A j ApprOVOCI SA ` A ' ,,,.# ,e ''":1.t4t''i''''''''''L SSA,6, r i-4t d,626 SSA' 1. ,, ''400 SSA �. k 1.620 S•94,14''''''' .„,,-1."-'' 0. a.' LEL;E?VD S�19 ,,:13191' 55A 9 1,788 a SSA-Approved With Flowway " - \°' \-",,,„..SSA-Pending With Flowway 55.4/6 _.,,,, 2,196 Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary SSA �`� /—\ Flowway Stewardship Area Slib/0 a! 14,819 Total'Acre ._ 3.a 19,825 Margin o & r+1-1%due to munctfna —t_J_----7 F L O WW A.Y" OVERVIEW MAP 1A N Niles COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW • S R82 '1.' i:..:1..:.:'::'::!::::::1:::i...'*('':,::::\''.7..'Zilk4. N':::14';:::A::!::::....: x &,,,,,,: A - ' - ':4L-:ort... . ' Aew —cs1 7' ''.--:---.' t 7110 ill ® ► / . I1?MOKALEE :" �� ,4 J N ''''IN, , ,.. . .... \ r' o 11 ,,-.::e - - :Nile. N„ ... Alf.- - v e 4 -,,.ki!--,,- D e ...is ` rt Nall'il:;'r4 y —14... .,,ikt g i4Fr / "\ m [ OIL WELL RD v1---411„„„„„„siz, „ - rA F .... ..:.. .. . .4141kki; ._... . .. . . ..... . ....... . ........ C � � ��'3;'e`�'s e ms`s,: � �, � � 1 F ate. I y : '``\ \ to411,,,N - .-' :-:74......:-....-----„,!!- ‘ -..„..::::::-.ni,„:„..:E,..,:„...:,:.,.: :- - ---........., : ...‘ - . -'.... --, ....... GOLDE N GATE BLVDAL n 40, AfriP. y� - rn y ~It.,.....;, * AOi .,R E r Acres �4" IN .d ii 1 SSA ,v : ‘052213 4.985 • 7 to yr s Ips ,n Subtotal_. e 854' L S Gs E-14-6 CZ SSA-Approved With Habitat j 4 5T\ �66 ._ SSA-Pending With Habitat SSA Iter `, \i �827 �� C)Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary SSA 1 �y,1Q� I Habitat Stewardship Area Subtotal "�%3. Total Acres ° , it046 AA ietrnr v 1%due 1tdtrte �°+— HABITA,T OVERVIEW : MAP 1B 0N Miles COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR 'REVIEW ., r,/ t s.....? Z,,i \‘`.:`,..,.. fP , ,, ,k.„ i,,,__ ,,,, , \,,,,, „,, ''LVI,i-tA7-i, \'''"7..---k. .\-\\-:,\:\\,\, \ ease Cr k nit ttw ems lit) ok41 It11 MOK 1L CR 84' 1111\f c.-"s‘'-',11q s euw -- �i' EE RD ,,'" % ::. W Vi L,,,,i, -\\:44 r __,., ,:::-,t.-7 (--- ,...., (12 .-- j I\-3, i a - 1 5 Y �"' c (I J.-- r ,--:6. _„ - ,,, ,..___....., :::, ,,, —_ m , L OIL WELL RD ?` . ILI ter? r, ...,...,. ,T ..,,m,�.._,.......,.._...,,, 2. GOLDEN GATE BLVD f j MIAe o, H row Water RQ SSA 4 \\ SSA4 '\ �`\�' SSA& 'p SSA at �s Subtotal 44 Pending SSt r.ScErarx S'SA'it SSA 11 I - i Sr4"'13 ,. 1S6j 02)SSA-Approved With Water Retention `• SSA-Pending Wifh Water Retention CDRural Land Stewardship Area Boundary --7,--,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,‘,g,_ . "� 3 034 Stibt SSA i& • Water Retention Stewardship Area o r � pl AC[eS„ r{} 3 — Margin of etTS +l”t%due to ro finding 0 A rE R T'EI T O OVE IE : MAP 1C N tiesCOLLIER S � ' YEAR REVIEW . .. ., ,,.... 8?'".'' . .....� , .!:-.„,,,,.\., '.,..,-,:- ' ,..,........- 11 - ,.." ,..,.. .: .,..„ ,•.,...„. ._ :.„. ,..., ,.,. k.. '''.:,;-' ,,,-\-:.,..-,,,.,--,..,.:",.:•:. ;40.-' Al '.4,"— r , .,‘,,,z;,.,„-,...,;1.2.,,,,,, ,.., , .,..,, .„.1 ... ... .....: wy ,i,attolm a i am * _ ,: „. 1.•t1 1OKALEE etu t..:.:::.; e-,, _ ,‘„ ,,,,-„, ,,„\ l�4 , ' N.:..:...../ 0,,,, „,„4414‘.L , , ,, ,..,,,,-,,,., ,.,..,,.; ,c„,,, ' :!%,...., ....\rk.. ., '7 --...L..''•-• -, - -71,- i4,000 , . c,. 4.. .a,.. . .‘.. .... . ..44*:, , . . .„)„, .„.. .... ,%.,...„:: .,.. ,..:„.1 „ ..,.. _ ..1, ..........-11: , J',_, .. EE RD ,. ,, aho ` V ._„.....,. . : q' ; -M , .,,.:- ,,, , o ii. @ t ,N►n 6 L:1\,,.. , ..`;',......04,..S...........:...ror::: .,, , .,,,. t%iki,1_,_::_,:,,, :, ,,,_, . ,... . i4ii, (. .,,ii ..,41,46.,,,...,. . 1001,.......1.........; wELL ci .""-", i •. la .1 .. ,,:, ..,, ---:.i:::\ _Ica ,''',., *'li ' < OIL, - — 4146;11'),..':-',..'i'l'' j ". c W R �i im\ ' ,111S6. GOLDEN GATE BLVD :::::•'' sae N ty } dYd 4 � .: \\ \ f \\\ '\ \ , 175 „,< Y,', r LEGEND ^c \N\\ ?ztbk \a-' \ ' 1 SSA-Approved With Open Land ' _- \�1� �\ • r,:\..-_,:;-,SSA-Pending Wth Open Land j 7 $„\\ �^^�, SSf t7 `�w__.✓RuralLandStewardshipAreaBoundary. \ T SSA 15!"-::i''''' ',:: 7T �� 500-Foot Restoration Zone SSA i6 7; \ \ xa fr Open Land DesignationSubtotal t \\L . 474” Total Acr7 3,Ef$ Ma + �?r+I 'i6 title to too____, \a. • ----z OPEN LAND OVERVIEW : MAI' 1D N Miles COLLA R RL A SIVE YEAR REVIEW i ,, •).,•-,,(, ".:i 1: ,.. ..:14441.iltsi'llW"imilliti/:,.-..,-,-,,,.. /.1,:',...:' '41 --••,.-.•,, ‘:,... -.,-,-..„ --.-tk...-. 1.1.-.. LL,,,,,,L,:-..- ,,,1%.‘,1,1110:ior,, ,- } 1,.. C SSA 8 i , - : f".-- 0.,....,..„21I. SSA 5". 0, -- ,,-;.':':"'!--•%,41/. 041.1kr1.!4,4tiiii -..,,,i'. .;*"*,,L ti" SSA 4\ A y d E r,,,' E icy, ; s ,y _,..:•:!--: , ,,,,., , :, , ...),„.....L,,,, ,„"-i„..I,'„,:„---,,,,!:,•:,,,,,111.11,!.,,,,,,),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i ,,, — t, C ':-::,,,, ssa1dy , ssa s 'J C m c OIL WELL RD c' .:. !"'� '. iiiiiiiAlf.::7: :.,........ipm.bikqf..7 ,4ilAiii! sati:'•!''.'•Y-..... '1111N.D ,i.,......,f ,liwN.',41.*„\, ,_ ..,......, ii....:*",..,••..•,,,....:„,: stil,,,,,,:,••••••it•- -..z.:::c-k• . ...,..,,,,,iiiiiis• ce w ---i i',:r i•C',.;:-Allilk .1'',-.7::-.-3rTli-4‘11::.:k....",..„:.::.':4-11i4ti:•,,::: It...:14Vti•7, ,.e.:'•'••..:-• ,:::',:i111111„:41, im 1/4 GOLDE SA9;.' N to -i--„,„. ;Anirr4,40 •,',AftjAfrAttiiiti .•Nwrryllmn .3 I 75 ® ��,�:1 x Z68& I e ..._._ 11M.' I % ,t , 487 0 $9::44,m,,,' 9 \� aii 8 1 124li ''V4:.'` tt 2.':;,, '::,!:',' LEG END & '� 5 7 155 759 ��7�, Subtotal -9'';',:•' �ZpQ - 12, \� _ \�44 . 241+8 `�!!_o SSA-Approved Fa�S5?✓` ;,J.• .• \\ \ S+ 19 0 $554 • `�SSA-Pending49 i 5441 # \ 2212 1 , ," , 79 1BBd€ C)Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary 12` '',.'.'...-4.'„788 ,. ,,..2 8A ;74 m 79 .1 - ,.:282 1313 .. •, 1811 289 ....-7,479 Flowway Stewardship Area u^.SA 14 1 44a 889 i '1,7`14- Habitat Stewardship Area 15 2}'94 ;•1821 .1209 \D 7 ,28g'. �\ 410 CD Open Stewardship Area 5341 . 164 . :2901 - • 9 • 3 �,_4 78 &rliEbt@# \49 17;743 9143'4 d•.~• 474 <f 839 ( )Water Retention Stewardship Area 1'ct ,kcres; 1'9703-2"8 29.986• 3,078 3,067 i b,956 note:Ac 4411is table he(a bean mw14 10 a whole aer',Marg not en; rar may be-14,4W a LAND DESIGNATION OVERVIEW : MAP 1E PI Mies COLLIER`RLSA FIVE YEAR REVIEW' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t\.% �\\\��� Yom^ 0 t r'''z:•:".iggi4llIllIllilliiillIlli°%z:,•'-4411111111111-. ;lz:!:.:'' ig \� k w rc, \-1 . .x.„ U 1 e „,,,, 1 IF / 1 WOKALEE ,.111A �� \ 'F7 m It tt 1 W Y Iii A b.a "•—•• m OIL WELL RD . NILuO J C 411 i CD \ \ EY Lu 4006. 11, _.... F 4 3 ate. tMi1. m GOLDE GATE BLVD A4I'.m-.N,km44.,V.-:.m:,m,,W,,.o:,Ze,..y%.l.-m,;,:',.-''.-11,,•"':.:,A‘.Z.,;.mNe,.4.,:::,'::za,:-...::Z=:.,,,.-...••1.:1...'....,m.',',.,...::...m..N...,.4„),-,.7;,..,.',•.,::,,'.- as -: taN„•- '''''.°V\, Off*Aretk: ' '..'-'.. ...4";':w,:,1-....•....:::'.:t"',4:4:-..';hi, •,::.,-.N' t%' LEGE:r � �; si \� /r aIll �g .- 4,..� q... �:y SSC Q,Z SSA-Approved \ \�\ \ R `�\ \\`\\\•\\\ ✓ - SSA-Pending - `/ iv. tkii \1111111 a �\ Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary �: ” • �\ \���.. �� 6cisting Public Lands \s.\ g" ` �� \ `\\`\, y V.Florida Forever Targeted Lands \\ `/j i ` • �\ \; ' \ A. r\� v \ ` \ i ` :� t-t_t� ONSER .A HO LANDS OVERT IE :MAP IF 0 U.B 1.6 G / N Miles C©LLI R RL ISE ]'':E 'R UIE IIENDRI COUNTY allirt 211111111;;lir.41 al ::4,1 rigWitiAt !h?rYfOKALEE \ cR • g-:1 j) N� IMMORALEE RD Rr M n E a 1 'a bailligEZ ,_e,_ I 1 OIL WELL RD OIL WELL RD s "u --�Tomin of ;n B g Cyp s a" r :,i:1:1:1:1047,11 GOLDEN GATE BLVD ._, I� 1,: : K �/4\\ I 'qNZ Rw s'P/r�OMOV \ %/ VnBig iyr°. e NeligiOtaMOCUiltat Is \� i// \ /� / LBC END: DI �• SRA-A roved e -'''''''*.t54349771'" \ - 4/ \ \�. \ SRA-Proposed �� \ \ \\ * _ /// � \� � � \ 41W \ Rural Land StewardshipArea Boundary�\ � P�nstlng Public L: cjpI . ... ... _ .....?tom ------ ..'::A------'6-71'1-771-'----- -�® SRAL C 'T A P`, €U �n�� coLLIER`RLS : FI E YEAR EVIE TF hr vim} COL.!` f,$ fi 1 Credtts , 42 R+°, SQA _ 4443.2 C[edtts w ,.. :' "1 �„p�� I11 YtOKALE �\ `t 'R .,,,,,,&,•-''.„ : „ _ __.., .,, ,./., ......, --,i,- -,,,....„.„,„,„„,„ I ssa3 " 5 281.9"CrBdttS "*' , . S�uA 4 .;'.--.1/444..1/4,1/4-41-,:,. ._'. rr SPD \�\ \� \\ Cre r IMMORALEE RD: .... s ''�� \�,- 12. C. rtli'. 1 t SSA 1 4. b �\ \ . ` 263.6 Credits P 5 ' \.• SSA 9 ,„..„,„-,-...,„•-•-•,-\\-\ 7,246.6 Credits OIL WELL BD OIL WELL RD `A m.,' , -T --) ... .. _ ..........„..--,t.t...:1/4: SAl6 25 52r Cr'6drts ti \ ,,--,,, ,-,3„-i.,,,,,--,!:-.1,-,-•\ 333, GOLDEN GATE BLVD •- f \ �, \\ \\\ N tette e,!..'...:;1/4:t.''' \z cam: LEGEND Approved SSA n. Boundary (:::110,1400 FlowwayRural StewardshipLand AreaArea /"."\ Habitat Stewardship Area Open StewardshipStewardship Area Permitted Water Retention Area t 71-1-----1 r__ ► SSL CREDIT ASIGNM.ENTS MAP 3 0 1 2 N Miles COLLIER RLSA FIVE YEAR REVIEW sgestrat+o n/#gyres �.� fi - d1 , 'wtc, , \4 v„•,,.�. SSAT �.,. ,, 4,1110111111r Flestorati\rt Aare ti • '' -'''—':-- •-,-- '1'74"1".","-- M -M-144.. SSI 5 w ` 651.3 Resto tion Acres °3 W " n ,a !b: 410KAI.Er a� � S SS"A3 � 2 w 8 9 Restoration Acres " ftill .., A4 /MMORALEERD \\`�` y „.„.„. .-.:v:..;:::::„----:,-,„„:„,.,m,"„:,,,„„„„„,,, ..„•; v ,,„,...„,...... ------ :,.....................,. .,. .„,.„,„,..:. „„....,...„ , s„,” " , L--- ,,,,.:".„-„,,,::: ::----. ----- ,.A2___----„,— r :. i r SSA 9 _:,.- 691.4 Restoration Acres Imo\ '. OIL WELL RD O/L WELL RD y 1 , .. .,.:.\*AVP"'.,'", -- 3' �'? } r.... its . f'---'. itenti,,t,tv.sloisok„,,,E-1.4‘11,.,' ,,,.,. i r:.,,,ii,,,'..,.,./721P11..Aor Ansto,'is.,..,:,-,:1,-..4-4-.4g c T\\ 1\......:!-....2 1, :i:;;I'Mt,GOLDENGATE BLVD -- 1:5. 2. '� ,■T ' m- SSA 6 /; ®., 1,219 Restoration Acres '!f Nie 11144. g . Approved SSA t• Pending SSA SSA Restoration Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary Flowway Stewardship Area Habitat Stewardship Area Open Stewardship Area ,---•\ Permitted Water Retention Area ?- 2SSK RESTORATION ACRS : MAP 3A Nies COLLIER RLSA FIVE YEAR REVIEW .. .......... . . ......:. • • v.. LI #ms's p� 7.T.• V` { Y.Iz:.�k ..• '!i I,3"�'�`:Iy.!'"':• .... n'£ 'k'�.1�!<:M`B >Td..':' y�. Y•SCR• '7, 3. �, F,• -. ,4:-:,,,t �.- `� iii ±. • „ :1: m 1--" ..�.. �`rx �� � at.�,,y .;r �'•v �,,A t _�.•.. -,*,•':''',,,,, �.. „. \:"' 'a.•yi k a�'• • 'z` .:r . '..3. ". �.cE,.••. ..jj ...yo'" �' iiir a0,4:x � -1...104 }} ViT,;;$ ' � � e • " ''''',I,.:/• .I:� '<{1lp � y�, , : �.Y `��:SI ' a, ',.:14t,4.•:-,-A,' '� _ ,j,„ ,„,,..,,w !" ,.. . .0. ' ,,th•tl-, ii,, . „,,4•E :., i ;�'h. ' '---,-;-',1 ;; '. < k :-,:,C,"rky: ..1%'''» : , '1'.s 1 x„ n ' . v *,r .;. ,r^ teM, `xza »vs.,, y ,k'R,.4 t". l ''.-.4,a,' '"- y j Via'" 7 `i< Af.,Tisc'' y. i „ 4?" +` . ^� y, :. 14• ` :. --- mak •i' ;4.1 ':. i). • :���'"a' � y<. 33�'�' • ''�V� xii'ix-s1* -`•;.s�« d s K"` �'y 'Y k.. 400' ' ft,' 14:`,..1, 4 .'7,"•".' F' , .,.•a `,, ,' ' ' sy y.:, < .`:'I r 'kIr' ;IftlI '����a�"r?wi;�' ,,�. � ., ":•::.���.�. k. i..t:" :�i �'a-�": �iw� ;�.� =�'j/ �: :��. ` i `:'£ ,„ ,,,-'" -- y -- W = ,x' gip' m'T a'1ft"Cis..` il ° e ' :' • ',¢{i f t ..E:41 ,'.( .g fie.,...._t,..: "t't.. �.1.. "♦ b,p, ..' . 0' �' tis. .•— S7'4-`i t -+.' ''..1: ,.• :, ?.: .0."d �*� t. :• "at '''ll: k4;4:+, � i 'ht,..41:;,0 �� ai:gr ••z:!,4...•-•:A.. . t4 • �s4 ' � C "" •° ". , ) Sa KK t _ $ �— , i '.3 FR'..k1-1`; .„ , ie< *yp. yfs d • ' .s. 0.6 0. teat-,,,,.1-.Ari4,„ Fa x ` h >r. � ' A-1i •,i c•get,' flyea' ..> ' + ' 'TR: • :r>,, a,h, ^ =-:!..,...i,,.. , i ..a -�t, r= : a ”„3 ( < w.. A _t.s _ . * '41- ,fr *V'," , ,...!. Land Use Change • `AgExisting to Conservation,Approved • ' -Intensify,Public Lands ,....„„ j Ag Type Change (---Th No Change i r-L_3--7 LAND USE CONVERSION : MAP 4 0 1 2 N Milas COLLIER RLSA FIVE YEAR REVIEW r a,. ininiiiiiii a u .. , ;'''.- ,r:1'4,t illift`? ..f::;ill eiN 2 •=. i ,a est: • `1: " :,, :.•,*. •'%. nib 4 lc.. ' t,;', 20 „at . Iiiik .4,40 ,A, -- --"" 3s.•., - yam.• '•F• <. 1. 3 • *. S •'I% **.... ,,,,,:: to . : ' ,.411044t Ik‘'' #' 4: ''4•''''•ilo&,**14':• ' 3',4* ** **N.< 41%4''4:.• `tea > rr ` ''',.,"•,.V.:ii,t-,•# 'z'`''• •.‘.4.,,.:•..r4':•t•*.-,', e ' lit ' 4. Vt.. •••,111‘t "..05** *'• • ' ' ••s' t** " •.::::•- ' . • ' l• • 1#•, 1„ , "` s'' x•.., It `%y • ice i ,, ?, a LEGEND�Na\\ --_ ,�• `+_ LArea Boundary ::::':,-„s <r ®ExistinRuralg and PublicStewardship Lands .0...e. y Citrus » ,_ a• • ' Fallow � � Uplands&Wetlands Nat. ill Ail ; • � �.• � Pasture �?:1 • q #1; y Row Crops "--N Specialty 1 2002 LANDUSE : MAP 4A N Miles COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW , - ^'' :' +: .;. 4' : ,, it: meg. 110) : . ._ , ,. , ,.. 1 liar,,P., r. 1ii, : I ',. '� Asti` Fes. 16 �J'jSR. M� :,CY+? S• E „ -Y Y 3 sr tit:INKili i'2 NEth ;i t'$s'tf . '. ',, '". 4104* ' , 1,. —' •' .-* < x t W, F ,G,E es � ` 4 Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary • �, „i a Existing Public Lands ..x; M s "` .« >: t Citrus : ;'fir. c . , \ Fallow , .» r x, '��1.�` '� �,. sv v, 3< ?x Nat.Upland,Wetlands .� ', ,. :: ,, . ..,....,,,:i... ,, ,r Row Crop Rangeland 3� ti,... G{ , •'• k:' ... ~ Specialty A Ag to Non Ag ��� • Conservation,Approved `r..: • ,;s g ... .'.-vr4.0Intensify,Approved A 0 1 2007 LANDUSE : MAP 4B c NMIes COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW 200 Land Use ' ' =I , EZIIIIMIIIIIIIMIll .30 "U. ands •'Wands/4MEE k. �� as re : a ••elyd 429 '" a 1 R IIM ._ - 449 :: t :. • . .Ri-int,'":: :.'f,,:'7,ti,4" - *!1' .' .;.''..-..'.;-", :-. -,:-p;; ::••,,,:w1:,•..*.: .,0110t':;: .-I/if0,0' ..-';','-,-,,,,, -', ...,- , '':,.' -,,-„,,--:,:--,..-, -, „••,•,.,*,.„,,,.,:„,:,,,..01)-,,,i4 r:,...•,77,..,::::•:.„,,,,,,.• t„. k� tfrt £ .. DFS "ry�t .'a • ' - • k , il,,••..,,,,,,,,,,„ :„,,,,„,„.....i. i.„4.:1,,,,, ,,,, .„,,tti.....:„ ,...„ ,,!,,,..,.:::„.1.„.„.,,,e5„,,,,g,.,,. 3:- ,,,:2,.,* t ,.....„,..,„ ,.,.iii ,„ ., .., ,,,,,,,„,,,,,,:„.„. , ,,, ,‘,,,, ,. ,,,,,,;,..::, , ,s. i,:. !.., :,,,,,,,,-,:,,,ii,„,:,,‘,,;,::',..,,,.:.,,,•:,.*::,,:.i,':',:::, !ii.,. , , ,,, 4,,,,. .,,i, ,: .... •,..,„ ,.,„„,..„ i K., f`.:. 'P,i :6 LEGEND E . Li Ave Maria DRI ,.,;. Citrus Fallow • Nat.Uplands&Wetlands * Pasture ) .. - • (;' . « I Row Crops n ..�....._ ..}._ .'•E f_ Specialty .r z.:ni C;:3 r, ro 1,000 2.000 AVE MARIA 2002 LAND USE: MAP 4C N Fest COLLIER RLSA : FIVE 'YEAR REVIEW T 48 S T 47 S T 48 S T 43 S I T 60 S T 51 S T 6P S T 59 S Y g , ur:i C": i @ S 56 g e5 i_._. W >� g 7 j b e W Y xu L' �4 9e z `mom n ! t t V 5 z �, a r .1 'a `vy a E g I m o gas gg a, yq � � � R d � `'u Y � i d e b d ¢ E @ Y Erg 4y $ $ 85 i a > !Fi g $ I y id t �ugg y de 14 0 i ; i m i2~obi. < • s@ gW ggi l$ R a a r z - VS ; 2w = W �Y •• W G W •� s�n � F X K W g. a~ a 00iE Di m 4 I.: sl g- N g ace ��eb g g pFbNi g'<d itggiDois Ili ++ ygy s g �4? m'gs $mg � W ax o1� W a ,•' W / 1 % cg .. 1 r a_. '` a:a o .� 1-Y W ' • Z d A ; ] N ` ' G ti W 9 I ' 'ft% f2 ' ;W: W W rl, W th �4 s" W O. N � NpN ¢ ct Vac J� d /_:. 2I v_,,-,=, , ` < ¢ 441 W j ' r �/ , W gi J r - - b ii L.“' W U tii "' =ia W 05.0*---.:1 CC r '-ydtn- > Me _I � g 'gg Yy g2 g u5 m �� ¢ 1d1 C uL f �T : 9 , � m e g gi g k _ IIIIIIII III h I S 9b 1 S L4 1 u. S 84 1 S 64 1 S 05 1 S l4 .L S Z5 1 S 69 1 Exhibit 6. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Agenda Item VI B STAFF REPORT MEETING OF November 5th, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No: Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2005-AR-8674 Petition Name: Hilton Hills -RPUD Applicant/Developer: David and Virginia Hilton Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Livingston Road and School Access Road, approximately one mile north of Immokalee Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. rte, III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Subject Parcel: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment Overlay(ST) Surrounding North: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Commercial (C-1) South: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Conditional Use (CU-01-AR-1411) East: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) West: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District. The RPUD proposes a density of four (4) dwelling units an acre, for a total maximum of 48 multi-family residential dwelling units on 12±acres. The proposed RPUD is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict District which allows for a base residential density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Hilton Hills RPUD intends to allow development of a maximum of forty-eight (48) single-family, two-family, duplex, townhouse or multi-family dwelling units EAC Meeting Page 2 of 7 n (48) single-family, two-family, duplex, townhouse or multi-family dwelling units at the base density of four (4) units per acre or to allow two hundred (200) Assisted Living Facility (ALF) or Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element allows Group Housing, which includes Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home within the Urban designated district. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Growth Management Plan(GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four(4) residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. The applicant is encouraged to implement appropriate Policies under Objective 7 .-� of the FLUE that support smart growth, including walk-ability and interconnections with adjoining communities and to fronting collector and arterial roads. Specifically, no commitment is made in Section 5.6 of the PUD to provide interconnected access to undeveloped lands to the west or north, or to the access road to the south. The Urban Residential Sub-district allows a base density of four(4) dwelling units per gross acre and the site is not subject to density reduction as it is not within the Traffic Congestion Area or located in any Traffic Concurrency Management Area. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Although, staff does acknowledges Objective 7 of the FLUE Policies "encourage" interconnection, rather than require it. 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 EAC Meeting Page 3 of 7 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 retention and detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve. This project is consistent with policy 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 12.16 acres of which 12.16 acres is considered native vegetation. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 1.82 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 1.82 acres or 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a preserve area is shown to be consistent with the GMP based upon the following: Since there were no listed species found on site and preliminary UMAM scores for the 4.60 acres of on-site wetlands were below 0.65, a combined 1.82 acres of pine flatwood and palmetto prairie habitat will be preserved. Offsite mitigation shall be provided for the on-site wetland impacts as required by the agencies. As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation shall 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 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS. No listed species were found on the project site. The project site is located in secondary bear habitat. 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 September 29th, 2005, the DHR stated that no previously recorded cultural resources were found on the project site. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 7 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Hilton Hills RPUD sits within the Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin and the maximum permissible discharge within that basin is 0.15 cfs per acre. Because of the presence of wetlands, this project will require permitting through the SFWMD and will be exempt from EAC review of the water management system per the ------ LDC unless they choose to incorporate preserves into the water management system. There is no listing of an application for this project on the SFWMD website under the name Hilton Hills. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." Hilton Hills plans on using a standard system of swales, inlets, pipes, and wet detention areas (lakes) to achieve water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The offsite discharge will be through a control structure to the Livingston Road drainage system. Environmental: Site Description: The project site consists of 12.16 acres of native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified by staff on site. On site native vegetation communities include pine flatwoods (7.00± acres), palmetto prairie (0.56±acres), and hydric pine flatwoods (4.60± acres). Wetlands: There are 4.60± acres of potential South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland lines have not been approved by the SFWMD. A copy of the SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be forwarded to county staff upon its issuance. The wetlands on site are heavily infested with exotic vegetation including Melaleuca and Brazillian pepper. The project will result in impacts to 100% (4.60± acres) of potential SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands shall be mitigated for through the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitting process at the first development order. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 7 Preservation Requirements: According to the vegetation preservation and retention standards for residential development for an area greater than 5.0 acres, a minimum of 15 %-of_the native - - ---- - -- vegetation must be retained. No listed species were found on site and preliminary UMAM scores for the 4.60 acres of on-site wetlands were below 0.65, thus making the onsite uplands the higher quality habitat. The required preserve area will consist of a combined 1.82 acres of pine flatwood and palmetto prairie habitat. The preserved upland areas shall be placed under a Collier County conservation easement. Listed Species: A listed species survey was conducted by Boylan Environmental, Inc. on April 6th , 2005 and on August 2nd, 2006 and is contained in the EIS. (EIS exhibit 17). No listed species' were observed on the project site during the surveys. A potential Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia ) stick nest was observed during the initial survey. At the next development order, an updated BCFS survey will be conducted and any nest structures found in trees will be provided a 150 foot buffer until the nest trees are deemed inactive. A BCFS management plan has been provided and is included in the EIS (EIS exhibit 20). A follow up survey on June 9th, 2006 to update nest locations was conducted. No nests were observed during that survey. Although no Florida Black Bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) were observed on the property, the project site is located with the secondary black bear zone and a black bear management plan shall be provided at the next development order. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2005-AR-8674 "Hilton Hills"with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: 1. The applicant must obtain a water management permit from the South Florida water management District prior to the approval of the Site Development Plan. Environmental: 1) A copy of the approved SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be submitted to county staff at the next development order. 2) Provide Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans as part of the next development order. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 6 j� /), / / • / / STAN CHRZANOW,/ , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING RE EW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT / 9 c RIS D'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /`17 ( �n5t- MELISSA NE DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: /o-/6. 21 SUS ASON DATE P:. 'AL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ) /// 010 l0-290 ''' IAM D. LO' I, Jr., '.E./ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 6 of 6 r------{L JEFFHT D TE GO lila ASSIST T COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: A ..1-dA..LAaAd. /0/.2e/O'{ JO , PH K. SCHMITT DATE • MUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ,1 MINISTRATOR n I 1 - °A1 f�. Hilton Hills MPUD Environmental Impact Statement Collier County Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Approximately 12.16 acres • Boylan ---'7i Environment-- Consultantc. Wetland&Wildlife Surveys; 'onmental Permitting, Impact issessments 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4, Fort Myers, Florida, 33912 Phone: (239) 418-0671Fax: (239) 418-0672 October 26, 2005 Revised April 25, 2006 Revised August 1, 2006 Revised February 6, 2007 Revised May 22, 2007 ,..� Revised December 10, 2007 a Table of Contents PAGE# EIS REPORT 1-19 TABLES IN REPORT FLUCFCS by vegetative type,composition,dominance 8-9 • FLUCFCS community by class 9 Preserve and Impact Table per FLUCFCS 10 Potential Protected Species by FLUCFCS 16-17 EXHIBITS EX.# DESCRIPTION PAGE# 1 RESUME-Kim Schlachta 20 2 LOCATION MAP .21 3 FLUCFCS AERIAL EXTENDING 200 FEET 22 4 FLUCFCS MAP EXTENDING 200 FEET •.23 5 FLUCFCS MAP 24 6 FLUCFCS AERIAL MAP 25 7 FLUCFCS TOPO MAP 26 8 SOILS MAP 27 9 CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 28 10 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN 29 11 INDIGENOUS MAP 30 12 INDIGENOUS PRESERVE MAP 31 13 INDIGENOUS IMPACT MAP 32 14 WETLAND MAP 33 15 SFWMD WETLAND JD SIGN OFF LETTER(MEMO LOCATION MAP&AERIAL)...34-38 16 WETLAND IMPACTS MAP 39 17 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY 40-44 18 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY MAP 45 19 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY AERIAL MAP 46 20 BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN 47-50 21 HISTORICAL SITE SEARCH RESULTS ..51 2 4. Information required for application. a. Applicant information. i. Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his/her education and job related environmental experience. Kimberly Schlachta, B.S., Environmental Sciences, 8 years experience; KimS@BoylanEnv.com; (239) 418-0671 Please see the attached resume, exhibit#1 (page 20) ii. Owner(s)/agent(s) name, address,phone number& e-mail address. David and Virginia Hilton 3615 Boca Ciega Drive #110 Naples, FL 34112 239-404-3681 Contact email: rachelledover@comcast.net b. Mapping and support graphics. i. General location map. Please see exhibit#2 Location Map (on page 21). ii. Native habitats and their boundaries identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least 200 feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is required to go on to adjoining properties. Habitat identification consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the County. Other scale aerials may be used where appropriate for the size of the project, provided the photograph and overlays are legible at the scale provided.A legend for each of the FLUCFCS categories found on-site shall be included on the aerial. See the attached FLUCCS Map of Site and Area Extending 200 Feet Beyond exhibits #2 and 3 (pages 22 and 23). iii. Topographic map,and existing drainage patterns if applicable.Where possible,elevations within each of FLUCFCS categories shall be provided. 3 See the attached map titled FLUCFCS-TOPO map exhibit# 7 (page 26). iv. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. See the attached Soils Map exhibit#8 (page 27). v. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off-site drainage. See Concept Drainage plans provided by Engineer. vi. Development plan including phasing progr:•.m, service area of existing a,i d proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. See attached Engineering PUD master plans. vii. Site plan showing preserves onsite,and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed a existing development, roads, and areas for stormwater retention,as shown on approved master pla i s for these sites, as well as public owned conservation lands,conservation acquisition areas,major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. No adjacent preserves, conservation acquisition areas,flowways or potential wildlife corridors exist in this area or around the project site. An access road to the North Naples Middle School is located along the southern boundary of the site, and a major arterial road(Livingston Road) is located along the eastern boundary. Although no easements exist adjacent to the western property line, the preserve area has taken into account the potential for interconnection to the west and north. The preserve size is large enough that without a 20'strip along the west boundary, the preserve size still meets the indigenous requirement. Since no other uses would be available in this strip, the area was included in the preserve calculations. See the attached PUD Master Plan and Indigenous Preserve Map exhibit# 12 (page 31). 4 ,•-`' viii. For properties in the RLSA or RFMU districts,a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan. Not applicable, the project is not within those districts. c. Project description and GMP consistency determination. i. Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The 12.16 acre project site contains 4.60 acres of wetlands and 7.56 acres of uplands. There is one wetland located onsite consisting of mixed Pine and Cypress along the southern boundary. The remainder of the site comprises disturbed pine fatwoods which have resulted in scattered melaleuca present throughout the site. A small patch of saw palmetto containing 0.56 acres also exists on the northern boundary. The proposed site plan will impact the low quality wetlands and a portion of the low quality upland pine flatwoods. Onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation will be provided for impacts to the wetland will be permitted through SFWMD as required. The onsite mitigation will include the preservation and enhancement of 1.26 acres of the Pine Flatwoods, and 0.56 acres of saw palmetto. No adverse secondary or cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of this development and no adverse water quality or discharge impacts are anticipated. All remaining impacts will be mitigated for offsite in an appropriate mitigation bank Storm water runoff will be directed into the proposed wet detention surface water management system via catch basins and culverts. This wet detention system provides water quality treatment. The greater of either the first inch of runoff from the site or 2.5" times the percentage of imperviousness will be detained Discharge will be through a spreader swale along the eastern property boundary and into the Livingston Road right-of-way. ii. Explain how the project is consistent with each of the Objectives and Policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, where applicable. The project site includes wetlands and uplands. The projects preserve area of 1.82 acres will contain indigenous area, including 1.26 acres of the Pine Flatwoods, and 0.56 acres of saw palmetto. The largest and most 5 e , contiguous preserve area compatible with this site plan hasbeen provided Since both the 321 and the 411 Pine Flatwoods qualify as indigenous, this requirement is met. The entire Palmetto area is not required since the Pine flatwoods area qualifies as indigenous preservation per Collier Staff. Although no easements exist adjacent to the western property line, the preserve area has taken into account the potential for interconnection to the west and north. The preserve size is large enough that without a 20' strip along the west boundary, the preserve size still meets the indigenous requirement. Since no other uses would be available in this strip, the area was included in the preserve calculations. This project is consistent with Policy 2.2.2 whereas the stormwater system will be designed in such a way that discharged water will not degrade receiving waters and that the attempt to enhance the quality, quantity, and timing offreshwater to the system will limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater run-off. This project is consistent with 'oiicy 6.1.1 whereas the standards and criteria have been met to preserve native vegetation on-site, by providing 15% indigenous vegetation for a 5 to 19 acre non-coastal residential development. The total site preservation meets that required by the PUD. The site will preserve 15.0 %of the onsite indigenous areas. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1. (2),preserved native vegetation will include canopy, under-story, and groundcover. The preserve areas have been designed to best accommodate the highest quality native vegetation, maintain a single contiguous preserve possible that the water management system allows for. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1. (4),preserved native vegetation will include canopy, under-story, and groundcover. Since there are no protected species noted on the site, and the wetland does not have approved UMAM scores greater than 0.65 or higher, then 321 (palmetto area) is being preserved first with other indigenous uplands including Pine Flatwoods. The wetlands are not adjacent to the higher quality palmetto area; other surrounding upland indigenous has been preserved These areas have been incorporated as best as the plan can allow for. This project is consistent with Policy 6.1.1. (9) Whereas there are no adjacent preserves, conservation acquisition areas,flowways or potential wildlife corridors exist in this area or around the project site. Roads exist along the east and south boundaries of the site. The preserve area has been designed to best accommodate the highest quality indigenous, and keep the preserve interconnected as best possible the water management system allows. This project is consistent with Policy 6.2.1 and Policy 6.2.2 whereas the wetlands shall be verified by a jurisdictional field delineation at the time 6 of project permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries, and shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statutes and the delineation methodology as described in Section 373.421 of the Florida Statute. A wetland jurisdictional determination has been conducted on a portion of this site and on contiguous sites to determine the location of the wetlands. As per the policy, these wetlands are verified as the time of project permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. Methodology addressed in the Florida Statute was utilized to determine the extent and location of wetlands located on this site as noted in the wetland mapping. This includes applying reasonable scientific judgment to evaluate the dominance of plant species, soils, and other hydrologic evidence of regular and periodic inundation and saturation as set forth in the statute and rules in Statute 373.4211. Attached is the information jurisdictional determination on this site exhibit#15 (page 34-38). Since these issues are the only issues that are highlighted in the objectives, the project would be consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. d. 'Native vegetation preservation. i. Identify the acreage and corn com3iunity type of all upland and wetland habitats found on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Provide a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on-site by vegetation type(species), vegetation composition (canopy,midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance(dominant,common and occasional). Palmetto Prairie(FLUCFCS Code 321) This upland community occupies 0.56± acres of the property. This area is composed primarily of palmetto prairie. It was located in the middle of the melaleuca uplands. The canopy was opened with scattered melaleuca and slash pine. The sub-canopy vegetation includes wax myrtle and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, smilax, grape vine, bracken fern, and beautyberry. 7 VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE (C-Canopy,M-Midstory,G- (D-Dominant,C-Common, Ground cover) 0-Occasional) Slash Pine C 0 Melaleuca C 0 Cabbage Palm M 0 Wax Myrtle M 0 Saw Palmetto M D Beauty Berry M 0 Grapevine G 0 Poison Ivy G 0 Smilax G 0 Bracken fern G 0 Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411) This area occupies 7.00+ acres of the property. The canopy is dominated by Slash pine, and contains between 25 percent to 75 percent melaleuca. The sub-canopy consists of melaleuca with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, cypress and Brazilian pepper. Ground cover includes grape vine, smilax, finger grass, carpet crass, coco plum,myrsine, and poison ivy. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE (C-Canopy,M-Midstory,G- (D-Dominant,C-Common, Ground cover) 0-Occasional) Melaleuca C/M D Slash Pine C/M 0 Cabbage Palm M 0 Wax Myrtle M 0 Brazilian Pepper M 0 Grapevine G 0 Poison Ivy G 0 Smilax G 0 Carpet Grass G 0 Finger Grass G 0 Coco Plum G 0 Myrsine G 0 Hydric Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625) This wetland habitat type occupies 4.6± acres of the property. The canopy is dominated by pine with scattered cypress in the mid- canopy. The sub-canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes salt bush, poison ivy, cabbage palm, myrsine, bluestem grass, wiregrass, spartina, St. John's Wort, and swamp fern. 8 VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE (C-Canopy,M-Midstory,G- (D-Dominant,C-Common, Ground cover) 0-Occasional) Cypress C/M C Slash Pine C/M D Cabbage Palm M/G 0 Melaleuca M 0 Wax Myrtle M 0 Brazilian Pepper M 0 Salt bush G 0 Poison Ivy G 0 Smilax G 0 Bluestem G 0 Spartina G 0 St. John's Wort G 0 Swamp fern G 0 FLUCCS Wetland Acreage OSW Non- Code Community acreage wetland 321 Palmetto Prairie -- -- 0.56 411 Pine Flatwoods -- -- 7.0 625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 4.60 -- Total: 4.6 0 7.56 Total Site Acreage: 12.16 ii. Explain how the project ii sets or exceeds the ative vegetation preservation require Li ent in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth anagement Plan, and Chapters 4 and 10 of the Laird Development Code. Provide an exhibit illustrating such. Include calculatio:'s ide tifrying the acreage for preservation and impact, per FLUCFCS category. See attached Indigenous Communities—Impact/Preserve maps exhibit#'s 12 and 13 (pages 31 and 32). The property contained about 12.16 acres of native indigenous communities, and 15% is required to be preserved in order to meet Collier County indigenous requirements. That equates to 1.82 acres of indigenous needed for preservation. The project proposes to preserve 1.82 acres, which meets the required amount. 9 FLUCCS Community Upland Wetland Impact Preserve Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage 321 Palmetto Prairie 0.56 ac. -- - 0.56 411 Pine Flatwoods 7.00 ac. -- 5.74 ac. 1.26 625 Hydric Pine -- 4.60 ac. 4.60 ac. . Flatwoods 7.56 4.60 10.34 1.82* * These preserve areas will have exotics removed and plantings done as necessary. iii. For sites already cleared and i i, agricultural use,provide documentation that the parcel (s) are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan and Chapters 4 and 10 of the Land Development Code. For sites cleared prior to January 2003,provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. ,-1 NA iv. Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identified for the site during previous development order approvals? If so,identify the location and acreage of these preserves,and provide an explanation if they are different from what is proposed. No previous development approvals have been issued for the property to our knowledge. v. For properties with Special Treatment "ST" overlays, show the ST overlay on the development plan and provided an explanation as to why these areas are being impacted or preserved. The ST area located at the Northeast corner of the property has been included in the preserve area. e. Wetlands. i. Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands(pursuant to Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth 10 R � Management Plan) according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS).Include a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on- - site by vegetation type(species),vegetation composition (canopy,midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance(dominant,common and occasional).Wetland determinations are required to be verified by the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of E vironmental Protectio.i,prior to submission to the County. The wetlands shall be verified by a jurisdictional field delineation at the time of project permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries, and shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statues and the delineation methodology as described in Section 373.421 of the Florida Statue. A wetland jurisdictional determination has been conducted on a portion of this site and on contiguous sites to determine the location of the wetlands. See the attached Jurisdictional wetland Determination for Long's Farm Market signed by District staff on October 5, 2001 exhibit 15 (pages 33-37). As per the policy, these wetlands have been verified by the South Florida Water Management District. Attached is the partial jurisdictional determination on this site. Subsequent to the initial wetland determination, approximately 4.60 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were identified on this site. The current line was determined through field verification. Since the original flagged lines were not surveyed, these lines have been located utilizing handheld GPS units. A SFWMD permit will be provided at the time of SDP/PPL submittal to the County which includes the locations of • jurisdictional wetlands as verified by the South Florida Water Management District. Hvdric Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625) This wetland habitat type occupies 4.6± acres of the property. The canopy is dominated by pine with scattered cypress. The sub-canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes salt bush, poison ivy, cabbage palm, myrsine, bluestem grass, wiregrass, spartina, St. John's Wort, and swamp fern. 11 ! 1 ii. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators.Indicate how the project design improves/affects predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide a narrative addressing the anticipated control elevation(s)for the site. Seasonal high water elevations were determined using existing permitting for adjacent sites. Onsite biological indicators or lack thereof suggests that the water elevations do not exceed the current ground elevation. Existing topography as noted in the survey is consistent with surrounding permitted control elevations. The permitted control elevation of the Royal Palm Academy site located east of Livingston road is at 12.7 ft. NGVD. The permitted control elevation for Livingston Road is 11.25 ft NGVD. This project is also located to the east. This WSWT elevation is consistent with the lack of above ground biological indicators on- site. Since on-site topo shows the existing drainage flowingfrom the northeast to the south west, it would be consistent that the onsite control would need to be at an elevation at less than or at maximum 11.25 ft NGVD to maintain the cascading system as permitted through SFWMD. Therefore it is anticipated that the control would be approximately at 11 ft NGVD. iii. Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on the functions of these wetlands.Provide an exhibit showing the location of wetlands to be impacted and those to be preserved on-site. Describe how impacts to wetlands have been minimized. See the attached Wetland Impacts Map exhibit 16(page 38). Initial site plan design included the preservation of onsite wetlands to minimize impacts. Secondary impacts to adjacent wetlands, and existing impacts from surrounding roads do not make this site favorable for wetland preservation. Through the site planning process at this point, Collier county requirements do not accept the preservation of the onsite wetland due to the low UMAM Assessment score. Other native vegetation onsite is required to be preserved. In addition, due to the size and configuration of this parcel, it is not feasible to preserve both areas. iv. Indicate how the project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the 12 Growth Ma,'agement Plan.For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment,based on the South Florida Water Ma agement District's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method,that has been accepted by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.For sites outside the RFMU district, and where higher quality wetlands are being retained on-site, provide justification based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method. Through the permitting process with South Florida Water Management District, the impacted wetlands would require mitigation. Offsite mitigation would not only provide adequate compensation for the onsite wetland impacts, but would enhance preserve areas that are known to be utilized by listed species, and increase these areas, which in turn would provide for a better long term resolution addressing the impacted wetlands onsite. f. Surface and ground water management. i. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it works,the basis of r-� design,historical drainage flows,off-site flows coming in to the system and how they will be incorporated in the system or passed around the system,positive outfall availability,Wet Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were determined, and any other pertinent information pertaining to the control of storm and ground water. The water management system will consist of a series of inlets interconnected with drainage pipes and wet detention basins. The greater of either the first inch of runoff from the site or 2.5" times' the percentage of imperviousness will be detained Discharge through a water control structure will be to the drainage system along the Livingston Road R/W via a spreader swale system along the eastern property line. Discharge will be limited to the rate permitted by Collier County Ord 90-10. Seasonal high water elevations were determined using existing permitting for adjacent sites. Onsite biological indicators or lack thereof suggests that the water elevations do not exceed the current ground elevation. Existing topography as noted in the survey is consistent with surrounding permitted control elevations. The permitted control elevation of the Royal Palm Academy site located east of Livingston road is at 12.7 ft.NGVD. The permitted control elevation for Livingston Road is 11.25 ft NGVD. This 13 project is also located to the east. This WSWT elevation is consistent with the lack of above ground biological indicators on- site. Since on-site topo shows the existing drainage flowing from the northeast to the south west, it would be consistent that the onsite control would need to be at an elevation at less than or at maximum 11.25 ft NGVD to maintain the cascading system as permitted through SFWMD. Therefore it is anticipated that the control would be approximately at 11 ft NGVD. ii. Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project(post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management co.':tri ls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre- develop ent conditions. This analysis is required for projects impacting five(5)or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal al:d State water quality agencies. , The project's water management system is designed to maximize water quality enhancement, thereby meeting or exceeding the requirements of SFWMD Basis of Review Sections 4.2.4 and 5.9.1(b). The project will use wet detention to attenuate storm flows discharging from the site and to protect the native preserve and wetlands. In addition, the project will use pollution prevention measures (both during and after construction) along with design features that will improve travel time to discharge locations and allow for additional "scrubbing"of the storm water prior to discharge. PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND DURING CONSTRUCTION Structural and Non-Structural Controls (Basis of Review 4.2.4.1 (a)-(f)) 1. Follow practices outlined in Pollution Prevention Plan. 2. Install perimeter berm(s) or silt fences with straw bale barrier(s) • adjacent to wetland areas. 3. Continue clearing and grading. 4. Construction of storm water management lakes 5. Stockpile excavated soil. 6. Stabilize denuded areas and stockpiles within 21 days of last construction activity in that area. 7. Monitor rain events and check condition of erosion control measures after each significant event. 14 Other Controls 1. Proper handling of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. 2. Proper disposal of all trash and other waste products. 3. Spill prevention and notification 4 Contractor training and responsibility POST-CONSTRUCTION Non-Structural Controls (Basis of Review 5.9.1(b)) This project will use Best Management Practices (BMP's) intended to improve the quality of storm water runoff by reducing the generation and accumulation of potential storm water runoff contaminants at or near the respective sources for each constituent. 1. Nutrient and Pesticide Management: Each lot owner must commit themselves to the practice of responsible and careful landscape design and maintenance of each lot to prevent contamination of surface waters. 2. Street Sweeping: This practice involves sweeping and vacuuming the primary streets and parking areas to remove dry weather accumulation of pollutants, especially particulate matter, before wash- off of these pollutants can occur during a storm event. This practice reduces the potential for pollution impacts on receiving water bodies by removing particulate matter and associated chemical constituents. 3. Solid Waste Management: In general, solid waste management involves issues related to the management and handling of urban refuse, litter and leaves that will minimize the impact of these constituents as water pollutants. 4. Water Management System Maintenance: Inspection of all components of the system on a regular basis. Cleaning of system as necessary to keep system to operate as designed The water management system will be designed to meet or exceed the minimum design criteria as outlined in the Basis of Review. In addition, pre-construction and long term monitoring and maintenance of the system combined with proper fertilizer and pesticide use will improve water quality in the storm water discharges beyond minimum requirements. iii. Identify any Wellield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones -ST)within the project area 15 • and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs. The project is not within a WRM-STs overlay zone. g. Listed species. I Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum,listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on-site, and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. State actual survey times and dates, and provide a map showing the location(s) of species of special status identified on-site. A protected species survey was conducted on the property on April 6, 2005, and updated on August 2, 2006. The survey was conducted between the hours of 10:00 am and 12:30 pm, and between the hours of 9 am and 12 pm. One stick nest was located during the initial survey. The updated survey revealed no nest • structures, or signs of listed species. See attached protected species survey and protected species survey map exhibits 17, 18 and 19 (pages 40-47). ii. Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site. No protected species were identified on site. The following table shows the potential listed species that could lie within the FLUCCS communities found on site. FLUCCS Potential Listed % Present Absent Density Visibility Species Coverage (ft) 321 Audubon's Crested X 20 Caracara 90 Beautiful Pawpaw 90 X 20 Burrowing Owl 90 X 20 Curtis Milkweed 90 X 20 Fakahatchee X 20 Burmannia 90 Florida Black Bear 90 X 20 Florida Coontie 90 X 20 16 Florida Sandhill X 20 Crane 90 Gopher Frog 90 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 90 X 20 Indigo Snake 90 X 20 Southeastern X 20 American Kestrel 90 411 Beautiful Pawpaw 100 X 20 Big Cypress Fox 100 X 20 Squirrel Eastern Indigo Snake 100 X 20 Fakahatchee 100 X 20 Burmannia Florida Black Bear 100 X 20 Florida Coontie 100 X 20 Florida Panther 100 X 20 Gopher Frog 100 X 20 _ Gopher Tortoise 100 X 20 Red-Cockaded 100 X 20 Woodpecker Satin leaf 100 X 20 Southeastern 100 X 20 American Kestrel Twisted Air Plant 100 X 20 625 American Alligator 100 X 20 Everglades Mink 100 X 20 Florida Black Bear 100 X 20 Florida Panther 100 X 20 Gopher Frog 100 X 20 Little Blue Heron 100 X 20 Snowy Egret 100 X 20 Tri-colored Heron 100 X 20 Wood Stork 100 X 20 iii. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. A plant and animal survey was conducted according to FGFWFC guidelines. Overlapping belt transects, approximately 10 to 50 feet apart were walked, depending on the density of the vegetation. In addition,periodic stop-look-listens techniques were utilized to observe potential listed species. During the initial survey, one stick -- nest was marked in the field. The site will be resurveyed prior to construction to locate any nests. If the squirrels are actively 17 nesting, no impacts to that area will occur until nesting is completed as noted in the attached management plan. See attached protected species survey and fox squirrel management plan exhibits 17, 18, 19 and 20(pages 40-51). iv. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones,bald eagle management plans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents,where applicable. While no protected species were directly identified on site, one stick nest was observed during the initial survey. This stick nests has the potential to possibly be Big Cypress Fox Squirrel daybeds. The site will be surveyed for nests prior to clearing in order to determine if Big Cypress fox squirrels are actively nesting. If the squirrels are actively nesting, no impacts to that area will occur until nesting is completed. See attached protected species survey and management plan exhibits 17, 18, 19 and 20 (pages 40-51). All regulations will be followed if protected species are found on the property. v. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Co ,servatio r Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), with regards to the project.Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met. A protected species survey was conducted on the property. Upon submitting the ERP Application, a copy of the environmental supplement will be sent to the FFWCC and the USFWS for review and approval. h. Other. 1. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, a:i d for all marina facilities,show how the project is consistent with the marina Siting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan. ii.Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property.If applicable,provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. Not applicable, there are no docking facilities. 18 ii. Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property.If applicable,provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. A protected species survey was performed; it is attached. There has been no Phase One Environmental Audit performed for the site to our knowledge. iii. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment(ACSC-ST) overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations established for the ACSC-ST. Not applicable. iv. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that occupy old farm fields,old golf courses or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that there has been previous contamination on site. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Not applicable. v. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area.Locate a known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design.Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historic/archaeological integrity of the site. A request has been made to the Florida Department of State to research the Master Site File. The response is provided No previously recorded cultural resources were listed 5. Additional data.The County Manager or his designee may require additional data or information necessary in order to make a thorough and complete evaluation of the EIS and project. 6. Relation between EIS and development of regional impact(DRI). In any instance where the proposed project requires both an EIS ad a DRI,their data may be embodied in one report provided such report includes all the required information on both the EIS and DRI. 19 Boylan -Th-/ Anvir onmen �. ®nsultants, c. Wetland&Wildlife Sitn7eys>41bnInental Permitting, Impact ssessments 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4,Fort Myers,Florida,33966 Phone:(239)418-0671 Fax:(239)418-0672 ICEVOERLY SCHLACRTA Environmental Scientist AREA OF EXPERTISE Environmental science applications involved in completing environmental assessments, delineating jurisdictional wetlands with State and Federal Agencies, performing wildlife surveys, species management plans, wetlands monitoring and permit compliance, vegetation and habitat mapping, iii?ming GTS/GPS,am environmental permitting. E IJCATION Auburn University,B.S.Environmental Science, College of Engineering, 1997 Fort Myers High School, 1992 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Florida Association of Soil Scientists CURRENT RESPONS I :ILIT It S Ms. Schlachta conducts extensive fieldwork, in Southwest Florida and subsequently produces the following types of reports/surveys: protected species surveys, wetland surveys (feasibility/ environmental land use planning), wetlands monitoring, and wildlife monitoring. In addition, she is involved with wildlife and wetlands permitting with State and Federal regulatory agencies along with permit compliance. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Ms. Schlachta has acquired substantial environmental experience conducting fieldwork and producing reports and applications for wetland and wildlife surveys, wetlands monitoring, species management plans, environmental land use planning and development, and environmental permitting. A native of Southwest Florida, she also has almost nine years of full time experience in Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Glades, Okeechobee, and Hendry counties, working with Boylan Environmental Consultants. In the process, she has worked with a wide range of engineers,planners, developers and agencies. She has conducted land assessments and wetland determinations with regulatory agencies. Ms. Schlachta also performs protected species surveys that include Local and Federally listed species such as the Gopher Tortoise, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, Florida Scrub Jay, the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, Audubon's Crested Caracara and Bald Eagle. She has also spent time at Cecil Webb Wildlife Refuge to study and learn the sounds and flight patterns of the Red-cockaded woodpecker. Before joining Boylan Environmental Consultants, she worked with entomologists at the University of Florida to reestablish and monitor the population of the endangered Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly in the Florida Keys. Locally, she has worked at the Nature Center helping to educate others on local environmental issues. She has also worked in Costa Rica with the CCC (Caribbean Conservation Commission) monitoring and tagging nesting sea turtles. Management practices of the endangered Giant Tortoise were also studied while at the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Page 20 Exhibit 1 - DELORME/ Street Atlas USA®2006 kili "� /COMPOUND RD =g 'lt( a _.K NINE DR MEAD ENTERPRISE AV I DELLS Location Map - -°[R`°GE 33 \ CO ti --.4:- a p 2 . \\\ ,-, tA Fr. 2 \gym 1�� N26° 98.027' W81°45.784' t %' l � ` / hC1 REE IRI IR m U ~ Uq A. R \ ,, Hiz a w v 4 a_• YIFOIO W + '_ Ri�� .o F --r c U \ f _ D ' kfD �`r s aN az, CS _ m cc PRINCE URt O �,- GARDENIA f N U! I '. at olor: i 9' I IMPERIAL RREaAPERIALrCR w _ _ -E Er a 0 9 f 63 f r r d Cal p "''dc. ? y`tC E LN I ki t. w._ AGR f m x ' q <� i, \ 4 5,„2t�7R4NDCT i ID 9 �, u 1 �, Palm River- , elk_ �` g it" w JO NNYCAir---T. 4—DR—CDR �--e .,- 41 f / •t cgcv - iA I WB.IAUGNBY DR a¢ci m.u�^mY DR (yp [Gc o G`\ 4 � PALM VIEW�, v Q ka M,,,, i ARWOOD• n -c NJ `.... npj VD 1 / imai v IMMOKALEERIl�_-_ _. ..... - - — .. l ` TN Scale 1:25,000 Data use subject to license. #I ©2005 DeLorme.Street Atlas USA®2006. MN(4.6•W) Page 21 Exhibit 2 www.delorme.com ,i,i : e, ,''.;:iit-,!..2'..ft,,,,,d:,,,., i • ! " 1 � .,,,,,,,..:„.,,,,N,,, ittr,,. - r..„,:,;-,. 3 r, 1 a {yam{. Z f • 4 V ,i-i*t7i—,/':,.‘-:. '•-,-..•—• - -....,,,i. il E sa ^i, �.. � ,_,� ... ��... � ��€�� a ;. ''°" � 9 • i , mow � � P Y a - c V ,1 !!! Q'v.. �..44 ~ r �' l rte n] 'ter..('�! Q _ ' p b0 -;' . 0 O 0 w H s F- ; } w 1 LU 0 z d � w>< JwJ� Z Qaj# oQJJ i _I QM ; 1'1. ,1.--1 ,"� a:_.../.' -:, W H u i• , i.:17147ti .44:!,...- 7- iW ' II o aN A iI �,\ W p i 1 Aar W inOo � e W� � QQ // I w ! SL' O h d' N• 1, ^7 1 O � U i 1 41 V O tiW � P2 / i eNi +I .\ 1 q 1 V �LIY U W i OW j O [Qr4 W / 1 1' 1ii!! i W V 0.. '1.- w l 00 ! cco> o3 V �.�' 1 mWU i W �i I A F. OV Mme 0 ��'. 1 i i 1 oi ie 1 O I 1 M Imo' NI � K R 1 1 tu - 1 �N U� W '.. 1 N Imo' 1 Ia �� ! Ti IF; 1 d ii 1 ! 1 I1 I i 1 1 iti 1 ti 1 i d h i w N 1 I Li- 1 b1 m o I I 0- N I I 1 I Z 1 1 J Z I I J_ w 1 tiOF 1 I N 1 i I Z p 1 I II J_ 1 I I I J 1 I 1L I I 1 I 1 1 1 I ti 1 1 ' 1 1 N I I I 1 i J ,-., I old iE r w Z AS1=.� Z �g aa, Page 23 Exhibit 4 a vi NYRl9:Aq Pauald wdpE.Z-800Z'80ny IpPO N ilei BmIrSOOMJ 1I00Z Pasinaa1(L0-9-Z)PasInaLIgljaaled essinaplspaiad a-010381:X t e N n N 4 0.::4,;-., 4 A. U i C !A y da C 1 C O y O W V Co b 00 m- r r O O h M ti ZO O [-4 oh'O O <t N e Z V UIQ dr, w h O b U ot� <r N -14`f, o' 8 U I cel4 O w ry w ICI IIIIII:::7 Wwq M / . ,. ,C1 L.) ON 'a: r.4CI 1UU ZO LLH 41 Q Mab O Li h.4 "4 "4 in /^ wwIo I:' og y� til T .�� z Page 24 Exhibit 5 a o i w ` *.: x£ - ra oy M, i • # > _u 4 _ 4 :.:„ ::: 114 117.4, : , =.4.,. ,, ;*'=v,-4' ,.� eik; 1 „ . - ',_ , IV I Z ' , o w V m µ lot Ilk , r 4 4 . :4:: h o ,p 7 '_ ar� F ii . ' '',- : ic ',2 cZtg C. ter. -� 1 - � r . 4 - .. f �,,. : : c C N Zco • .47.114'''' 111 ..-.1;•tkt"41 _, - _ — e- 0. n - ', � U < cn C-76 ^ cz. 1/: _ ) = u) O W J '� 2 r It 'Uri Wl in WIo U^ Q 11110 N A O o — h 4 Wu, a W •HS ••.laid W• -:u :l. V... :.•l.M. u-V d•- . -- r :Pd U.I ...id 41 Cb w h O b b O IN ,qA !g �j p4 .. ..E-,.,Q Eel i dM - O W O s ° 144 l'a?-t\ W z -\_• =y II W U � 4 W 42156,, S>U1 y Ut�s�OG o W 0 t V _\..... N ( V')N d' '.' 0c• rpti 4s. •g `'c•• ``• ca. rte, - `9; p Ei alw At', r` r` r` • U_ aqZ N ii oh t v l �o�, •,., fir`' °,% .e. `• sir• • `l► 4- ,.....4 • N1 o M d a / -\-4. co o J O _J F = to $s. 'c. mac. cs. d-4,. so. S cr.1 `m. rt rte• rte• �'t, rte, rte, l, rte,2..* �, LL r ` > C. rFl. 9 sascr `o � i 4. > 1 �` Z Page 26 Exhibit 7 ti. w W o 4 a= L::) " o ca k EFA k - O 0 az 5.A ',1 �,I -L,; p �� L,4 � � a �� I E. R R I 0 q p i I (0.5 ,..91 2 ♦I 1 owV En O W, ag O '� I m U ' I U q 0 0 ° * I I w ce I _ J � z w �- o, ZW I i� 1 r I F• W yi '~\ 1 Is. U U O 1 I I � 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1I I 0 1 1 I a 1 I Q iI = J I I Z co p I I 1 J I 1 = 11 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 .-•. I- a : o ikY W 2_ ,�, Z Page 27 Exhibit 8 w s o z a , g h --.....—z— a Z W 7 W v 8 iEl Z ::: ir 0 J•i, : LS�' .�1 i z </ 11 0 ,i i/ 1 1 0 i / 1 1 i i/ 1 1 s / I 1 // I 1 _`PP l• // z i 1 o[ — ., ,ff ----\ w 1 . ,,,- , ,,, igi 13 gll N;1SS , , ti 14 P. gyp. 1 .rc !9! / j I Ix I 2 -0 ., C Jo« 1 1 0, E"Ni i ce iilell' 3 i 1 1 „ 3 3 3 o¢ I m 1. o 3 3 3 3 Ur 1 1 a 0,{ 3 3 3 3 N ! 1 C t g 8 3 3 3 3 j a i g t ? $ 3 9 9 9 Et _ 9 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 33 3 3 3 wi i , 3 3 3 1 1 IIS 1 I ID + I 3 3 3 3 3 1 7s 3 3 3 3 3 1 ] a o 1 W¢ 3 '.K 3 3 3 3 I 1 pppp 1 = �W ppg 3 3 W 3 9 9 j 'JIS aaaa W 3 i co 3 * * 9 i 21 <U n a a ZO 3 3 3 3 i 6L Im1 al �r �w 1 wU ) ;gibs CC 1 g z w +� 3 3 3 ; 1 U N Z!%11s c 3 3 • 1 w I<?k 3 3 3 11 6ca gag 3 3 3 N H 3 3 1 e i 3 3 3 1 1i CC c I 1 3 3 -3 I , pi � 3 3 3 3 IV t 4 4 -4 - *....:::::,::::==."=:-.:AELF9V'PE,==7".7.....,---.--....—.......—...,..... —--- .....1 i $ YS u9a �� w oa _$ ok , ,w �g < t� gd z •� g un 'If •L 2 P is- 28 Exhibit 9 S N z_ a= o S m d Oa. I� o, i U W �Zz Z 6' ii p � H W �1 J U Z S U g ♦ 1 i iA 1 0i i ! ! ♦ , 1 1 3 i i, i i A i♦i 4' OW" ♦ i i : f1; y l 1 �4O ♦J' 1``:t 1 1 R' Sit �� \ U 1 1 p E C V� ,,,;(61. w I I �' CC 1511 i i" 0 i i a� I8i CSk .11 II ��" i i i g 1 i 16 i 1 IW ' isIt Im i /1/ - --- ------ - i - 1 • i 9 9 I i 5 3 - • " . • 9 I i k ' t 9 9 9 9 9 ! 1 . i + 9 9 / 11 8 p % 9 9 9 * 1 m 9 9 9 9 Etiii I , 9 9 9 1 I 1 9 9 9 I i r� 9 i 9 9 I 1 1 9 + 9 3 ! 1 * 9 9 9 91 1 '* * 9 9 9 * li i ! ^ 3 9 9 9 * 9 1 1 1 R. 9 * 9 9 9 1 a 1 9 i S 9 * 9 9 ; �, i p1 9 9 W 9 9 9 I 1 1 g lS aaaa �j, 9 :Ea 9 9 9 9 ini .. Cl SE 9 9 S 9 9 9 �yl od 9 9 9 9 N ix ^ d4 =" c _pp 3 9 9 9 9 Ce ! 1 {�O�9 8> .+gi.- = 9 9 9 9 9 I I (,) fa, t<<14c E 1 < �,QQ� ye N 9 9 9 * I I j �_ 10:11 _ 9 9 9 1 dd 9 9 * 11 5 N y�ww1E 3 9 1 m ;,11 9 9 9 l : gP2 'a 9 9 9 I i 9 9 9 9 i o i $ 9 9 1 i d'o 9 9 9 9 9 9 I , g m m •nn� E 9 9 Ce 11 0 LLO m 9 9 , I i o f g . 9 * 1 hQ H 9 9 3 1 1 U W 1 9 9 9 ! 1 g q 9 * 9 9 - O < i l$• 9 9 9 9 _ 1 f ,,a19 9 9 9 * /1 6 F, 8 IF 9 i 9 .9 - *--.--•---- 6lI�F --'— E-HP61as::------.--•-------- -• - -- ---- -J ,i 2 U dei r 1 � m yjyWj� ymmy�y�y�jWWWW g� Z a s of KSK¢q�w b g8 ffiO O 0 ofW :o W ,W tl tl Y Y tl .g R ~ • Z VA'it J? • oN Y gI 16-6 < F eiti b Si it 1 Z K W m hh s F. ooi � mPe g c 29 Exhibit 10 } • V `^ rL4 O Q Inq K y N i NI 0 '',i,..t,\, IP 4 , , ,k, 01 ".• %SS -1,:ill ca *As*A" owW A W ol, LO , ,,c , **14" .• 4. z3 1 1 cr ‘o'`r\'1 ! et* L 4"..4"SO 4.4*444.%4" \ '1 -44" 4.4401% • 404.40�040� 0� 4444� W U 4.****1•4+44****14.4.414.00OOOO � 0 , o 4"SO 44. ,� 4"**00000 4A+4.4 � OOO�p000 00 � *i��0�� ;0000 O#v000000 A 0A 0000000`#00000 t 0 • �,�OOOOOOO���i00000000 L.< i, 41*4•44 SO**4"i4" J 60 O4O..00O**V4"OOOOOO�144�i0000414•4000*** 0**1 z 44,061.4:`tititt4 +4*SO*** Si A Si SS i SS Si#'4" SS i = *ASUASUASW#4.4.4414.4 * 4.414.4.410000000 %000000000 4"*A" **14.4* I„ w� w y oll Page 30 Exhibit 11 . v �/L. 4-,- tea+ 41ge N t pm w c C c, O , �' W Q ce> d W U O W c..4 /, 1 O Cl) ' ,'r.. {, LAI v) ii2 h! Lo Q U i gOw Z X CNq 5 . rn n- Oz h U acid} as z r a Z fz co u c c 5 1 Q w O Q z >- loe " 0 wV CO U d d 2 , ZO Cn N U e Z o m V w •• p c a z c 2 Z 4. 0 M CND 0 Cb w J 0) yj C N P_ N N � � W d I w caw ito44I, 4 ��`*,41% W I. 4111 4"..+ oe`eo e0e����0�`O‘ d' ...S �Oe�'�ii CO ►`eoe`eoe. �e°`e��� _ J ce w J Oen- - m = a *,`�•° } 13_g O 0 0 "AN0 Co I ` Z O ~ W e`ei c mws = Z O eoe1 � oQw OeO� Uaa \ CIS O d # Y� r m m ASL=.L Z :9 1 Page 31 Exhibit 12 a t 41 a ,---, W hO �Oo ,0 lilU OL � Nqe 0 4.1 E • A 'c'l 1 l''' _A E--, ell ow w .♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ o ui . . . . . . . . i 0 4§k eIlw ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦ ♦♦ NI zL, ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Ii♦♦♦♦ • i44444.4 N I�♦♦♦♦♦�♦�♦♦♦♦♦�4►♦♦♦�♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� Q Q CI4 . R . a / • ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ _1 ,_a / § L., fr E —I a In nil' ,d w dt y' U'' 2 ._.4....9.: ` Z Page 32 Exhibit 13 g r ` . U ct q \ \ \ c b o & m 41. f\\7 . )/l% k f (! 0 Gi W tn4 4. - "A. . 2 W 4 j} 0 2 ) ) _ » || 2 % % 9 k R/ / k cz _ ` / cSi )•4 Q / ) w Q - + + % S � Z1 r 2 �fk k q §& ) . P + ) j© dq + + + + S h ) ) ) + ) > ) ) ) + + ) + . ) ) ) m CN M + + + + cl_ M . / > + ) + • cn 2 ) + ) + Y \ > + + + - L' \ + + + + _1 =- 4 + + ; + + + + ) + ) ; 4 ) + ) + + > ; - k}2 X§ *m Pae 11 £xhi 4 14 j2 ) i Souni FLORIDA.WATER M AG M NJ'DISTRICT s _ = FORT MYEtts SnavicB CENTER 201.McGregor 8oulevarc(,Fort Myers,FL 33901 •—s�� (941)338-2929 • FL WAIS 1-300-248.12M Suncom743-2929 • Fax(9,11)335-2936 • www.sfwirtd.goviorgjexofitnrym/ 3/ October 5,2001 Mr.Jeremy Stark Boylan Environmental Consultants,Inc. 11000 Metro P +ay,Suite 4 Ft.Myers,Florida 33912 • Subject Longs Farm Market;informal Jurisdictional Wetland Inspection; County,5-13 F T-48 S/R-25-E Dear Mr.Stark: The District offers the following in response to your request for a determination of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries and alter sufface waters located within the subject property. Craig Schmittler,Environmental Analyst,of the Natural Resource Management Division, conducted a site inspection on August 3,2001. The project boundaries shown on the attached aerial identify the approximate limits of the property inspected. Based on the information provided and the results of the site inspection,The jurisdictional wetlands,as defined in Chapter 62-340 F.A.C.,within the limits of the subject property,are shown on the attached aerial exhibits. This correspondence is an informal pre-application jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section 373.421(6)and F.A.C.62-312.040(7). It does not bind the District,its agents or employees;nor does it convey any legal rights,expressed or implied. Persons obtaining this informal pre-application jurisdictional determination are not entitled to rely upon it for purposes of compliance with provision of law or District rules. A binding jurisdictional determination may obtained by submitting an application to the South Florida Water Management District Fit.Myers office for a formal determination pursuant to Chapter 4OE-4.042 F.A.C.or by applying fora permit. • • GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE SERVICE CENTER _.... . Ni0olas J.Guliarmz,Jr..eq.,Chairmen Michael Collins Paftrck J.Gleamm Freak R.Fin ly P.3y Chip Merziam, r� art E.Unclad E + Oirc for Eirwror lied!K.Williams.vtrlBlannsVice-Chair Hugh M.English Pamela Brooks-Thomas Gerardo B.Fernandez Harkley R.Thornton DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS: 3301 Gun Club Road,P.O.Box 24680,West Palm Beach,F1.33416-4680 • (561)686.8800 • FL WATS 1-SO0432 20€5 Page 34 Exhibit 15 Mr.Sterk Long's Farm Market Page A file has been set up with pre-application materials at the Ft.Myers Service Center office. If you have any further questions please contact Craig Schmittler at(941)3382929 ext.7739. Sincerely, wren M..16-..coni Supervising Professional Ft.Myers Service Center KIVINds-Attachment(Mersa,location Map,and Aerials) c: LIS ACOS-Ft.Myers w/memo,location map,and aerial DEP- wJ memo,location map • • . C • ' • • Page 35 Exhibit 15 • TO: File,3 j_ ROM: € aig D.Sehmf .lie:,?WS,En Environnontal Analyst,NRM Division • THROUGH: Karen Johnso { pervising Professional,NRM Division DATE: august 27,2001 SUS F: Long's Farm Market-,Inforrnst Wetland Jurisdictional Inspection; ,; Co• ►,S-131 T-48-S/ A site inspection was conducted on the above referenced property on August 3, 2001. The protx.aty inspected encompasses approxbnateiy 1.26 acres and is located along the Livingston Road Thttension S{z mile north ofimmokalee Road. The subject property is split by the Livingston Road with 213 of the site east of the road and the rearming 1/3 of the promy to the west. Adjacent properties surrounding this site are undeveloped parcels within the Palm River Sloe. This parcel is also undeveloped,but has been heavi?y i impacted by the construction o€Livinaston Road. The jurisdictional wetlands, defined by Chapter 62-340 F.A.C.,within the!hits of the property inspected NU shown on the attached aerial exhr'b ts. The wetlands consist of a forested system that is dominated by a mixture of hydric pine flatwoods heavily invaded by=lemma west of Livingston Road. East of the road, the wetlands are dominated by a cypress slough heavily invaded by Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The wetlands on site are contiguous to the Palm River Sly that originates east of this site and continues to tto southwest. The non-jmisdictional areas on site are located west of Livingston road and consist of pine&atw eds that are heavily invaded by molalenca and Brazilian pow= Cabbage palms are also present throughout tho site in small nockets. There were no listed species observed during this site inspection. • • i t�t Page 36 Exhibit 15 a Fora���TfiiUA i1QRl S ��F�?✓B°11/TASPaR �ES35 OM REVERSE SID �" .sg ��±± s 'E! # 2 n+ c tom'- -i 4. t.tjn..,L"'!r!.^ c..... r a s,:e-V 94ast�t ' • Ali 1� ---- , 'pot ., . -' -m GT - t r - RV 4'crcR I' = ' r , . J ��a . ktli ;fig s Bad II* �� 9 = •�� _-- _ 1 l - - .fG�AI__ iN :t yc.rmOR wS-soem= _ -,,,,,_,..„--..--' __.....,.0.4 4,41:4„.4.1.----,„-,j' .. , ..: ,,,-,,.44AV£.;K. - t'8P 11.§24-4-_ -_,._,.- em1 -n � "r.s�s - w 3�s'th-om s.a cW!�ex1sGLus • �5 iE. moi` .A. •� _ -- MP.. '-, 1 1 i 8 x'40•` fRF-4 1 - e i i7 ,� 1 '1 3-..111,,,a 1 19 1 R 1)1 ::::. ql ltTA). i .. „ ! -. •, -''-'11-i. _ _ i .i...7 .i t' f '412'.,.,- "9 • # ‘C,. '''' ;.', '''9._ SnE0,4'''''' i \_. lti , f ,� c �` V. } � ` i esu �-, n 4_ 5 a ✓ ^ 7-,y-Q�.r. ` , : ` i i pY,-.:TIE...--4.' ....__440‘,:t .�`� y1'-;l�„rr •tom° :. Er" r� • �k9 ST i li 47" ` as .)�- :: A .451170E{ -."'- , r tr.„ uPINS -. " - 41.44. ' 'J, -T1 lityt,l; 1 �PAW RIVER ,-4,Y&ions € ys �X16 �"�= a { ie .tl,.4,,,,...„.41 it t8 a r=-.,,,+ �i m 4f4Lgh @ -x,. _ • c ii ,____---. , .---ii'Sii :.!-------1' '.1 ' loi-L,,,_,. - 8 g 29 t ` fi- `'rte ':, iF vx �tk ± ! f -" } - 0 tai '4,-,.}4 Ir'l , ' A r, f rti r" * s f i ; F Tszn -- 1 . i Page.37 Exhibit 15 2.. k- zs., tREG'::',.=:.^1T'.'.-99.�-{ '', ?5..=11=.,=••a T.:.:ems--:�.>. . J=-Z G_:x;i: ,"..;._•-^3•'=^'.' -x)�' •> ......:-.••• ,v::z�•+?.-{:-. .r-_--�,y"'.�s_e,x�.. .., Iii,r._• r>'eN{. _ I __ <� f a= .T? % r. '"L-e :i•. i. ? -} k 3 x•�. ._. •it • ;_.: �a :.+: r< iL. ;:_ : -:• ' �i: y ., , Y :Wik'' s - a-;.: J ' *• ra, ' •r 2C ., ,xk •:-, .. i._ l1 .. - temar - - • 4J•A: r1,_` ,_ . ` ` �� _ " _ •7; -.W'..�T • ' _�"'"' .. � .:' '• 77+ w.; - _ A,...--71,----' Js':?e _ aw [.a4- Fk'. G_i. te:. ;Z; .t-~. . i •u _ rSi.Pr :-., - y - . . y •• G• , •-%�r . ,.. a. t _1 �-LK- 7*- a+"r • • • '" tc: ' 3 ,- -... - , •z%.,v-fab-v...,---- S t ; Y�},• • "�, _ +Y- t b. • :f : .7i.mo.-�r , t • • '9u..-1,5if< . ,A:35:1.6:i .¢ ,...i. ....„_=,„,___.,---'`'`;_.....-,---- c --'?•'•=-.-:.:;',`F;;„' .4' 74 • a {fir ''{.SQ = t -; •a. ^s :..-o''-' .' EEs ,' __ .- -.-- - $Xua 'tC_ ' xs.. ;. ir - Jr .s+-_ ' ?-S•7?W `:``• 7 - , t zPtF '--sr' � - .� ir..i hi • • • iYi •t V .`3.4 �+ • 41.-i _ 41,4 pn ''•::%'4=:-..' - - > x .thl 'L.J. t3.efa_• 'i-�• .E R •fi..-`} •< n - F_" 3:'1.. }: t`kt: :=:�- Sr ' [ � ii-- .� -••-,_': '` Ly ^S- i •: te 47-B::-=e.. _ - ' f••: T J � :. Lis Y:.+ . A + .�Jr _ �tc� r •� ..i , ..;i ir , cif ,ft;: . :� '. : m 6 ._ra� -,37_ "' 1 ..=4: .i`t fr-:', Ler•. i' rJ..: _. �_ . . • •,•-v'7AF yi- F. - e '- ' ti ; ' �ir ..P '` .a 4 i.:•I‘-.,-.1277_ 24,..0.1-- at • • -ir • •• • •• • f.tiF _ v _ � M1.._y.'',Stti :-a„.. �Y-..= z.�.ma•x,��'�i�_t'-34-A-'•%'-.1.-- ` r-:YK-*^"`a+..t.. - `-rF-.��,^.-'.`�»•"'SY"-3',"ma`i r..,r :.�. rsee�"r• '_ �a. T•'-+y.`...- zr . '- -41•=-4'""5:::;5' --•�y s- :' - ... . , -.-:.-----,:i.--•-•;,...,=.,---4.,- —1,j _ : ` a•� --• .• _� • S- _, ' 9. ..i5t - . "• y w. ._` .ic ..-i• • • S � _ y _�5 , }% `+ o•:'� n_-• - - ; e,x.it_ , 3 aW _- '' •' , - ''IV: 4sor• m+;:,}'�L..i:__ _ - V.` E � -�!C'.-: L. •:lC�. S'• ---0er_ '---.----,.-----.-_--s x t < �3d •.� te _,'=i _- . .r,,a •4.41‘.4_,,_ •-•„..-. `,`wwx.mi-Ag,. .M . •{ • ; c'r _ - zr_?_ .sxy1.�,:.u`� : ,_,.-1•:,:74-•:"1-27.90,31;•-•W;,- .47!".':',..•a;trv. r_ " `yr st crsr . - •, ,.`4 d ; .. : } •it '�" �x � . ''a � -- ,r { " • a •;;4,14-1• •,,,,_ ---..,•-•t . -` • i �-'..' • . fi �n -�t s - a � t' �T"' _:ely . � C _•i t : , .» Std .,,. a-..,;.•-:-- -,--k-----.,-----=,- , te'..F._a_•_ 4i4. r . • elel. • • • • • • • r... . ...----;:•-k,?.., $ ' ,�.>~ S .4,"@2 ! y �` .Mt. _ _u4- :' .i:"`ai:.i�»iRT • y ` �".- - -� 3- �q. S . s3 a- � m �•� s-t�- _r { •,` •,.�� a •..r-'� t n '•r Lx' ' -,, -. n. . . s �' ,: r:. _ - � V. ; ' . 44-_,-._-.•_• 2....,---' t i..'. �.i7x .. r--`• ` - ` k ,. ' 'te_4 ' s. ; r .-'- 'r ,rte r"� :` S�- 7ip - ���°:"�""�-� i�� :,�_:: ��7011.3 ` A._ ��`; ���# ' • .� i _ nr' ^} ,u � _ ....x,-,.‘4't, ct - 'Y : _ ' �r ',Y{ 1-_ - ri.. . .., T'`6,..-- �.rl -" ti` rm :ate- e _ • y'-F ' i - c� ...-_.. e _ "' ^ --�. a-- - Sa - ac '''A'.*:'...:---'''' ' ., .„2 . "7 - f mat� . r� TT-=': � c .f -. ----- --'' _ .3 •'. y � ctiem3 - ..c; a; - • • • ill: i.• _ �' 7m ° --...,......_- __\„::-___.,...,.%,,.... ___� �E- ---,. oy-4 "---.,,,,..,,.....,,,-,-.4....e.„,,,,3_,.....:::„....„:*,,,,,..= `-F..:. .i . -_ :y �., --- .,,,,,,,,,,. ......,„.4...,--,` ,cy r �. . • 'a7 «-. : ''''''1.1a..-r� -. � " .- .sik �. "_x _ 'h2'r ....-Ti.. ..,,,,__ ; '4-'••••••-'-''''''' . . �Fr' .N^•^}3i. . C � . 1m`O*�T - -„,......... .u...-.."SNs - iam4eI -� YY tirm --q... � :2y - F � � T ,,,, „ '� t�S'' ^T��-• •>- } 51 , C -._ns . ' •• 4.• .H � •A�' ' _� 3' � iv” wi + cr -' --Ar ��esy,a::• a- 1...i,,,,,, -1 x _' a =- •� 7-'"'r 17' - c7vim^ "'2+ `te -••tek •- isr� ._,. .'''-.'k _ . ada •- a >h aTh' lt", -`''L �e�• � i ,� 5 ` µ(2-1-Li, +r 77 •` _ .w �z i, r''-- - '' '• r Ga' -'`moi. ter •`•.r'�$ �. ..- » ,,- ,,--•-7----',_ 4 �.; .. L @ St0a g Ica E a- _ .r° '-�T - " ;-?-,• r. 'y'.p :.:...:',./j•,1,.. : i:_s�n •_ ,1 f -w- fes_ :.--_ -�c-ry� .. c .,_-4 ri M`y� • .'•i'. St''°4``,z,_ir �.a -2 3 �r� ai��Cs• L� �- ` 4' �=wtY ��. i � 2 -.c1`y � - `�=;, '• 53,- � is ,u a ::::...ii:". ' - ''' s-- �. -' _-_�.- - .•>. �'- �.a-- --_ 2 _ - _ ',- �3'� y f -....r_��•�"o•. ^„ t ,,,q _ :tea��"�� rt ���-:J CTs �:.�`. •.•;,t': ��.�cp., e.�r 6�• ��- � �,f,,,.....-.4-_ _ '' E -,. ^-•. c7. -_, Z �T i; - s:•:oil e-.a�.�.-. __��=tea- .,.+ rte- "'�-,�.� .- "��... •"��- ':�.:` = Y � � :;�� _ z�� �. E _ Y � � � � - . r'� =—s �a.c#+ .'$ Lam•' !y �,-A�-*,r t _ ��� t���Z id".:.�.�"'` °?-YY--L ���£.. _ .�.'' :��ecss�'-'V t�s-J-��`�'=��- = aTM- _�-_._ +yam 4r-'��s,�,4..:� s -Hca -=F. T _ Cf � . yam_- �9_ rs F F �� :- � A 1 �_•c fix` -_ .. •• ` �`-.- it :d. + s• •-A- `--S,� ., . . ms r ' - ' ''-s -. ' 2• ,� • - • ^' ' i ` . _-_� _....fir- �-„a- _•` -. .— ` ..� ue ' te �' �R> :e _� _________ ..-7-,... ..._, -. -r- -•!:•,,. -7,--,- .,'''. •,,,..k..„..,-,.4. ,--•:.-,ia: .`°A.---if-',...- -,- -- - - .--..- .,,--'-- I ;�,�C=1 �.� f --4. _ �y•s,.�`may, - • c'Jam`__.-t'ri`g' = ..;` ' 2.w •-•.--------,-._=.--,..,,_,.,.,--,--__ s e tom. ..�. -' S` "x-��- } — ,..,1,_ �'�:�• -Y^-g FK .- - - �-„� -------ice i _ % .-,-,...„__4.,,,,,_:, ':' j. 'tia it" ' ,.y.-a_.r T li`•.2^ r'JzL '�r' � `'..-7---€.-5'4�- -pec + `• •�3^ sem < rte_ _ ��-� — : s•-‘.-----,- ,,,,,,,- - react _ - ? '$ - —__.. t=t r".r _ rte - F U P"'" W ° O \O ,t?\O d• U V OK 'q• Na o Q O -7:t ,.0 .....w E C3 �, ♦♦♦ 6 1 .1 cl,'-' EG ' 1 . isq P Lz -,.' ,, a'. @ . 4E 21- C O y. 1 U al. C'Z. 8 0 ,....o. ow c, L.) .: .i....1 4, c.) w ii (,?:.' ,0 c? O z.-.1 ::: N 0 ��I ♦ N o� 0 Imo♦♦♦ c, 2 W ♦♦♦ ca �I �` •♦♦♦♦♦ IO i♦♦♦♦♦ ,.....„ P d. ��♦♦♦♦♦♦ kI NI ♦♦ / _1 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Z ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ old 6 G U z Page 39 Exhibit 16 a s *13 HILTON HILLS MPUD Section 13; Township 48 S; Range 25 E Collier County,Florida Protected Species Survey Boylan `%i' Environme taj__. Consultants, c. Wetland&Wildlife Surveys, onmental Permitting, Impact Asessments 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida, 33912 Phone:(239)418-0671 Fax:(239) 418-0672 April 25, 2006 Updated August 22, 2006 Revised February 6, 2007 Page 40 Exhibit 17 INTRODUCTION Two environmental scientists from Boylan Environmental Consultants,Inc conducted a field investigation on the property on April 6,2005. A follow up survey was conducted on August 2,2006 to update the nest location.No nests were observed during that survey. The purpose of the field investigation was to identify the presence of protected species and habitat.Additional time was spent onsite conducting the wetland and FLUCFCS mapping. The site is located in portions of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,in Collier County, Florida. Specifically,it is situated west of Livingston Road and North of Emmokalee Road. SURVEY MET It ODCLOGY Where possible,the species survey was conducted using the parallel belt transect survey methodology discussed in the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission publication"Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise(Gopherus polyphernus)Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida." This method is comprised of a several step process. First,vegetation communities or land-uses on the study area are delineated on an aerial photograph using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Foams Classification System(FLUCCS). Next,the FLUCCS codes are cross-referenced with a Protected Species List. This species list names the protected species that have a probability of Occurring in that particular FLUCCS community. With a list of the potential listed plants and animals, each FLUCCS community is searched in the field for these species. An intensive pedestrian survey is conducted using meandering &belt transects and 10 x 50 binoculars as a means of searching for plants and animals. In addition,periodic"stop-look-listen" and quiet stalking methods are conducted for animals. Signs or sightings of these species are then recorded. Particular attention was placed upon locating potential fox squirrel nests, locating RCW cavity trees, and eagle's nests within the forested portions of the property. Nearly 100 percent of the property that was considered as potential tortoise habitat was surveyed. SITE CONDITIONS The temperature ranges from the mid 80s to the lower 90s during the survey, with mostly cloudy skies during the field investigation. The site was undeveloped. In general,the property is composed of primarily of pine and melaleuca. The site is bordered by roads to the east and south, and additional pine and melaleuca uplands tothe north and west. Page 41 Exhibit 17 Listed below are the vegetation communities or land-uses identified on the site as shown on the attached protected species.survey map. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System(Department of Transportation 1999)for definitions. Palmetto Prairie(FLUCFcCS Code 321), This upland community occupies 0.56± acres of the property. This area is composed primarily of palmetto prairie. It was located in the middle of the melaleuca uplands. The canopy was opened with scattered melaleuca and slash pine. The sub-canopy vegetation includes wax myrtle and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, smilax, grape vine, bracken fern, and beautyberry. Fine Flat-woods i+LUCFCS Code 411) This area occupies 7.00± acres of the property. The canopy is dominated by Slash pine, and contains between 25 percent to 75 percent melaleuca. The sub-canopy consists of melaleuca with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, cypress and Brazilian pepper. Ground cover includes grape vine, smilax, finger grass, carpet crass, coco plum,myrsine, and poison ivy. H\dric Pine Fiatwoods_]LUCFCS Code 625) This wetland habitat type occupies 4.6± acres of the property. The canopy contains melaleuca, and cypress with scattered pine and cabbage palm. The sub- canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes salt bush, poison ivy, cabbage palm, myrsine, bluestem grass, wiregrass, spartina, St. John's Wort, and swamp fern. SPECIES PRESENCE During our field survey for protected species on the property,we did not observe any protected species. We did identify one stick nests in the canopy of FLUCCS community 411. This structure has the potential to possibly be a Big Cypress Fox Squirrel day bed. If this area is to be impacted,before development the nests will most likely require a Big Cypress fox Squirrel survey. The survey will determine whether or not Fox Squirrels are actively nesting. A follow up survey was conducted on June 9, 2006 to update'the nest locations.No nests were observed during that survey. No tree cavities were found, and no gopher tortoise burrows were located. The various listed species that may occur in the vegetation communities or land-use types found on the property have been tabulated on the attached table. Page 42 Exhibit 17 DISCUSSION During the original species survey, one possible day bed was observed that may be used by Big Cypress Fox Squirrels. A Management Plan for Fox Squirrels has been provided. We did not observe any other protected species or signs thereof during our field investigation. The lack of tortoise burrows is likely due to the relatively high water tables in the area and the lack of habitat. Due to the fragmented and isolated nature of the forested portions of the property, it appears unlikely fox squirrels would utilize the property. In addition, due the lack of corridors or contiguous habitat of the property with off-site areas, it is not anticipated that other listed species would occupy the property. The nearby roads also create a barrier and a hazard to other animals. Other non-listed animal species noted were a cardinal,pine warbler, gray squirrel,and a red-bellied woodpecker. • • Page 43 Exhibit 17 • . Table. Protected species having the potential to occur in the corresponding FLUCFCS community or land-types with corresponding field survey results. FLUCCS Potential Listed % Present Absent Density Visibility Species Coverage (ft) 321 Audubon's Crested X 20 Caracara 90 Beautiful Pawpaw 90 X 20 Burrowing Owl 90 X 20 Curtis Milkweed 90 X 20 Fakahatchee Burmannia 90 X 20 Florida Black Bear 90 X 20 Florida Coontie 90 X 1 20 Florida Sandhill Crane 90 X 20 Gopher Frog 90 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 90 X 20 Indigo Snake 1 90 X 20 Southeastern American X 20 Kestrel 90 411 Beautiful Pawpaw 100 X 20 Big Cypress Fox 100 X 20 Squirrel • Eastern Indigo Snake 100 1 X 20 Fakahatchee 100 X 20 Burmannia Florida Black Bear 100 X 20 Florida Coontie 100 X 20 Florida Panther 100X 20 Gopher Frog 100 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 100 X. 20 Red-Cockaded 100 X 20 Woodpecker Satin leaf 100 X 20 Southeastern American 100 X 20 Kestrel Twisted Air Plant 100 X 20 625 American Alligator 100 X 20 Everglades Mink 100 X 20 Florida Black Bear 100 X 20 1 Florida Panther 100 X 1 20 Gopher Frog 100 X 1 20 Little Blue Heron 100 X 1 20 Snowy Egret 100 X 20 Tri-colored Heron 100 X 20 Wood Stork 100 X 20 Page 44 Exhibit 17 0°.".•, w ci CV p^;1 g U) co c ;- Z N i 6 O gInti w L=.1 'I I I No / ,/,4:4.,w 11 7. :.. W C .1 ll N ° 2 ',3:: Li / 2 :> 4N, , ( g U 1 N N CZ E N d C O U)- • o ti ti n h J f0 7 fC'— C'8 OU "c:,:z.. `/ C 7 OWVe C tr. CO wCr) .p° O Z J / Z // Y z ‘0 N — -1 V , 06 4? I 1= ° �rxN :.:2 / of w// :; ;im, I U U O L —I ...— ""---L J r// Ki^ V v l L 44 _ J o _P.1-—— r M a /--- _--..... _ m J = 2 • z a 7 0 I- 1 J_ r J _ I I L --1 I 1 r I L nwI�'�� � w :.."N °�`-'` Z Page 45 Exhibit 18 i C7 0 o0 < ::') 4-`4::!::',..!::-4.!.;:-.:15'-f,'/', di. 4 4 '''.4JrN.I.;- •----7-ttil n ,0 DC '• - 1-ilf,Y4P7' ," ' '''' .- s n ,� 2 iiOw1-3 V r-` m CO • C N 7 "O Wit' s; L ^ • V � ` t 01,2 m K Oa w E o" Z v 0 ..„... .. .„ .......,_ , . ,, , , 't 76.1 it CO r_ '�-.. — , Q d J i. R e 1.',r,'''?o a� y� o0 .1. 1-. m 00 x; 57 ' t" 46 Exhibit 19 ° Hilton Hills MPUD Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan _ .ate. i ‘ifp t V-44Y1: . 1 , ell.*t * 4 £ ,, .liv, ., VI& ,s , Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia Prepared By: Boylan `ii Environm ate_. Consultants, c. Wetland&Wildlife Surveys; `onmental Permitting, Impact ssessments 11000 Metro Parkway,Suite 4 Ft. Myers,Florida 33966 Phone: 239/418-0671 Fax:239/418-0672 January 17, 2006 Revised September 29, 2006 Page 47 Exhibit 20 • • Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Description The Big Cypress Fox Squirrel(Sciurus niger avicennia)is listed as a threatened species by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC). The Big Cypress Fox Squirrel is larger than the gray squirrel. The average length of the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel is ten to fifteen inches, not including the tail,which can be up to fourteen inches • in length. The fur coat is highly variable, including shades of reddish orange,black, and occasionally tans,with white nose, front toes and ear tips. The primary habitats used by the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel include; open pine r`latwoods, cypress strands, broad-leaf evergreen hammocks, mangroves, and oak forest.orest. T hese squirrels feed on cypress balls, pine seed and occasionally cabbage palm and saw palmetto berries. The seeds of the slash pine(Pinus elliottii) are heavily used when available. -The seasonal availability of pine seed and cypress bail production tends to dictate which habitat is most heavily used for foraging. Open understory is a critical factor in determining the use of the habitat. The Big Cypress Fox Squirrels spend a considerable amount of time foraging on the ground with optimal habitat consisting of open park-like atmosphere. The Big Cypress Fox Squirrels are usually active during the day. Nests are constructed for resting, sleeping and breeding. Leaf nests in pines, cypress, cabbage palms, and melaleuca;nests in tree hollows; and nests in bromeliad are used by the Big Cypress Fox Squirrels. General Description of Site Location • The-site is located in portions of Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, in Collier County,Florida. Specifically, it is situated west of Livingston Road and North of Immokalee Road. Vegetation Communities The following is a discussion of the existing vegetation communities found on site. Palmetto Prairie(FLUCFCS Code 321) This upland community occupies 0.56± acres of the property. This area is • composed primarily of palmetto prairie. It was located in the middle of the melaleuca uplands. The canopy was opened with scattered melaleuca and slash pine. The sub-canopy vegetation includes wax myrtle and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, smilax, grape vine, bracken fern, and �-• beautyberry. Page 48 Exhibit 20 Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411) This area occupies 7.00± acres of the property. The canopy is dominated by Slash pine, and contains between 25 percent to 75 percent melaleuca The sub-canopy consists of melaleuca with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, cypress and Brazilian pepper. Ground cover includes grape vine, smilax, finger grass, carpet crass, coco plum, myrsine, and poison ivy. flvdric Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625) This wetland habitat type occupies 4.6± acres of the property. The canopy contains melaleuca, and cypress with scattered pine and cabbage palm. The sub- canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes salt bush, poison ivy, cabbage palm, myrsine, bluestem grass, wiregrass, spartina, St. John's Wort, and swamp fern. Species Survey Summary One stick nests were observed on site during a preliminary Species Survey. A recent updated survey yielded no netlike structures. The structure such as the one originally found are typically built by squirrels such as the gray squirrel or the Big-Cypress fox squirrel. No nesting behavior was observed in any of the structures during the original survey. Management Plan Aspects The goal of the management plan is to attain and maintain suitable Big Cypress Fox Squirrel habitat on site after development. This will be accomplished through preservation and enhancement of some existing suitable habitat on site. The plan focuses on preservation suitable habitat in the north central portion of the site. Management will be implemented to ensure that the exotic vegetation does not re-invade the system and that is maintained ned an conditio . Education the uplandhabitat _ais�a inopen park-like information will be provided to inform those living in the community of the protection status of the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel and its habitat requirements. Approximately 1.82 acres of land will be provided in the following manner: Palmetto Prairie—0.56 Acres • Pine Flatwoods— 1.25 Acres The proposed development is a residential planned community with associated storm water management lakes. • Page 49 Exhibit 20 • Enhancement Exotic Removal All exotic vegetation in the preserve areas will be treated. Construction Details • All trees with potential nests will be checked for nesting prior to clearing. The survey will include five consecutive morning and evening surveys,weather permitting, of the • potential habitat. If no active nests are found the exotics and any approved native tree removal areas will be cleared. If active nests are found;buffers will be maintained around the nest trees until the nests are deemed inactive. These trees will then be removed. The buffers are anticipated to be 150 feet in width. Any deviations from this dimension will be presented to FWC for review and approval prior to implementation. If no nesting is occurring the tree can be removed. If nesting is occurring a 150' buffer will be maintained around the tree until the nesting is completed. The limits of the conservation area will be marked in the field to prevent encroachment during construction activities. Any changes in the configuration of the conservation area will be submitted to the FWC for review. The exotic removal and replanting program will be implemented concurrently with development. After the exotic removal and replanting is completed these areas will be posted to advise of the conservation status of the lands. Educational Details Educational signage may be placed in the Big'Cypress Fox Squirrel habitat areas that are accessible or adjacent to areas used by the public. Information will include; a description of the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel and its status as a listed species. Information regarding the habitat requirements along with the life history and ecology of the squirrel will be provided. Additional information regarding the interaction Of the public and the listed species will be noted; such as implications of feeding and encouraging interaction with the squirrels. - Management Details • A habitat management program will be implemented in the conservation areas after development. Exotic control will be implemented to ensure no re-invasion of exotics occurs. It is anticipated exotic control will be implemented on a semi-annual basis for two years after the initial removal is completed. Thereafter, exotic control is anticipated on an annual basis. All maintenance personnel will be advised of the necessity of leaving pinecones, cabbage palm fruit, bromeliads and ground fungi in the management areas. The wetland and preservation areas will be shown as preserve areas'in perpetuity on the �-. plat. The homeowners association will be the entity responsible for the preserve and open space areas. Page 50 Exhibit 20 OCT-04-2005 11:30 P.01/01 A , FLORIDA.DEPAR ME i'OFF S A B f,l:nr{a 3I.Hood, Secretary of V.-ate IDIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES October 4,2005 Kiln Schlaelit i EC,I . 11000 Mayo Parkway,Suite 4 • Fort I., yets,1133912 Fax:739-418-6672 Mu Ms. ht}-, ,� eit1KG.ui: III i' spenseto your inquiry of September 29,2005,the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural tesouroes hi the fQIIO ing parcels: T48S,R25B,SeetiOtt 11 resultsof o search,please remember the following point: In Ike .I r�,vcv„ - a An'eaS which bays -eof.been completely surveyed,such tia yelirn5 may contain unrecorded crSbEemol og-eal sites,unrecorded kii..totrieelly t'npo tvat anal 'resi 07 bath. © As you may 1!i,owg state aad federal laws require formal enviranneiatali review for some praects, Record searches by the staffof theFlorida Master Site File do not coma-it-ante � ls u d these laws,yew boeid sGneh a reviewre ,sources.of cultural rources• kf your feyeeieet F • h E�--tee. s Boge��°Er Vis°©S�a�,��ecsr�at��� aont.et the C�Ffisrplianee Review Sectiong of the E& ° 245-6533 or at this ac$du ee.,a,'5, S�I7CsX0�� � `l � k] th 1\ p e1 \\ JV4 ache'f Caldwell,Crerer Data Analyst,Florida Master Site File Phone:350-2/15-6440 .5- 444 5-6440 Division of Historical Resources State Sune • X1 Fax line'. 051 b'�a-uTW9 It.�.(E9'd.�Building 500 elgh Stmet ea-R. frees�i�v ^r.vt�tm.,0 u 5 Tallahassee,Florida 32399-0250 Web: €ari:li; wdos.state u sicihnimsj7 • 500 S.1urenough Street o E€loghassee,FL 5M9-0250 a lintel f .fgherntege.ceffi _ €� ,i4s4ac �gar �=on tt�F3IigEetEcd3Vd�sesa h Fr .acu14 icalf�a r '�3J¢ I :,ricall e i7 a FAX; )4� ',FAX:245-6436 (65 245 35•MX:s4-5437 )245-,%0.2 c, 245 -15 (&.�)245-6300�FAX:245-5436 (�50)2'45�1�4 _ ._� Office �+TamFa��-=vA�°�'�=-"- Cbgar�itlea{. ��� . .. __ �.- n� row ,R pp,. c �h.Reespitei Office 0 S.e&� Ormal fi jj{'J q}'MAXI• Page 51 Exhibit 21