Loading...
EAC Agenda 12/05/2007ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, December 5, 2007 9:00 A.M.-1:00 P.M. MEETING CANCELED DUE TO NO LANZ USE PE F1711O€IS IiE 1;1.C'E[F761PA *********************Community Development and Environmental Services Room 609/610**************** (Note the change of location and the room is only available until 1:00 pm) Call to Order II. Roll Call Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of November 7, 2007 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions Limit Land Use Petitions to no more than three petitions. Notify Summer if you need to add a petition beyond three. VII. New Business Vill. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments A. Ethics: Conflict of Interest — Jeff Wright 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 Thursday, November 29, 2007 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. Item VI.F. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF November 7, 2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP-2005-16 Petition Name: Amendment to Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map in the GMP (Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by the Collier County Pollution Control & Prevention Department) [Adoption hearing] Applicant: Collier County II. LOCATION• This petition does not pertain to a specific property. III. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies, requires the County to maintain maps of potable water wellfields that are most sensitive to contamination from nearby development activities and other activities and conditions. Every two years, the County is to revise and update its three-dimensional computer models, based upon a variety of data, and revise wellfield maps, as necessary. These maps consist of a single map known as the Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map that is part of the GMP's Future Land Use Map series. Section 3.06.00 of the Land Development Code (LDC) contains "wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps," maps that are similar to, but with greater detail than, the map in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Similar to the GMP, the LDC section requires review of the wellfield maps, but on an annual basis. The biennial process in the GMP consists of updating the computer model, then, if warranted, revising the map in the Future Land Use Element. Subsequently, any n affected map(s) in the LDC would need to be amended. Since the LDC includes regulatory provisions, it is important to amend the LDC map(s) as soon as possible after the GMP map has been amended. EAC Meeting 11/7/07 /1 The attached 29-page report provides the technical basis for the proposed map amendment. The proposed Wellfields map itself is located on page 5; the summary of map changes (affected Wellfields) is identified on page 14. Also, attached is the existing Wellfields map. Due to constraints caused by the tremendous amount of staff time and effort needed for the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) -based GMP amendments, the most recent modeling update was not completed in time for the proposed model -based amendment to the FLUE map to be included for the Transmittal hearings on the 2005 cycle of GMP amendments (held February -July, 2007). Therefore, staff requested, and received, approval from the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to add this petition to the 2005 cycle of GMP amendment at the Adoption hearings. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued their Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on October 8, 2007. Since this petition was not heard at Transmittal hearings, it was not sent to DCA for review so it is not (could not be) included in the ORC Report. Though there is always some level of risk in adopting an amendment without benefit of DCA's preliminary review after Transmittal hearings, staff does not believe the risk of a noncompliance finding to be significant given that the amendment is technical in nature — it is based upon the sound science of the computer modeling, which has previously been used to support such map amendments — and because such an amendment has no impact upon public infrastructure or surrounding properties (though properties newly added to a protection zone would be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny). IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map series. It is required to be periodically revised, as necessary, pursuant to Objective 1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the EAC recommend approval of _petition CPSP-2005-16, proposed amendment to the Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. 2 EAC Meeting 11/7/07 PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department REVIEWED BY: e. William D. Lorenz,`fr., P.E., 4Directc Environmental Services Department APPROVED BY: K. Schmitt, Administrator znity Development & Environmental Services Division Z7- Date /o-ZS-oz Date /D .25 D Iifate EAC Staff Report CPSP-05-16 FLUM Wellhead Protection - Adoption GAGomprehensivelComp. Planning GMP DATAIComp. Plan Amendments12005 PetitionslCPSP-2005-16 FLUM Wellhead Protection Map dw110-25-07 EX l S TI N6 /Vtgp IN 6,M p k1 COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS and PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE 1A WELLFIELD AREA CARICA v ROAD ASR CR 846 12 Lo r G.G. BLVD c> PINE COLLIER lU RIDGE COUNTY UTILITIES WELLFIELD G.jp WY COASTAL RIDGE SR 84 WELLFIELD FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN GATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD �n rn PROPOSED U SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION � Gs MANATEE R� ROAD O1 ASR G' L7 0 SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord. No. 2003-44 AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007-18 PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT DATE: 9/2006 FILE: WFPZRI2-2006.DWG N CR 846 ORANGETREE WELLFIELD CR 858 I� EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD 1 75 EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD rn V ®RELIABILITY WELLS �s 47 (BRACKISH OR FRESH WATER) WELLFIELD AREA ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD rn N o- 846 GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) co*e,-r coH-Kty PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION POLLUTION CONTROL & PREVENTION DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELLS MAP October 5, 2007 GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - We11 field Protection ReportOct Page 1 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 3 APPENDIX A. HISTORICAL WELLFIELD PROTECTION MODELING IN COLLIER COUNTY ... 6 A.1 INITIATION OF MODELING IN 1989.................................................... 6 A.2 MODELING OF 2003.......................................................................... 9 A.3 MODELING OF 2004........................................................................... 12 B. MODELING OF 2006 LEADING TO 2007 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST ............ 13 B.1 STAKEHOLDERS.............................................................................. 13 B.2 METHODS....................................................................................... 13 B.3 RESULTS......................................................................................... 14 C. REFERENCES........................................................................................... 15 D. TABLE OF OWNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE 2006 WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE MODELING 17 n ................................................................. E. DETAILED WELLFIELD MODELING DATA .................................................... 19 GMPPaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wellfteld Protection ReportOct Page 2 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Summary The Pollution Control & Prevention Department of Collier County (PCD) is pursuing an amendment to the "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (ASRs) Map" (Map 1), located within the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element. A recent review and modeling of the municipal water supply wellfields within Collier County has indicated that the existing "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (ASRs) Map" is out dated. This proposed amendment will up date this map so it reflects what presently exists in Collier County. Through this process the public will be informed (Public Notices) and will have the opportunity to discuss their opinions and thoughts during public hearings held by the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning Commission, and finally the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, where the proposed amendment will be considered for adoption. If this amendment is approved, it will then be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review to determine compliance with Florida Statutes. Following this process the PCD will then pursue the amendment of the Collier County's Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.06.00 "Ground Water Protection" to ensure the outdated wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones are updated to reflect what presently exists. The purpose and intent of LDC Section 3.06.00 is to protect future and existing public water supply wellfields, protect natural aquifer system recharge areas, protect countywide ground water resources, and protect the public and resources from potential pollutant point sources. This regulation requires that the public water supply wellfields within the county are protected by means of "wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones." These zones are derived from a three-dimensional computer -modeled analysis of ground water and solute transport in the county's freshwater aquifer system. This modeling has been done by the PCD since 1989. In addition, the LDC indicates that the special treatment zones shall be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis or as needed as a result of any significant changes that may occur within any of the wellfields. Following the initial setup of the model by a consultant in 1989, the model was run in 1991, 2003, 2004, and most recently in 2006. Each run of the model produced changes to the previous run results because of the new data input (i.e., wellfield changes that occurred since the previous run of the model). The current LDC wordage is based on the 2004 model simulations, while the proposed 2007 LDC amendment request reflects the results of the 2006 modeling. Similarly, the map currently contained in the Growth Management Plans' Future Land Use Element is based upon the 2004 model simulations; the proposed map shown as "Map 1" reflects the results of the 2006 modeling. There exist eight municipal water supply wellfields listed below. Three have been updated (Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Wellfield, Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Wellfield and Orange Tree Wellfield) and one new wellfield (Ave Maria Utility Company Wellfield) has been added. The remaining four wellfields were reviewed and no changes occurred ^� since the last modeling in 2004, resulting in no modification being made. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welpld Protection ReportOct Page 3 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2006 Modeling Immokalee 13 wells 13 wells - no change Orangetree 2 wells 4 wells - 2 new wells Ave Maria 0 wells 6 new wells FGUA (Golden Gate) 8 wells 8 wells + greater pumping Everglades City 3 wells 3 wells - no change Collier County (Golden Gate) 32 wells 34 wells + greater pumping City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) 26 wells 26 wells - no change City of Naples (East Golden Gate) 23 wells 23 wells - no change In addition, the status of the areas hatched in "Reliability Wells" and "Wellfield Area" has been reviewed by the Public Utilities Engineering Department and updated to ensure the areas accurately represent existing conditions. Refer to the following updates. 1. The "Reliability Wells" areas located east of CR 951 (Collier Blvd.), south of CR 846 (Immokalee Road), and north and south of Golden Gate Blvd., were identified as "Areas of Interest." 2. The "Reliability Wells" area located east of CR 951 and north of I-75 was identified as "In Operation." 3. The label "Proposed South Hawthorn Wellfield Extension" located east of CR 951 and south of I-75 has been changed to "South Hawthorn Wellfield Extension (Under Construction, Fall 08' Completion)." The attached Amendments discuss further the details of the proposed and historic amendments, an explanation and intent of the model, the stakeholders who were contacted and wellfield data collected during this process. I--" GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel #kld Protection ReportOct Page 4 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELLFIELDS AND ASRs OR // PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE 1A WELLFIELD AREA A Y(A " D AREAS OF INTEREST FR #EUC a (N IFIE on f \ CITY OF NAPLES COASTAL RIDGE WELLFIELD SCALE 0 5MI. AMENDED — SEPTEMBER 10,-2003 Ord.. No. 2DO3-44 AMENDED — JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No. 2007-18 N IMMOKALEE l71 WELLFIELD CR 846 CR 846 AVE MARIA ORANGETREE WELLFIELD WELLFIELD CR 858 CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD rn N U7 1 75 IN OPERATION FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN GATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD � O DO 01 m U SOUTH HAWTHORN V) WELLFIELD EXTENSION o (UNDER CONSTRUCTION, Q FALL 08 COMPLETION) 0 O_ w * US W MANATEE R� ROAD ASR Of v) EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD a U ®RELIABILITY WELLS US q (BRACKISH OR FRESH WATER) yy WELLFIELD AREA 7� ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PREPARED BY: -GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATE: 9/2007 RLE:. WFPZR12-2007.DWG Map 1. Proposed Future Land Use map in the Growth Management Plan GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel field Protection ReportOct Page 5 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) APPENDIX A. HISTORICAL WELLFIELD PROTECTION MODELING IN COLLIER COUNTY A.1 INITIATION OF MODELING IN 1989 The following wordage shown in italics represents extracted portions from the 1989 and 1991 reports that described the initial motives, directives, setup and running of a wellfield protection zone model in Collier County. It must be kept in mind that some of the concepts, opinions, etc. expressed at that time may not be valid and have been overtaken by events — nevertheless they are provided to record the development of this modeling within the County. Chapter 163.3203, F.S, mandates the adoption of Land Development Regulations that "...provide for protection of potable water wel fields ". The Collier County Growth Management Plan translates this mandate into a series of Goals, Objectives, and Policies for implementation of ground water quality protection in Collier County. The goals state that the County shall. (1) identify and protect natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas from activities that could degrade and/or contaminate the quality of ground water; (2) protect natural ground water aquifer recharge areas from activities that unacceptably alter the ground water recharge, (3) protect the County s ground water resources to ensure the highest water quality practical, and (4) conserve, protect, and appropriately manage the County's fresh water resources. Objectives and Policies included in these goals are: (1) to develop and maintain a 3-dimensional computer ground water flow model for existing and planned welfflelds, (2) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include modeled areas as "environmentally sensitive areas ", (3) to develop an ordinance to provide for an appropriate level of protection for all Collier County ground water, (4) to develop an ordinance(s) that will address well construction, rock mining and excavation, blasting, and confining units, (S) to develop and ordinance that will address both existing and future land use and surface activities relative to petroleum storage tanks, stormwater, regulated substances, industrial and domestic wastes; (6) to develop a ground water protection ordinance to protect existing and future welfflelds; and (7) to develop technical criteria for determining what areas are critical to the County s long-term ground water needs, e.g., Natural Aquifer Recharge areas. The citizens of Collier County derive their potable water largely from the Surficial Aquifer System via either the permitted public water supply wel yiields or the private and household water wells. Water consumption from these sources are divided into three main use areas; potable water, agricultural use, and recreational uses. The Surficial Aquifer System in Collier County is composed of the unconfined water table aquifer and the underlying, semi -confined Lower Tamiami Aquifer, both of which are recharged by direct infiltration of precipitation that accumulates on the surface. The water table of this aquifer system lies at or within a very few feet of the ground surface, being visible in such situations as canals, ponds and lakes, wetland areas, and wet retention stormwater areas. The unsaturated soil or rock above the water table is commonly only a few inches to a few feet thick and provides little � attenuation of most contaminants or pollutants passing from the surface downward to the water table. Thus, the Surficial Aquifer System is very susceptible to contamination resulting from land use activities. GMPpaper OS1100 Oct (2) - Wel field Protection ReportOct Page 6 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUEAmendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) The sedimentary rock units underlying Collier County represent several millions of years of mixed carbonate and siliciclastic marine shelf and coastal deposition under subtropical to tropical n climatic conditions. These rock units exhibit generally unpredictable vertical and lateral microlithologic as well as permeability and porosity variations with some generally recognized laterally extensive zones of relatively low permeability separating other zones of relatively high permeability. These latter zones or aquifers contain producible water and are separated by zones of lower permeability, i.e., aquitards. Nearly all of the potable water in Collier County is obtained from two permeable zones of the Surficial Aquifer System. This System is unconfined and is recharged directly from the surface. Hence, accurate knowledge of ground water flow directions and recharge characteristics is extremely important when attempting to predict ground water movement. Potential ground water contaminants from land use activities are introduced into aquifer systems via moving water. This movement may be in vertical and/or lateral directions. The conventional wisdom is that with increasing distance traveled in heterogeneous soils/rocks, the more attenuated or "diluted" a pollutant will become. However, even extremely minute amounts of some contaminants have high toxicity levels. Natural attenuation processes include filtration, sorption, chemical processes, dilution, and microbiological decomposition. The thin, sandy soils of Collier County are less capable of providing extensive natural attenuation of many pollutants generated by land use activities as compared to thicker, more heterogeneous soils. Hence, contaminant - generating land use activities should be regulated in order to reduce the potential for introduction of pollutants into the ground water system. Potential ground water contaminants are as numerous and as varied as the land use activities that produce them. In addition, each contaminant behaves differently (e.g., bacteria, dissolved solids, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, septic or sewage waste) in the water system in terms of its residence time, movement with other pore fluids, reactivity with or to pore fluids and soil/rock and reactivity to/with other chemicals within the aquifer system. Because of the lack of a complete understanding of contaminant behavior in the aquifer system, combined with only a very general knowledge of soillrock characteristics affecting this behavior, it is difficult to predict with a high degree of certainty exactly how far or in what direction a particular contaminant will travel in a given time. Numerous studies have been conducted in attempts to estimate travel characteristics, travel times, and residence times of commonly introduced contaminants in aquifer systems. Because of the inhomogeneity of the soil/rock and aquifer systems, most of these estimates provide either ranges of values for velocity, distance, and residence time for the contaminants or present some minimum setback distances based on risk potential to human health and welfare. Hence, rate, distance and longevity of contaminant data for an aquifer system should be recognized as a range of values when considered in the light of risk analysis. In order to develop an effective ground water protection program, an effort must be made to establish a minimum County —wide water quality baseline applicable to all potable water wells and against which to compare suspected contaminated areas. In addition, areas around public water supply wel fields should be provided protection in the form of land use restrictions and prohibitions. The extent of such areas should be predicated on geologic and hydrogeologic data as well as knowledge of the behavior of contaminants in these systems. Wellfield protection zones are in reality risk management zones. Such zones must be based on the best available regional and local geologic and hydrogeologic information; historic and projected GMPPaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wellfield Protection ReportOct Page 7 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GW- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) water demands; evaluation of contaminant behavior in the ground water systems, natural attenuation processes, remediation time and technolog y, gy; and establishment of specific contaminant targets and thresholds. Computer models can evaluate data and generate projections of ground water flow, contaminant travel, and drawdown characteristics within some confidence limits, but it still remains a policy decision of "how much risk is too much risk". The three-dimensional ground water flow model for welfflelds employed as a predictor in this study was programmed with a 20 year planning horizon. Input such as that mentioned above was then used to define a 20 year risk management zone around each public water supply wel field. All ground water within this zone has the potential to reach the wellhead within 20 years, and numerous pathways were modeled to illustrate this. Within this zone, three additional zones were established. Zone I is defined as that area closest to the wellhead which contains five percent of the total ground water within the 20 year planning zone that will generally reach the wellhead within one year. The rationale for this zone is one of sanitary hazard versus natural attenuation and risk limits for most contaminants related to sanitary systems. Zone 2 is defined as that area closest to the wellhead, but outside of Zone 1, that contains ten percent of the total ground water within the 20 year planning zone. The model indicates that water in this zone will generally reach the wellhead within 2 years. The establishment of zones 2 and 3 is predicated on travel times, natural attenuation, and remediation time concerns for contaminants in the regulated or hazardous products and wastes categories. Zone-3 is defined as that area within the 20 year planning horizon in which 25 percent of the ground water will reach the wellhead within approximately five years. Zone 4 is defined as the remainder of the 20 year planning zone and is the immediate Zone of Contribution for these wellfields within the planning horizon time frame. Significant contamination of ground water has occurred in every state of this nation, and is being detected with increasing frequency in urban and rural areas; in industrial as well as in agricultural regions, and is adversely effecting development and quality of life in many regions of the world (e.g., Love Canal). In Collier County, the water table is generally within six feet of the surface and the main potable water aquifers are recharged from infiltration through thin soils and semi - consolidated rock units. Natural attenuation of contaminants is not as effective as in other areas where there are thick soil horizons and the where the water table lies deeper beneath the surface. In addition, development in Collier County exposes the water table directly to land use pollutants via quarries, landscaping, stormwater retention/detention systems, accidental/incidental surficial pollution and poorly constructed and maintained wells. The only long term approach to maintaining an acceptable level of ground water quality is to reduce the possibilities for ground water contamination rather than to depend on remediation. This approach must be based on the acquisition and analysis of accurate hydrologic and geologic data, understanding of the nature and reactions of contaminants in the ground water system, knowledge of background water quality levels, and realistic projections offiaure demands. From this data can be developed a comprehensive ground water protection program that addresses overall water quality across the County as well as that in the zones of contribution for public water supply wellfields. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wellfield Protection ReportOct Page 8 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUEAmendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) A.2 MODELING OF 2003 n The purpose of the 2003 modeling and reporting by the PCD Consultant, Dr. M.L. Voorhees, was to update the methodologies and results of the initial Collier County regional three-dimensional ground water flow model and the subsequent wellfield submodel transport simulations performed by Voorhees et al, August 1989. The 2003 report describes an updated computer model of the aquifer system in Collier County, Florida, with a concentration on the simulation of wellfield protection areas and efforts in the determination of wellfield protection regions. The following wordage is largely extracted from the Voorhees 2003 report. The purpose of the 2003 Voorhees investigation in Collier County was as thus follows: (1) To update a wellfield protection computer model of the aquifer system in Collier County; (2) To describe the effects of future ground water withdrawals on ground water flow in the vicinity of each study wellfields; (3) To describe the one (1), two (2), five (5), and twenty (20)-year diversion area (i.e., protection zones or travel times) associated with the annual permitted allocation rate for each study wellfleld; and (4) Provide extensive software development and training on this software to enable County staff the ability to update wellfield protection zones frequently. The diversion area is defined as the area, in plan view, through which ground water moves within the aquifer system to a production well in a prescribed number of years. All analyses were performed assuming steady-state conditions. The term "Study Area," as it was used in this 2003 report, refers to a 2,220 square -mile area included in the model and enclosed by the regional model grid. In addition, seven separate study wellfields were investigated as follows: City of Naples (East Golden Gate) — SFWMD Permit No. 1100018W; City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) — SFWMD Permit No. 1100017W; Collier County — SFWMD Permit No. 1100249W; Immokalee Utilities — SFWMD Permit No. 1100013W; Florida Cities Utilities — SFWMD Permit No. 1100148W; Everglades City — SFWMD Permit No. 1100160W; and Orangetree — SFWMD Permit No. 1100419W. The extent of the 2,220 square -mile study area encompasses approximately the western two thirds of Collier County, the southern third of Lee County, and a small part of southern Hendry County in south Florida. The north boundary divides the topographic high about 7 miles north of Lake Trafford. The south boundary is south of the major portion of Lower Tamiami Canal. The east boundary is located far east in Big Cypress Swamp to minimize boundary effects on regional flow. The west boundary is the Gulf of Mexico. An extensive general description of the study area hydrogeology is provided by Knapp et al, 1986, Bennett, 1992, and Voorhees et al, 1989. The reader should review Voorhees et al, 1989, Section 3 and Bennett, 1992 for details associated with hydrogeologic data for the study area. The rock units from which most potable water is withdrawn in Collier County are grouped according to previously defined stratigraphic units and by their hydraulic properties. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel fold Protection ReportOct Page 9 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) The sources of geologic and hydrologic data for Collier County, Florida as used in the model to the present are as follows: Information Canal system Geologic structure Hydraulic aquifer characteristics Canal topology Municipal pumping well topology Municipal wellfield pumpages Agricultural pumpage Hydrologic investigations Source Collier County U.S. Geological Survey Bennett, 1992 Knapp et al, 1986 Lee County study (Voorhees et al,1988) Bennett, 1992 Knapp et al, 1986 Lee County study (Voorhees et al, 1988) Collier County County utilities Bennett, 1992 U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps Collier County South Florida Water Management District Burns and Shih, 1984 Knapp et al, 1986 County utilities South Florida Water Management District Collier County Knapp et al, 1986 County utilities Knapp et al, 1986 Collier County Collier County Agricultural Extension South Florida Water Management District Knapp et al, 1986 Burns and Shih, 1984 Jacob, 1983 Gee & Jensen, 1980 Swayze and McPherson, 1977 Bennett et al, 1992 Voorhees et al, August 1989 GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welfeld Protection ReportOctPage 10 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Calibration of the ground water model is critically important to modeling studies such as being described. For the 2003 modeling work the regional model calibration was performed by combining n the calibration results from reports from Voorhees et al, 1989 and Bennett, April 1992 (SFWMD). Voorhees et al, 1989 calibrated a regional model to a course grid and used the regional model to establish boundary conditions for several wellfield submodels. The technique of computerized optimization was used to achieve calibration. Bennett, April 1992 used a coarse grid in manually calibrating a regional model which extended in depth vertically to the Hawthorn aquifer. By combining the calibrated parameters from these two studies and performing detailed grid optimization to place model nodes as close as possible near wells in a single regional model, the original Voorhees et al, 1989 study with wellfield submodels has now been replaced with a single regional model. This provided a unified, streamlined, and easier wellfield protection modeling update procedure for Collier County staff. The deeper Hawthorn aquifer is now included in this model, which is an update as it was not part of the 1989 study, and as in the SFWMD model, the Hawthorn aquifer is configured as a fixed head boundary condition. Due to artesian conditions and extensive confining units above the Hawthorn aquifer, pumpage in the Hawthorn is assumed to not require wellfield protection analysis. The theory associated with the delineation of wellfield protection zones is presented by Voorhees et al, 1989; Section 5 p29, and Section 11 p85. The reader is referred to that discussion for details of the procedure. The only departure in 2003 from that documented procedure is the initial placement of travel time particles at a production well over the entire producing aquifer, vertically. In the prior study by Voorhees et al, 1989 particles were placed at the vertical midpoint of the producing aquifer. The result of this procedural enhancement has been made possible by the availability of more accurate travel time delineation and more powerful computing resources. r� Running of the model and hence delineation of the wellfield protection zones can be determined very easily by data entry of a few values that include the following: (1) an exactly two character wellfield identifier for the well -- user selected; (2) an exactly three character well identifier -- user selected; (3) the South Florida Water Management (SFWMD) permitted wellfield average annual allocation in MGD for the well -- obtained from utilities with confirmation from SFWMD; (4) the NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar well coordinates in feet for the well -- based on GPS measurement by County or utility staff; (5) the aquifer from which the well pumps -- obtained from utilities; (6) the well pump capacity in GPM -- obtained from utilities with confirmation from SFWMD; and (7) comment regarding the well -- user selected. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The wellfield protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel pld Protection ReportOctPage 11 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) where: Qi = Qwa(Qci/EiQci)/1440 (Eq 1) Qi is the wellfield protection pumpage for well in gallons per minute (GPM); Qwa is the SFWMD permitted wellfield average annual allocation in Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD); Qci is the pump capacity of well in the wellfield, gallons per minute (GPM); and EiQci is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. For this study these data were obtained from the various utilities by County staff and are presented in Appendix "E" with cross-references to the numbered items (1) through (7) listed above. For all wellfield protection simulations a conservative transport porosity of 0.15 was used to generate all ground water flow path lines. The methodologies used in the 2003 study are consistent with those previously applied by Voorhees et al, 1989 and the guidelines published for determination of wellhead protection areas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987). The use of wellfield protection zones provides a consistent planning tool for the County and the extensive software development performed for the project provides a user-friendly system for County staff to update and change wellfield protection areas. Significant improvement of computational resources since the Voorhees et al, 1989 study provided improved accuracy for the determination of wellfield protection areas based on three dimensional ground water flow and the development of an integrated system which is more accessible by County staff. A.3 MODELING OF 2004 The wellfield protection modeling undertaken in 2004 was carried out by Collier County staff, primarily Mr. Michael Lucas, Environmental Specialist. This modeling followed the methods described above and which had been set up at that time on the County computers by the Pollution Control Department Consultant, Dr. M.L.Voorhees. The data collection phase of the work took place between about May and September 2004 and the computer modeling was completed by November 2004. As described above the specially designed Program suite comprises two linked computer codes: - a hydrogeological model, and - a freeware CAD program called IntelliCAD (a clone of AutoCAD) GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welyield Protection ReportOctPage 12 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) The wellfields covered in the 2004 modeling exercise included: Immokalee Wellfield Orangetree Wellfield FGUA - Golden Gate Wellfield Everglades City Wellfield Collier County Wellfield - Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - East Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - Coastal Ridge Wellfield The results of the modeling provided the LDC required W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4 protection zones for each wellfield and these zones were included in the County Ordinance No. 05-27 as Sub Section 3.0. Amendments to Section 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields. APPENDIX B. MODELING OF 2006 LEADING TO 2007 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST B.1 STAKEHOLDERS The necessary raw data for the 2006 modeling exercise was gathered from the public water supply wellfield Owners and Stakeholders in October and November 2006. The wellfields modeled in 2006 included: Immokalee Wellfield Everglades City Wellfield Orangetree Wellfield Collier County Wellfield Ave Maria Wellfield City of Naples - East Golden Gate Wellfield FGUA - Golden Gate Wellfield City of Naples - Coastal Ridge Wellfield The full listing of organizations and personnel that were the primary contacts for the 2006 modeling is provided as Appendix D. B.2 METHODS The purpose of the 2006 modeling was, as before, to establish areas of increasingly vulnerability surrounding each public wellfield from which their primarily water was sourced and hence which needed special protection from pollution. The methods used were exactly as described and used previously, namely collection of the relatively limited amount of input data, keying in of this data to the software, running of the modeling software, generation of the 1, 2, 5, and 20 year particle flow path lines, drawing of the shapes/polygons that surround each of these flow path shapes, and finally copying and superimposition of these zone shapes onto a base map of the county. These wellfield protection zone maps then form the basis of the LDC content. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welffleld Protection ReportOctPage 13 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) B.3 RESULTS For wellfields where there was no change in the input data from that used in 2004, the 2006 modeling resulted in exactly the same time path flowlines and hence the same 1, 2, 5, and 20 year Protection Zones as the 2004 model; this occurred for the Everglades City Wellfield. For the extensive City of Naples Coastal Ridge and East Golden Gate Wellfields, and the Immokalee Wellfield, although minor model input changes were applied to the model, because of minor well or pumping changes, the resulting wellfield Protection Zones are unchanged from the 2004 modeling. For wellfields with new or significantly altered input data, new timeline flow path shapes files were generated resulting in new 1, 2, 5, and 20 year Protection Zones - this was the case for the Orangetree Wellfield, FGUA (Golden Gate) Wellfield and Collier County Golden Gate Wellfield. The entirely new Ave Maria Wellfield input data was compiled and applied to the model which then generated new 1, 2, 5, and 20 year timelines, i.e. W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4, Protection Zones. A summary of the changes between the 2004 and 2006 modeling, and which gives rise to the request for Amendments to the "Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map" located within the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element, are listed below. 11 o Wellfield 2004 Modeling 2006 Modeling Immokalee Orangetree Ave Maria FGUA (Golden Gate) Everglades City Collier County (Golden Gate) City of Naples (Coastal Ridge) City of Naples (East Golden Gate) 13 wells 13 wells - no change 2 wells 4 wells - 2 new wells 0 wells 6 new wells 8 wells 8 wells + greater pumping 3 wells 3 wells - no change 32 wells 34 wells + greater pumping 26 wells 26 wells - no change 23 wells 23 wells - no change Detailed data for each wellfield is attached in Appendix E. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel &ld Protection ReportOctPage 14 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) /"'IN APPENDIX C. REFERENCES Bennet, M.W., April 1992, A Three -Dimensional Finite Difference Ground Water Flow Model of Western Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 92-04, DRE 312, 358p. Burns, W.S., and Shih, George, 1984, Preliminary evaluation of ground water monitoring network in Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Memorandum, 46 p. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 1987, Final Report, Wellfield Protection Zone Modeling, Lee County Florida, Prepared for Department of Community Development Division of Environmental Services, Fort Myers, Florida: Page 4-8. Pollution Control Department, 1991, Collier County Environmental Services Division, Ground Water Protection Ordinance Technical Report, PC-OFR-91-05, 247p. de Marsily, Ghislain, 1986, Quantitative Hydrogeology: Academic Press, London, 440 p. Gee and Jenson, 1980, Big Cypress Basin water resources study No. 2201: contract report 77- 186, Gee and Jenson Engineers, Architects, and Planners, Inc., West Palm Beach, I I8p. Gethar, L.W., 1986, Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications: Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 135S-145S. Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., April 1989, Appendix Report - Collier County Three -Dimensional Ground water Modeling Study: Hunter/HydroSoft. HydroSoft, Inc., 1988, Three-dimensional model of ground water flow in Collier County, Florida: Data assimilation, model conceptualization, and parameters: Contract Letter Report 1, Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, 47p. Jacob, P.G., 1983, Hydrogeology of the shallow aquifer south of Naples, Collier County: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 83-3, 52p. Journel, A.G., and Huijbregts, Ch.J., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600p. Knapp, M.S., Burns, W.S., and Sharp, T.S., 1986, Preliminary assessment of the ground -water resources of western Collier County, Florida: South Florida Water Management District Technical Publication 86-1, Parts 1 and 2, 142p. Prickett, T. A., 1967, Designing Pumped Well Characteristics into Electric Analog Models: Ground Water v. 5(4), National Water Well Association. Prickett, T.A., T.G. Naymik, and C. G. Lomiquist, 1981, A Random -Walk Solute Transport Model for Selected Groundwater Quality Evaluations: Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 65p. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welpld Protection ReportOctPage 15 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Swayze, L.7., and McPherson, B.F., The effect of the Faka Union Canal system on water levels in the Fakahatchee Strand, Collier County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 77-61, 19p. Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc., 1988, Interim InterTrans Users Guide: Hunter/HydroSoft, Inc. Voorhees, M.L., 1981, Advanced methods for the selection of urban runoff design storms: Doctoral thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign, 207p. Voorhees, M.L., and Kirkner, R.A., 1987, Users guide for applied ground water flow with InterSat: HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, 132p. Voorhees, M.L., and Mades, D.M., August 1989, Three -Dimensional Simulation of Wellfleld Protection Areas in Collier County, Florida,120p. Voorhees, M.L., Mades, D.M., and Ruskauff, Greg, 1988, Report on Lee County kriging analysis, water -level network optimization, and water budget: contract report, HydroSoft, Inc., Sarasota, 38p. Voorhees, M.L. March 2003, Update of Three -Dimensional Simulation of Wellfield Protection Areas in Collier County, Florida, 80p. Walton, W.C., 1985, Groundwater supply and contamination: National Water Well Association. Walton, W.C., 1970, Groundwater resource evaluation: McGraw-Hill. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel#kld Protection ReportOctPage 16 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper C (7 QD7S � — < E� 5 A q ° � -+0 lo 0A a.� •" �G)° ��, � 5+oc � 7�' q�° q'oa' —'o, 0• �3 ay w o � o o 0 0 �• o A o �' � CD a o Ei bC rA xw � r �d on 14w l> o m wll-+ Z too) Ctl �' OK C �t7l W Z Yn N ` � n WNw �, R°� r� w �. w�Ap, O ry ° � gy " 5 a av � z a O�� ny O w ��•� w JT*' � R W W �O �D G W W �1 �O �O W �O W �N �D �D �N �O N � N�•-•N �O 01 NNN W W t1i��pp .N+ w O� J W to N Oas N N N W w N N t!i `W �o w w N O O O� N :a �p O w ON .(a J 1p W ti.w °�tA N N N N NN UQU �0o0 O N� ? ANN tj W tA 00 w 00 tA 00 w •� �- �° gs CD \R) ° 00 p �()Q akD � ,�aa o0 o a o to q gig m N� O�toN WON zd z y w N ►rj r O LA LA 00 W W W 00 � v NJ tj N N A N W W W NN OppN W cis NJ v 0 VOi cN�n A 'm7h (� rA g� w O QQ ua°< o C < N n Al .7 GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) APPENDIX E: DETAILED WELLFIELD MODELING DATA IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD Description Welllield Well ID AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 well 201 INE Immokalee IU 201 4.710 522288 760414 Lower 350 288 Tamiami well 202 INE Immokalee III 202 4.710 522653 760419 Lower 350 288 Tamiami well 203 INE Immokalee rU 203 4.710 521933 759759 Lower 350 288 Tamiami well 102 INW Immokalee IU 102 4.710 508669 763988 Lower 250 206 Tamiami well 103 INW Immokalee IU 103 4.710 509043 764732 Lower 200 165 Tamiami well 104 INW Immokalee IU 104 4.710 509462 764641 Lower 350 288 Tamiami well 7 SE Immokalee IU 107 4.710 516219 754970 Lower 400 329 Tamiami well 8 SE Immokalee IU 108 4.710 516483 755326 Sandstone 200 165 well 9 SE Immokalee IU 109 4.710 515837 754728 Sandstone 225 185 well 10B SE Immokalee IU 110 4.710 516766 755265 Sandstone 350 288 well 11 SE Immokalee IU Ill 4.710 516703 755040 Sandstone 250 206 well 12 SE Immokalee 1U 112 4.710 515837 755399 Lower 350 288 Tamiami well 13 SE Immokalee IU 113 4.710 515253 755094 Lower 350 288 Tamiami 1 Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq. 1) Q = Q.(Qa/L.Qa)/1440 Q - is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Q,, - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Qd - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and L-Q« - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. /-N, GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - We1#7e1d Protection ReportOctPage 19 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) ORANGETREE WELLFIELD Description Wellfield Well ID AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Wen Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) 0 (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 Orangetree well OTl OT OT1 0.260 466038 713260 Lower 300 90 Tamiami. Orangetree well OT2 OT OT2 0.260 464959 713814 Lower 300 90 Tamiami Orangetree well OT3 OT OT3 0.260 465006 712047 Lower 300 90 Tamiami Orangetree well OT4 OT OT4 0.260 464627 711612 Lower 300 90 Tamiami Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq. 1) Q = Q..�(Q.,1.7-Q.)/1440 is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Qa 8 - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day, QQ - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and L.Qd - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel #kld Protection ReportOctPage 20 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GA,P- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) AVE MARIA WELLFIELD Description Wellileld WellID AVERAGE NAW3 NAM Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly (ft) Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 . 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 1 AV A01 1.000 511739 723678 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 2 AV A01 1.000 511839 722914 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 3 AV A03 1.000 512239 722023 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 4 AV A04 1.000 512894 721212 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 5 AV A05 1.000 513999 720346 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Ave Maria Utility (AV) well 6 AV A06 1.000 513896 719472 Lower 700 116 Tamiami Comment t An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer fiom which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula. where; (Eq. 1) Q = Q.(QM/L-Qci)/1440 is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Q - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Q,i - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and Y;Qp - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. r'11 GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welffleld Protection ReportOctPage 21 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) n FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN GATE CITY WELLFIELD Description WellBeld Well M AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 Florida Governmental Utility FC 001 1.923 428360 672103 Water 200 132 Authority (FGUA)well 1 1Table Florida Governmental Utility FC 02A 1.923 428341 672024 water 250 164 Authority (FGUA) well 02A Table Florida Governmental Utility FC 003 1.923 428673 672057 Water 180 118 Authority (FGUA) well 3 Table Florida Governmental Utility FC 004 1.923 428641 672050 Water 200 132 Authority (FGUA) well 4 Table Florida Governmental Utility FC 005 1.923 428603 672144 Water 250 164 Authority (FGUA) well 5 Table Florida Governmental Utility FC 008 1.923 428648 671962 Water 250 164 Authority (FGUA) well 8 Table Florida Governmental Utility FC F10 1.923 428423 671993 Water 350 230 Authority (FGUA) well 10 Table Florida Governmental Utility FC Fll 1.923 428540 671974 Water 350 230 Authority (FGUA) well 11 1 1 1 Table 1 Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq. 1) Q = Q.(QQ/L-QQ)/1440 is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Qa 8 - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day, Qd - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and L;Qa - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welyleld Protection ReporiOctPage 22 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD Description WeliBeld Well ED AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 Everglades City well ECl EC EC1 0.460 536019 590264 Water 220 106 Table Everglades City well EC2 EC EC2 0.460 536398 590230 Water 220 106 Table Everglades City well EC3 EC EC3 0.460 536823 590233 Water 220 106 Table Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq. 1) Q. = Q.(Qd/EiQd)/1440 Qi - is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Q. - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Qd - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and Y,Q. - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPPaper 051100 Oct (2) - Welffleld Protection ReportOctPage 23 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GW- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) COLLIER CnTTNTV TTTTT.TTTF.0 MIMF.N GATE WF.T.T.FTFT.T) Description Welltiehi WellID AVERAGE NAM NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 Collier County CGG well 1 CC 001 20.825 452696 684329 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 2 CC 002 20.825 453992 683964 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 3 CC 003 20.825 455312 684026 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 4 CC 004 20.825 456661 683855 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 5 CC 005 20.825 458020 683818 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 6 CC 006 20.825 457272 685070 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 7 CC 007 20.825 457256 686049 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 9 CC 009 20.825 457239 688013 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 10 CC 010 20.825 457230 689001 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 11 CC Oil 20.825 457226 690352 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 12 CC 012 20.825 457210 691367 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 13 CC 013 20.825 457202 692450 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 14 CC 014 20.825 457204 693358 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 15 CC 015 20.825 457185 694327 Lower 700 340 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 16 CC 016 20.825 457178 695328 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 17 CC 017 20.825 469945 683749 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 18 CC O18 20.825 461252 683766 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 19 CC 019 20.825 462584 683766 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 20 CC 020 20.825 462742 684758 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 21 CC 021 20.825 457821 682202 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 22 CC 022 20.825 457821 681282 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 23 CC 023 20.825 457824 680193 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 24 CC 024 20.825 457825 679542 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 25 CC 025 20.825 457834 678232 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 26 CC 026 20.825 459136 678097 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 27 CC 027 20.825 460464 678044 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 28 CC C28 20.825 452685 685170 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 29 CC C29 20.825 453981 684772 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 30 CC C30 20.825 462649 685209 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 31 CC C31 20.825 456861 696390 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 32 CC C32 20.825 457158 697703 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 33 CC C33 20.825 451507 684037 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 35 CC D35 20.825 434546 695012 Lower 1000 485 Tamiami Collier County CGG well 36 CC D36 20.825 433377 695041 Lower 1000 485 j j Tamiami GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wel(field Protection ReportOctPage 24 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-1005-16) Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq. 1) Q = Q.(Qi/L-Q.)/l440 is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Q� e - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Qd - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and Y_iQp - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wellfield Protection ReportOctPage 25 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) r-� CITY OF NAPLES COASTAL RIDGE WELLFIELD Description WeMeid Well ID AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (it) (GPM) (GPM) COMIOeat 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .1 City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 1 CR 001 18.422 396597 669462 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 2 CR 002 18.422 397189 670330 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 3 CR 003 18.422 398109 670327 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 4 CR 004 18.422 396577 670500 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 5 CR 005 18.422 396572 671579 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 7 CR 007 18.422 396608 674016 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well 8 CR 008 18.422 396591 674837 Lower 350 476 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 010 18.422 396638 677293 Lower 350 476 10 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR Oil 18.422 397158 678280 Lower 350 476 11 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 012 18.422 397149 679281 Lower 350 476 12 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 013 18.422 397123 680335 Lower 350 476 13 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 014 18.422 396941 681507 Lower 350 476 14 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 015 18.422 396953 682625 Lower 350 476 15 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 016 18.422 396617 683001 Lower 350 476 16 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 017 18.422 396597 683912 Lower 350 476 17 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 018 18.422 396718 684917 Lower 350 476 18 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 019 18.422 396836 685908 Lower 350 476 19 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 020 18.422 396970 686865 Lower 350 476 20 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 021 18.422 397104 687872 Lower 350 476 21 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 022 18.422 397218 688878 Lower 350 476 22 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 023 18.422 397353 689864 Lower 350 476 23 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 024 18.422 397488 690885 Lower 350 476 24 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 027 18.422 397876 693875 Lower 350 476 27 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 028 18.422 398004 694918 Lower 350 476 28 Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 06A 18.422 396554 673100 Lower 500 680 6A Tamiami City of Naples Coastal Ridge well CR 09A 18.422 396491 676799 Lower 500 680 9A 1 Tamiami GMPpaper OSIIOO Oct (2) - Wel#ield Protection ReportOctPage 26 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is then computed by the software developed for this project using the formula where; (Eq.1) Q. = Q.(Qci L-Q.)/l440 is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Q - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Q« - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and L;Q,; - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - Wellfield Protection ReportOctPage 27 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GMP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD Description Wellfield Well W AVERAGE NAD83 NAD83 Producing Well Modeled ID Allocation Easterly Northerly Aquifer Capacity Discharge (MGD) (ft) (ft) (GPM) (GPM) Comment 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 .l City of Naples Golden Gate well Gl EG G01 18.839 482701 695225 Lower 500 392 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G2 EG G02 18.839 482704 693920 Lower 500 392 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G3 EG G03 18.839 482691 692590 Lower 500 392 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G4 EG G04 18.839 482758 691174 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G5 EG G05 18.839 482736 689963 Lower 900 705 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G6 EG G06 18.839 482746 688590 Lower 500 392 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G7 EG G07 18.839 482749 687262 Lower 900 705 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G8 EG G08 18.839 482756 685936 Lower 900 705 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G9 EG G09 18.839 482764 684619 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G10 EG G10 18.839 482775 683302 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well Gll EG Gll 18.839 482781 681984 Lower 600 470 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G12 EG G12 18.839 482794 680670 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G13 EG G13 18.839 482801 679348 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G14 EG G14 18.839 482806 678021 Lower 700 54B Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G16 EG G16 18.839 482671 697908 Lower 1000 783 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G17 EG G17 18.639 482654 699276 Lower 1000 783 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G18 EG G18 18.839 482643 700542 Lower 1000 783 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G19 EG G19 18.839 482657 701810 Lower 1000 783 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G20 EG G20 18.839 482639 703184 Lower 1000 783 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G21 EG G21 18.839 482493 704438 Lower 700 548 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G22 EG G22 18.839 477560 689936 Lower 350 274 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G23 EG G23 18.839 477755 691318 Lower 750 588 Tamiami City of Naples Golden Gate well G24 EG G24 18.839 477542 692581 Lower 400 313 Tamiami GMPpaper 051100 Oct (2) - WelffleId Protecdon ReportOctPage 28 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper GAP- FLUE Amendment Request (CPSP-2005-16) Comment 1 An exactly two character well field identifier. 2 An exactly three character well identifier. 3 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitted well field average annual allocation in MGD for the well. 4 The NAD83 Easterly and Northerly State Planar coordinates in feet for the well. 5 The producing aquifer from which the well draws. 6 The well pump capacity in GPM. 7 Comment regarding the well. The item numbers coincide with the well data entry sequence for the software developed for this study. The well field protection pumpage for each well is than computed by the software developed for this project using the formula: where; (Eq.1) Qi = Q.(Qai'L-Q.)/1440 Q; - is the well field protection pumpage for well (i) in gallons per minute (GPM); Qw - is the SFWMD permitted well field average annual allocation in Gallons per Day; Qp - is the pump capacity of well (i) in the well field, gallons per minute (GPM); and Y-iQQ - is the summation of all well capacities in the wellfield. GMPPaper 051100 Oct (2) - WeVield Protection Rep ortOctPag e 29 of 29 Growth Management Plan Paper Item VI.E ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP-2005-15 Petition Name: THOROUGHFARE CORRIDOR PROTECTION PLANS Applicant: Nick Casalanguida, Director Collier County Transportation Planning Dept. II. LOCATION• The proposed Growth Management Plan amendment is not specific to a certain location. III. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to establish thoroughfare corridor protection and preservation planning, through related plans, maps, tables and ordinances, as follows: [Note: Current Transportation Element language appears below in plain text, the petitioner's proposed amendments are shown in strike-through/underline format.] Proposed Transportation Element Text Amendment: [page 13] OBJECTIVE 3: The County shall provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future right-of-ways. [Note: No revisions to Policies 3.1 through 3.4 are proposed.] Policy 3.5 Within one year of the effective date of this amendment. the County shall prepare and adopt a Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan (TCPP) ordinance and land development regulations that: 1. identify, in detail, corridors necessary to develop the Countv roadwav network shown on the CountVs Long Range Transportation Plan: and 2. adopt Corridor Preservation Maps, Corridor Preservation Tables, Critical Intersection Maps and Critical Intersection Tables: and 3. limit the uses of land within the required corridor: and 4. provide for an annual update of all necessary maps and tables: and EAC Meeting of November 7, 2007 CPSP-2005-15 Page 2 of 6� 5. provide for an approval process by the Board of County Commissioners for new ^ or expanded corridors and intersections: and 6. provide a process for advanced reservation donation dedication or anv other means of conveyance by an affected property owner to the County for land included within protected areas. For the purposes of this Policy, protected thoroughfares shall include: 1. the required corridors on either side of the center line of an existing or planned roadway: or 2. required corridors for roadway or alternative transportation networks for which no centerline has been established: or 3. corridors for future roadways or alternative transportation networks which have been identified through corridor studies: or 4. protected areas at critical intersections including but not limited to proposed grade separated intersections. All of the above must be consistent with the currently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan and Chapter 336.02 of the Florida Statues Policy 3.6 In the event of any type of right-of-way acquisition or reservation for all purposes included for the construction of transportation facilities by any federal state or local transportation department authority or agency, the requirements for buffering native vegetation retention -^ preserve. setback and open space and/or any other requirements set forth in the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code that would be affected by such right-of-way acauisition or reservation may be reduced modified or eliminated as a result of the acquisition or protection activities. Such reductions modifications or eliminations shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Any modifications or reductions that conflict with any other requirements of the Growth Management Plan must be brought to the Board of County Commissioners for interpretation and approval This proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment does not involve adopting the Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan, a Transportation Corridor Preservation Map, Corridor Preservation Tables, Critical Intersection Tables or Ordinances, themselves. This GMPA does however, establish the means for preparing, adopting and updating these items consistent with Florida Statutes, as separate documents at later dates. IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Transportation Element: The Transportation Element goal to "plan for, develop and operate a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system that provides for both the motorized and non -motorized movement of people and goods throughout the County" is followed by the working objective to "provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future rights -of -way". GiCanpr*WWVMCWM. R=wq GIB DATAICwW No AmendmKdsIZ00B Pelkm CPSP-20 IS FLUE-TE Wndw ftbdm planri 0CPV-WI5 EAC SWff Repwt-Aftft.dw EAC Meeting of November 7, 2007 Page 3 of 6 CPSP-2005-15 Policy 3.1 indicates that the County has "implemented [and maintains] an advanced Right -of -Way Preservation and Acquisition Program". The proposed amendments for additional Policies in the Transportation Element further these efforts by identifying the corridors where rights -of -way and roadways will eventually be located, in accordance with a Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan (TCPP). V. MAJOR ISSUES: The Comprehensive Planning staff has no major issues concerning CPSP-2005-15. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued their Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on October 8, 2007, in which an Objection was raised, stating, "[t]his policy does not establish meaningful and predictable standards to guide the selection and acquisition of future transportation corridors in environmentally sensitive areas. It does not ensure the protection of natural resources which is inconsistent with the state requirement to appropriately plan for the location of land uses in order to ensure the protection of natural resources, and direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive resources such as wetlands and wildlife habitat." The DCA followed these statements with a Recommendation to, "[r]evise Policy 3.6 to establish meaningful predictable guidelines and standards to be implemented during the acquisition of the 10—N right-of-way, and ensuring that the standards for the protection of natural resources are not compromised in the process of right-of-way acquisition." Please see the attached ORC Report (cover letter and pages 2 and 3). The DCA separately indicated their findings regarding the amendment's Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, stating, "[t]he proposed amendment does not adequately address and further the State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (163.3177(9)): Natural Systems and Recreational Lands Goal (9) (a), Policy 1, 3., 4., regarding the protection of wildlife habitat (see objections above); Land Use Goal (15)(a) and Policy (b)6., regarding the regulation of land uses (see objections above)" The DCA followed these statements with a Recommendation to, "[r]evise the proposed amendment, as indicated in the objections and recommendations of this report, in order to be consistent with the goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan." Please see the attached ORC Report (cover letter and pages 2 and 3). The Comprehensive Planning staff and Transportation Planning staff have considered the Department of Community Affairs' Objections and Recommendations and revised CPSP-2005-15 accordingly. Revisions have been made to clarify Policy 3.6 to indicate that the language applies only to the expansion of existing facilities. Currently, when a transportation entity expands existing �\ facilities they are at times making the remaining land nonconforming. The issue can have ramifications to the property owner and can increase the cost and hardship to both the property owner and the entity expanding the facility. G:1Caopr *WvW,Ww. Plaiting %V DATACAM. Plan kWndnema1M P6ftwiCPSP US-15 FLUE-iE Candor RWW1M MWAMlCPSP-W15 EAC StdF Report-Ad*1Wdoe EAC Meeting of November 7, 2007 CPSP-2005-15 Page 4 of 6 Revisions have also been made to Policy 3.5 and 3.6 to provide additional language assuring the new provisions are consistent with the State requirement to appropriately plan for the location of land uses in order to ensure the protection of natural resources, and direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive resources such as wetlands and wildlife habitat. Together these clarifications should alleviate the concerns of DCA as they are written to eliminate the possibility that existing and future facilities will not adequately address the concerns addressed in the ORC Report. [Note: Current Transportation Element language appears below in plain text, the proposed amendments as transmitted to DCA are shown in single strike-through/underline format, and the proposed amendments responding to the ORC Report are shown in double strike- through/underline format. Proposed Transportation Element Text Amendment: [page 13] OBJECTIVE 3: The County shall provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future right-of-ways. [Note: No revisions to Policies 3.1 through 3.4 are proposed.] Policy 3:5 Within one year of the effective date of this amendment the County shall prepare and adopt a Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan (TCPP) ordinance and land development regulations that: 1. identify, in detail, corridors necessary to develop the County roadwav network shown on the County's Long Range Transportation Plan: and 2. adopt Corridor Preservation Maps Corridor Preservation Tables Critical Intersection Maps and Critical Intersection Tables: and 36 limit the uses of land within the required corridor appropriately plan for the location of land uses and direst incompatible land uses awzy from environmentally sensitive resource : and 46 provide for an annual update of all necessary maps and tables; and 5e provide for an approval process by the Board of County Commissioners for new or expanded corridors and intersections: and 68 provide a process for advanced reservation donation dedication or anv other means of conveyance by an affected property owner to the County for land included within protected areas. For the purposes of this Policy protected thoroughfares shall include: 1. the required corridors on either side of the center line of an existing or planned roadway: or 2s required corridors for roadway or alternative transportation networks for which no centerline has been established: or 3a corridors for future roadways or alternative transportation networks which have been identified through corridor studies: or C-T- p*-WWC-V. P1 dq GW DATA%Cw* Plan Mw dyw&-M PeNonstM-XGS•15 FLUE-TE Ca rw" R*CBon PWronglCPS -Wl5 EAC Staff ReW-Adopion.doc PAC Meeting of November 7, 2007 Page 5 of 6 CPSP-2005-15 4. protected areas at critical intersections including but not limited to proposed grade separated intersections. All of the above must be consistent with the currently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan and Chapter 336.02 of the Florida Statues. Policy 3.6 In the event of anv type of right-of-wav acquisition or reservation for all purposes included expansion of existing transportation facilities by any federal, state, or local transportation department, authority, or agency, the requirements for buffering, native vegetation retention, preserve, setback and open space and/or any other requirements set forth in the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code that would be affected by such right-of-way acquisition or reservation may be reduced, modified or eliminated as a result of the acquisition or protection activities an a=rdanm with standards established for the orotectoon o natural resources. To ensure the protection of natural resources and direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive resources, such reductions, modifications or eliminations shall be guided by these standards as well as the priorities set forth in tbe Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Capital Improvement Element for riaht-of-way acquisition and brouaht to eeefeyed-lW the Board of County Commissioners for consideration and approval. Any modifications or reductions that conflict with any other requirements of the Growth Manaaement Plan must be brouaht to the Board of Countv Commissioners for interpretation and approval. If an Objection is not adequately addressed when adopted, then the DCA may (presumably will) find the amendment to be "Not in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. VI. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. VII, RECOMMENDATIONS: Comprehensive Planning staff and Transportation Planning staff have collaborated to address the Objections raised by the Department of Community Affairs and follow its Recommendations. Staff believes the above -recommended revisions are appropriate and satisfactory responses to the ORC Report and recommends approval of CPSP-2005-15 as revised above. G:Cw pehansiv ZwV. PW=%Glut DATA1Ceim Plan AmendmeMsWW Pelons%CPP-2DD5-15 FLUE-TE Candor ftWon P WmngXCPSP-W15 EAC Stall ROW-Adop§wdoe EAC Meeting of November 7, 2007 CPSP-2005-15 Page 6 of 6 PREPARED BY: CORBY SCHMIDT, PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEWED ,BY: w - 10-3a.o7 DAVID C.WEEKS, AICP DATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING MANAGER J4 A RANDALL CO N, AICP DATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DIRECTOR WILLIAM D. L' RENZ, Jr., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, DIRECTOR Approd as to form a legal sufficiency 10 DATE Jeff E. ri , Assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: 2 t 7 H KISCHMITT DATE OMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Petition No.: CPSP-2005-15 C: SUSAN ESTENES, AICP, ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR G:1ComprehensivelComp. Planning GMP DATAIComp. Plan ArnendmentQ005 PetitlonslCPSP-2005.15 FLUE-TE Corridor Proleclon PlanrdnXPSP-05-15 EAC Staff Report. Adoption.doc STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM Governor Secretary October 8, 2007 The Honorable James Coletta Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Coletta: The Department has completed the review of the proposed amendment to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan (DCA No. 07-2), which was received on August 7, 2007. Based on Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (FS), we have prepared the attached report that outlines our findings concerning the amendment. It is important that the County address the issues set forth in our review report so that they can be resolved prior to adoption. Within the next 60 days, the County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. We have also included a copy of local, regional and state agency comments for n your consideration. For your assistance, our report outlines procedures for final adoption and transmittal. The proposed Amendment (DCA No. 07-2) involves several changes to the comprehensive plan. The Department is concerned about Amendment CPSP-2005-14 involving changes to the Sending Lands designation of the adopted Future Land Use Map as well as the changes to the Transportation Element. The Department is committed to working closely with the County in responding to our Report. We will continue our collaborative efforts to ensure that the final product is one that can serve the best interest of the County while addressing the requirements of State Law. Please, feel free to call Bernard O. Piawah at 850-922-1810, if you have any questions. Yours sincerely, Mike McDaniel Chief, Comprehensive Planning MM/bp Enclosures: Review Agency Comments n cc: Mr. David Crawford, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100 Phone: 850-488-8466/SUNCOM 278-8466 Fax: 850-921-0781/SUNCOM 291-0781 Website: wwwAca.state.fl.us COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: 850488-235G/SUNCOM 278.2356 Phone: 305.289-2402 Phone: 850-488.79561SUNCOM 278.7956 Fax: 850.488-3309/5UNCOM 278-3309 Fax: 305-289.2442 Fax 850-922-56231SUNCOM 292-5623 Mr. Randy Cohen, Collier County Planning Department. TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES Upon receipt of this letter, Collier County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine not to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, Collier County must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the plan, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted plan directly to the Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Please, be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., which were effective July 1, 2001, and providing a model sign -in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted plan for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2 October 8, 2007 Division of Community Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C. INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the Collier County proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Codes (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The objections include a recommendation of an approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. The County should address each of these objections when the plan is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections that are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items that the County considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement, justifying its non -applicability, pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments that follow the objections and recommendations are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: 07-2 COLLIER COUNTY I. CONSISTENCY WITH RULE 9J-5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (F.A.C), & CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES (F.S.) Introduction: Collier County's proposed Amendment (DCA No. 07-2) involves changes to the Future Land Use Map and the text of the Future Land Use and Transportation Elements. The Department has identified the following objections the amendments. OBJECTIONS 1. CPSP-2005-14: Change From Sending Lands to Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands Parcels #3 to #10: The County is proposing to re -designate some properties located in North Bellle Meade (Parcels #3 to #10 in the County's list) from Sending Lands to Neutral Lands. The amendment would allow encroachment of development into an area that provides habitat for a variety of wildlife, including the Florida Black Bear and Florida Panther. That encroachment would compromise the environmental integrity and values of the North Belle Meade (NBM) Sending lands. These lands have the same environmental attributes as the other NBM Sending lands; to approve a change from Sending Land designation to Neutral Land designation would jeopardize the preservation of this area as a wildlife habitat. Parcels 36-41, 95 and 96: The County is proposing to re -designate these parcels from Sending Land designation to Receiving Land designation. According to the information provided, the northern 42.69-acres of the subject site are developed, and the southern 10.37-acres are undeveloped, densely vegetated, and contain jurisdictional wetlands. While the northern 42.69-acres that is already developed, may not support wildlife, the southern portion of the property is still undeveloped and has intact native vegetation which has the potential to support wildlife. The southern portion of the property has the same characteristics as the properties on the west, east and south of the site that are also designated Sending Lands. Although, endangered species were not found on the site, according to the information provided, these species have the potential to locate on the site. Florida panthers and Black bear telemetry information provided show that these mammals have been located in the vicinity of the site. In light of this information, the designation of this property as Sending Lands especially in the case of the southern portion was appropriate. No information has been provided to refute the Sending Land designation in the case of the southern portion of the site. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), & (d), & (8), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)4., & (3)(c)6., and 9J-5.013(2)(c)3., 5, & 6., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C)]. Recommendation: The Department recommends that the Sending Lands designation for Parcels #3 to #10 be retained because that site is a part of the general area with native vegetation and has the potential to support wildlife which is consistent with the intent of the Sending Lands designation. With respect to Parcels 36-41, and 95 to 96 the Department recommends that the southern portion of the subject site be retained in Sending Land designation. 2. CPSP-2005-15: Transportation Element: The County is proposing to add Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 to the Transportation Element in order to preserve future transportation corridors. Policy 3.6 states: "In the event of any type of right-of-way acquisition or reservation for all purposes included for the construction of transportation facilities by any federal, state, or local transportation department, authority, or agency the requirement for buffering, native vegetation retention, preserve, setback, and open space and/or any other requirements set forth in the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code that would be affected by such right-of-way acquisition or reservation may be reduced, modified or eliminated as a result of the acquisition or protection activities." n This policy does not establish meaningful and predictable standards to guide the selection and acquisition of future transportation corridors in environmentally sensitive areas. It does not ensure the protection of natural resources which is inconsistent with the state requirement to appropriately plan for the location of uses in order to ensure the protection of natural resources, and direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive resources such as wetlands and wildlife habitat. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), (b), & (d), & (8), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(6); 9J- 5.006(3)(b)4., & (3)(c)6., and 9J-5.013(2)(c) 6., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 3.6 to establish meaningful predictable guidelines and standards to be implemented during the acquisition of right-of- way, and ensuring that the standards for the protection of natural resources are not compromised in the process of right-of-way acquisition. H. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment does not adequately address and further the State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (163.3177(9):) 2 Natural Systems and Recreational Lands Goal (9)(a), Policy 1, 3., 4., regarding the protection of wildlife habitat (see objections above); Land Use Goal (15)(a) and Policy (b)6., regarding the regulation of land uses (see objections above); Recommendation: Revise the proposed amendment, as indicated in the objections and recommendations of this report, in order to be consistent with the above goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. 3 Item VI.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF November 7, 2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP-2005-14 Petition Name: RFMUD Sending Lands Re -designation Requests (Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department) [Adoption hearing] Applicant: Multiple — the owners of 20 properties (please see attached spreadsheet identifying property owners and agents) II. LOCATION• This petition consists of 20 properties comprising ±283 acres. They are located in the following Sections -Townships -Ranges and general areas: 10"11, Section Twv RN Area 34 47 27 2 miles N-NW of Fairgrounds 3 48 27 1.75 miles N-NW of Fairgrounds 29 49 27 2 miles N of I-75 in North Belle Meade 13 49 27 3 miles N of I-75 in North Belle Meade 15,21 51 27 N-NW of US41/CR92 intersection III. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The attached staff report for the February 7, 2007 EAC meeting provides the complete background and project description for this petition. In short, this is an amendment applicable to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands located along the border of Sending/Receiving or Sending/Neutral boundaries, for which each property owner had an opportunity to submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of June 19, 2002, the date the Rural Fringe GMP amendments were adopted, the property did not contain characteristics to warrant designation as Sending Lands. A copy of the property owner submittals is attached. In February and March of 2007, at Transmittal hearings, the EAC considered the complete, original submittal comprised of 90 parcels (96 were submitted but 6 were withdrawn). The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County A01ON Commissioners (BCC) also considered the complete submittal, but the BCC only approved 20 parcels for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) et al for preliminary review for statutory compliance. The attached, previously EAC Meeting 2/7/07 ,,- N referenced, spreadsheet identifies each of those 20 tax parcels; their location; staffs recommendation and rationale, as well as the recommendation of EAC and CCPC — all at Transmittal hearings; and other information. The attached two maps identify those same 20 parcels. The DCA issued their Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on October 8, 2007, in which an Objection was raised pertaining to two properties — two sets of parcels (see below). If an Objection is not adequately addressed when adopted, then DCA may (presumably will) find the amendment not in compliance with Chapter 163, F.S. If that occurs, the non -compliant amendment does not become effective, and an administrative hearing process begins. Attached, as part of the ORC Report package from DCA, is correspondence DCA received from the Florida Wildlife Federation pertaining to map parcels 3-10. ORC Report OBJECTIONS: 1. CPSP-20OS-14: Change From Sending Lands to Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands Parcels #3 to # 10: The County is proposing to re -designate some properties located in North Belle Meade (Parcels #3 to # 10 in the County's list) from Sending Lands to Neutral Lands. The amendment would allow encroachment of development into an area that provides habitat for a .01"N variety of wildlife, including the Florida Black Bear and Florida Panther. That encroachment would compromise the environmental integrity and values of the North Belle Meade (NBM) Sending lands. These lands have the same environmental attributes as the other NBM Sending lands; to approve a change from Sending Land designation to Neutral Land designation would jeopardize the preservation of this area as a wildlife habitat. Parcels 36-41, 95 and 96: The County is proposing to re -designate these parcels from Sending Land designation to Receiving Land designation. According to the information provided, the northern 42.69-acres of the subject site are developed, and the southern 10.37-acres are undeveloped, densely vegetated, and contain jurisdictional wetlands. While the northern 42.69-acres that is already developed, may not support wildlife, the southern portion of the property is still undeveloped and has intact native vegetation which has the potential to support wildlife. The southern portion of the property has the same characteristics as the properties on the west, east and south of the site that are also designated Sending Lands. Although, endangered species were not found on the site, according to the information provided, these species have the potential to locate on the site. Florida panthers and Black bear telemetry information provided show that these mammals have been located in the vicinity of the site. In light of this information, the designation of this property as Sending Lands especially in the case of the southern portion was appropriate. No information has been provided to refute the Sending Land designation in the case of the southern portion of the site. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), & (d), & (8), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J- 2 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 9J-5.005(2)(a), (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)4., & (3)(c)6., and 9J-5.013(2)(c)3., 5, & 6., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.Q. Recommendation: The Department recommends that the Sending Lands designation for Parcels #3 to # 10 be retained because that site is a part of the general area with native vegetation and has the potential to support wildlife which is consistent with the intent of the Sending Lands designation. With respect to Parcels 36-41, and 95 to 96 the Department recommends that the southern portion of the subject site be retained in Sending Land designation. County Response to ORC Report The County may respond to the ORC Report in one of four ways at Adoption: 1. not modem the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the amendment is about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DCA simply does not understand/has misunderstood the amendment] and/or provide additional data and analysis to support the amendment; or 2. modify the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or, 3. modify the amendment, and provide additional explanation and/or provide additional data and analysis; or, 4. not adopt the amendment. Man Parcels 3-10 Staffs Transmittal recommendation not to approve re -designation is unchanged (EAC & CCPC had same recommendation). The applicant's data does not constitute compelling evidence that the property was inappropriately designated as Sending Lands on June 19, 2002, when the Rural Fringe amendments were adopted. Though portions of the site have been [lawfully] cleared since that date, this is not relevant for this particular GMP amendment process. If the County does not follow DCA's recommended action, there is the risk of a non-compliance determination by DCA. Map Parcels 36-41, 95, 96 Staffs review of the ORC Report yields that DCA mistakenly included two parcels (97 and 98) that were requested for re -designation along with parcels 36-41, 95 and 96, but that were not approved for Transmittal. Therefore, rather than 10+ acres of land that is "undeveloped, densely vegetated, and contain jurisdictional wetlands," there are ±3.7 acres of vegetated land. On a lesser point, agency jurisdictional wetland determinations have not been made; rather, the data submitted by the property owner's environmental consultant identified potential jurisdictional wetland delineations (for ±3.49 acres of the ±3.7 acres). In considering whether to maintain the Transmittal recommendation to re -designate the entire property to Neutral Lands, or to acquiesce to DCA's recommendation to leave the vegetated [southeasterly ±3.7 acres] portion of the site (portion of parcel 96) as Sending Lands, staff notes the following points. Re -designate Entire Site as Neutral: EAC Meeting 2/7/07 + The ±3.7 acres that contain [native] vegetation represent 37% of the +10-acre parcel 96, or 8% of the ±45-acre site (all 8 parcels combined). In 2002, one general guideline applied to determine property designation was the percentage of native vegetation present. Sending Lands had a threshold of >80% and Receiving Lands had a 15% threshold. + If the site was re -designated as Neutral Lands, it would be subject to Policy 6.1.2b. in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, which states "A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area, shall be preserved." Therefore, if non-agricultural development was proposed, 2.22 acres (60%) of the ±3.7 acres would have to be preserved, and 1.48 acres (40%) could be cleared — unless prohibited by state or federal agency requirements. This 1.48 acres is de minimis. Re -designate All But +3.7 Acres as Neutral: - In the original designation of Sending/Receiving/Neutral Lands, the County originally, and generally thereafter, did not consider property lines, rather followed habitat boundaries. DCA is recommending just that — follow habitat boundaries rather than property boundaries. - As part of this very petition, the County has recommended and approved at Transmittal, following habitat boundaries rather than property boundaries such that portions of a property contain different designations (map parcels 2, 91, 92). - If the County does not follow DCA's recommended action, there is the risk of a '^ non-compliance determination by DCA. IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re -designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends: • map parcels 1, 2, 91 and 92 be re -designated from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, as approved for Transmittal by the BCC; • map parcels 36-41 and 95 be re -designated from Sending Lands to Neutral Lands, as approved for Transmittal by the BCC; • map parcel 96 be re -designated from Sending Lands to Neutral Lands, as approved for Transmittal by the BCC, EXCEPT for the southeasterly ±3.7 acres; and, • map parcels 3-10 not be re -designated, rather remain as Sending Lands. 4 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department REVIEWED BY: 1-fid" Randall Cohen, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department William D. Lorenz,`Ir., P.R , Director Environmental Services Department APPROVED BY: K. Schmitt, Administrator znity Development & Environmental Services Division A-1 3 c> G -7 Date 1b Date /C) -,�3U - 0 Z Date /0 30 0 Date EAC Staff Report CPSP-05-14 Sending Lands Re -designation - Adoption G: Comprehensive/Comp. Planning GMP DATA/Comp. Plan Amendments/2005 Petitions/CPSP-2005-14, Sending Lands Re -designation dw/10-30-07 5 C O u V Q m N _ m l6 � C C C U. R w N U 2 a °� c 0 c V Q E w O N N O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N O O O c C c C c c c c N N N O 0 N N N a) (D 4) m N T T T T T T T T T T T T C N cn co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cn O N T 47 T N T N T O T N T N T O T O T N T N T N T N T O T N T O T N T N T N T O T N Q m C R c LL N N N 0 O O O O O O O N N N N N 0 N N N N N 0. 0 T 0 T c c c c c c C c a)O T T N T N T N T T> N O T N T N T tC O U • U N N O c O O O O O O O N mom N N N woo N N N N N N C T T c c c C c c c T T T T T T a) T N T N T d T W F- E N N O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N O 0` N d C c c c c c c c N N N N N N O N O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2� 2 2 2 2 2 Q m m m m m m m m l4 m m m m m m m m Z z z z Z z z Z r2 0 C 0 C� Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z c LL �= Z- �� C C C C C C C N S o N 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 N d N O O d N N o N moo N N N 0N N O N N N U N U N U N U N U N U N U N U N U N U N w Z Z Z Z Z Z ZIZI X w1frIm W W of it W 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 c Q Q O a LL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a s c C '_ w� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w w ..=:) CZZ ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ ZZ to r2 p� O m m m m m m m m Ol m m 'X LL I c c C C C C C C C C C C c c C C C C C ul y v v 10 a o a 10 10 10 a s o o o a a a o C C c C c c c c c c c C C C C C c c C c 0.0 (n(n N (n(n(ncntoInwcn O N N o N O N N (nto(nwto(n(n(n N O O O N N N N wN N n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N ~ MMOM 0) 0) m m m m m m to to M O M V R m m � a c 2 e2 M M M M M M O) D) O O O) O O O cf co r- N e-- N N N N N N N N M to o otn to to to to otno to to to to to wao vco CD rn to COto � Q M x LL) V to N m n O M 00 O"T co O k tom �- O M 0 O C) C) O C)O O O CD O O O O O O V O O L 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c O O O CD O O O O O O C)O O O O O C) O C) 00 C)_0 O E [Y N NWOMONOM V t0 0 M M O M N M (O v N tfj o N W n O N 000 -It U. 3 `- O) O O) O O O O O 00 .- O O) O O O O 00 n M N m Z to O O O O O O O O O N N N N Cl) (o N o O n n N N N N N N Cl) CO Cl) M Cl) M m M M N M N y== J J J J J J J J Q O O O D U U U L Q Q O O O O O O O O J J J h >+ C �. c :D w w « :a y J J J J J .= a co co 'tr> N '6 N N N N .m. N N N V7 N N N N N N N`�- � n Q E Q E w w w w w w w w E E E E E E E E o o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m co 0 N N N 0 0 0 O LL U_ LL LL LL LL LL LL E Q N a R LL' C Cc� C a(p C ccpp c y •i O-CO C c �C(pp U U U � U co U U U �O O a co J C 0 C 0 c 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 c 0 C 0 C O tV Q L L L L L= L L 0 0 0 N N 0 d 0 al c Q Q Q n n a n a a a a E E E E E E E E ca m p �� >1>1>1>1>1>1>1>1 QQ¢QQQQ¢ UU U) U) U) U) U) U) U) co m` e- N M to Co n tp O O M co M g � M v C O) W a O m O w O c0 E c 0 c L.. N O m C C 0) m C E T � O Y � @ E E C O E m U c H N f- a) 0 m o > N 0 0 0 D > a a m c m � n C E ±1 c E m N E a o E o o a o na. m m (D m m 0 3 0 QN N N _O M U O Lo n ) NO N O N O o 0 0 + � +) CD y N O N m C m C O O -0 O C -0C 0 Q Q O LL O LL 0 0 N N � W O >, c Item VI.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING F February 7, 2007 J i I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP-2005-14 Petition Name: RFMUD Sending Lands Re -designation Requests (Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department) [Transmittal hearing] Applicant: Multiple — the owners of 96 properties (please see attached spreadsheet identifying property owners and agents) II. LOCATION: This petition consists of 96 properties comprising +3,641 acres. They are located in the following Sections -Townships -Ranges and general areas: Section Twn Rng Area 34 47 27 2 miles N-NW of Fairgrounds 3 48 27 1.75 miles N-NW of Fairgrounds 11 48 26 2 miles N of CR951/Immokalee Rd. intersection 25 49 26 2 miles E of CR951 in North Belle Meade 29,32 49 27 N of I-75 in North Belle Meade 13, 14, 22, 27 49 27 N of I-75 in North Belle Meade NRPA 15,21 51 27 N-NW of US41/CR92 intersection III. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) a/k/a comprehensive plan to establish the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and related Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for +73,000 acres designated on the countywide Future Land Use Map as Agricultural/Rural and generally located between the Golden Gate Estates subdivision and the coastal urban area. The RFMUD consists of Sending Lands, Receiving Lands, and Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are so designated because, at the landscape scale (not site - specific parcel by parcel scale), they contain lands of higher environmental value — wetlands, listed species habitat, etc. Accordingly, allowable land uses are greatly restricted and native vegetative retention standards are stringent (80%). The desire EAC Meeting 2/7/07 n is for these lands not to be developed and instead transfer (send) the residential development rights from these Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, lands possessing lesser environmental value and where development is directed and encouraged. Each of the 96 subject parcels is designated RFMUD Sending Lands, though five are partially Receiving Lands as well, and some are also within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and/or the North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay; and, each is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use zoning overlay and some are in the NRPA and/or NBM zoning overlays. During the public hearings in 2002, many owners of proposed (and now -designated) Sending Lands asserted their property had been previously cleared or otherwise did not warrant the Sending Lands designation. Recognizing this possibility — it was made well-known that the designations were based upon landscape scale analysis, but also that allowing Receiving or Neutral Lands designations to be surrounded by Sending Lands designations (Swiss cheese concept — holes of Receiving or Neutral Lands within Sending Lands) was not acceptable, the BCC included a GMP provision giving a one year window in which owners of Sending Lands property that share a boundary with either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands could submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of the date of adoption of the RFMUD (June 19, 2002), the Sending Lands designation was not warranted. Also, staff would re-evaluate the data used in 2002 (panther telemetry data, red -cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat data, land cover classification data, etc.) to determine the boundaries of Sending Lands. Please see the GMP provision below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD Sending Lands "11. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land/Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site speck environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map." During the allotted one year period, twelve submittals were received comprised of 98 parcels (but only 96 are under consideration as two are already designated Neutral Lands). The total acreage of these 96 parcels is ±3,641 though that includes 2 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 includes roughly 1,245 acres of Receiving Lands as five parcels have split Sending/Receiving Lands designations, leaving about 2,400 acres of actual Sending Lands. Per BCC direction in October 2005, contiguous parcels under the same ownership are to be viewed as a single property for purposes of determining if the property is contiguous to Receiving or Neutral Lands. However, in viewing the submitted data and analysis for purpose of determining the appropriateness of Sending Lands designation, each tax parcel is viewed separately. Given that the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate the Sending Lands designation is not warranted, staff's approach is to look for conclusive evidence. Most of the submittals simply verify the existence of native vegetation on the subject parcels. The attached spreadsheet identifies each tax parcel, its location, staffs recommendation and rationale, and other information. As noted on the spreadsheet, and on the two maps identifying the 96 parcels, staff is recommending only 20 parcels be re -designated from Sending Lands to Neutral or Receiving Lands. These 20 parcels are highlighted on the spreadsheet, and outlined in red on the maps. A neighborhood information meeting for this petition was held on January 17, 2007. A summary of the meeting is attached. One issue unrelated to the submitted data and its evaluation pertains to authorization of property owners for their property to be submitted and evaluated in this process. Some agents have submitted a notarized letter of authorization to demonstrate they have the legal authority to represent the owners of the subject parcels for which they have submitted data and are requesting a re -designation; however, some have not — and may not have been previously advised by staff of the need to do so. (The owners of one property listed under the agent Don Lester/15,000 Coalition recently met with staff and advised they never granted authorization to that agent or any other to represent them in this process.) Only a property owner or their authorized agent may petition the County to request a GMP amendment. Therefore, staff will advise all agents and property owners for which a notarized letter of authorization has not been provided, of the need to do so; failure to provide such a letter will likely result in the affected properties being withdrawn from this GMP amendment requesting re -designation. Finally, a GMP amendment such as this would ordinarily be evaluated for impacts upon infrastructure, effect upon the TDR program, compatibility considerations, etc. However, amendment is being reviewed only under the specific criteria established in the FLUE and stated above, as it is a special provision authorized by the BCC in the 2002 Rural Fringe GMP amendments (which were subsequently AIIN found to be in compliance with state statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). 3 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re -designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Please see the attached, previously referenced, spreadsheet for staff recommendations. PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date Comprehensive Planning Department REVIEWED BY: Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist Date Environmental Services Department William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E., Director Date Environmental Services Department APPROVED BY: Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services Division Date EAC Staff Report CPSP-05-14 Sending Lands Re -designation G: Comprehensive/Comp. Planning GMP DATAIComp. Plan Amendments/2005 Petitions/CPSP-2005-14, Sending Lands Re -designation Dw/1-01-07 4 MAP P R orxAly */�z MANAGEMENT January 21, 2004 Mr. Mac Hatcher Community Development and Environmental Services Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Determination of Sending and Receiving lands relative to parcel numbers 770120003 and 751440003. Dear Mac; Thank you for taking the time to meet with me in December regarding the disposition of two portions of parcels owned by West Florida Agro, Ltd. (WFA Land Co.) in the southern portion of the Rural Fringe Assessment Area. You may recall from our discussion that po_rtg�s of two parcels, (Folio Nos. 770120003 and 751440003) were designat dlas Sending lands during the Rural Fringe Assessment. Those areas are identified on exhibit 1 (attached) and on a copy of the map the property owner received titled "Your Parcel Locations", also attached. The property owner is requesting a re-evaluation of the two identified portions of these parcels and believes they were mistakenly identified as "Sending" when they should be designated as "Receiving" Lands. The approximate location of the dividing line between Sending and Receiving lands is shown on an aerial (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the two areas are shown in greater detail on two aerials, exhibits 2 and 3. In both cases, closer scrutiny indicates that the areas do not consist of native vegetation, but are part of the active agriculture operation that has been occurring on -site for decades. More specifically, both areas are ditched and diked and are used as impoundment areas for water that is both pumped onto and extracted from the land. The stark contrast between the two agricultural areas identified and the adjacent un-impacted lands is quite clear on the attached exhibits. I took photos of the area, but the height of the berms and the difficulty of crossing the canals made them of marginal use. I would however be happy to accompany you or one of the environmental staff on a site visit to confirm that the areas are in use and do not represent in any way a native landscape worthy of designation as a "Sending Area". Phone: 239-262-6197 Fax: 239-262-6198 • Email: TalonManagement@earNink.net Office Address: 3898 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 202, Naples, FL 34103• Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9229, Naples, FL 34101 Please review this information and contact me with any questions. We are �-. currently trying to work with the Public Works Department to assist them in determining appropriate locations for water and wastewater treatment facilities in addition to wells for extraction of potable water. An expeditious review of this matter would assist us greatly in meeting their requested timeframe with regard to the future location of public facilities. Once I have a written recommendation from you, I will submit it with a cover letter to Glenn Heath with a formal request for a change in designation. Sincerely, Talon Management, Inc. 7,* A iw� Tim Hancock, AICP President Cc: Peter Dessak, WFA Land Co. (w/ attachments) Marlene McLaughlin, Collier County Utilities (w/o attachments) .-� 4-4 o O o EL 2 w i GGn K� Mt 101 µ O ''y:\... ., i 5r '1..,��.. Y `•.� {��. ��: '. �' J� 'hf ( y.4 j�i,:" - 'Ul -ow 4� :v ,x�+�, :�. t: �. Sijj�,} Y-� �i +: .�� �S�^• `"^ I���.`" `r r f .�lM q � Inll �/� 3 ._.�. �".:�`<_cc t. -� I i _. ..yt! - .- f �, C, �.*,'�.' v `•'Jr. x � (4x y. ¢I �. __. J--�-'•' .' r,�---. I. i ate_.-�—'f l 't t`• '`. -jy V 34 cm I N : r e VOE ui 16 r ' -_-�=_, t�t�y+ -. _ — __ = , y• °". �..1 .t'�L, ail` . K - % a a m Wo 71 CV) E EL X t=.: Uj ti- . . . ....... Olt Al Locations Wed 0 SDO 1,600 3.2D0 reded Sv CDES Gractdm Gig DJPmkCtSJPbnnemRmFfinw SXI 1 indMW IGW /4'1'If P GOODLETTE COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .._ :vin G. Coleman � . Go Coleman Dudley ne Northern Trust Bank Building Kenneth R. Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail North Richard D. Yovanovich Naples, Florida 34103 Harold J. Webre, III (941) 435-3535 Edmond E. Koester (941) 435-1218 Facsimile Linda C. Brinkman Craig D. Grider Gregory L. Urbancic Matthew L. Grabinski Ryan H. Stephens Writer's e-mail December 19, 2003 Stan Litsinger, AICP Director, Comprehensive Planning Department Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Clark Properties Folio Numbers: 00299800008 and 00300880001 Wetland, Vegetation Communities and Listed Species Assessment Dear Mr. Litsinger: ® IS ryovai� 1o�;ich@gcjlawcorn Via U.S. Mail Enclosed please find the Wetland, Vegetation Communities and Listed Species Assessment for the above referenced properties. Mr. Clark would like his property redesignated to "neutral land" based upon the enclosed information. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, 0_01t� Richard D. Yovanovich -- RDY:smc Enclosure 'ADATA\W PDATAILITIGATE\CIark112-19-031itsinger.doc CLARI NORx$ BELLE MEADE l. WETLAND; VEGETATION CONMONITIES, ANb LISTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT MY y- -2002 Prepared or:- . Mr. Ball Clark . 30 East Pel actin Sheet Naples, Florida 341 I: 643=2707 �By. Prepared ' Passar�llcrandA#Mates, Inwi,. U, 4575 did-Ro ale;; Suite 201 Fort 1llyers, Florida 339I9 (23 n - Project 402BIP, 757 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 VegetationCommunities.....................................................................:........................................ I Soils............................................................................................................................................... 4 JurisdictionalWetlands.................................................................................................................4 ListedSpecies ........................................................................................................................... 6 Summary....................................................................................................................................... 8 References..................................................................................................................................... 9 i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Project Location Map............................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map.............................................................................. 3 Figure3. Soils Map.............................................................................................................. 5 Figure4. USGS Quad Sheet................................................................................................. 7 ii Table 1. Table 2 Table 3. LIST OF TABLES Paae Existing Land Use and Cover Summary for the Clark -North BelleMeade Property...........................................................................................1 SoilTypes............................................................................................................. 4 SFWMD Wetland Acreages by FLUCFCS Code ................................................. 4 iii 1 LIST OF APPENDICES iJ i Page Appendix A. Aerial Photograph with FLUCFCS Overlay.....................................................A-1 [� Appendix B. Soil Descriptions........................................................... �J J l.J iv INTRODUCTION The following is a wetland, vegetation communities, and listed species assessment for the 84.12f acre Clark -North Belle Meade property located in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County (Figure 1). The property is located approximately 1.8 miles south of Golden a Gate Boulevard and 1.2 miles west of the Everglades Boulevard in Collier County. Low density residential and a nursery are located to the north, and a fruit orchard is located on the southwestern edge of the property. Forested lands are located to the east, south, and west of the property. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Vegetation mapping for the property was accomplished using a 2000 Collier County color aerial photographs. Groundtruthing of vegetation communities was conducted on March 27, 2002. The vegetation associations and land uses were mapped utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), Level III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV was used to denote exotic infestations, anthropogenic disturbances, and hydrological conditions. The FLUCFCS map was generated using AutoCAD (Version 2000) and is provided as Figure 2.. An aerial photograph with FLUCFCS overlay is provided as Appendix A. A total of eight vegetative associations and land use types (i.e., FLUCFCS Codes) were identified on the property. Table 1 summarizes the FLUCFCS Codes and provides an acreage breakdown. Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary for the Clark -North Belle Meade Property - Nil 321 Palmetto Prairie 14.18 16.9 411 Pine Flatwoods 0.27 0.3 415 Pine 18.35 21.8 4285 'Cabbage Palm, Drained 45.86 54.5 641 Freshwater Marsh 0.48 0.6 641 El Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 0.55 0.7 740 Disturbed Land 4.33 5.1 7401 Disturbed Land, H dric 0.10 0.1 TOTALS 84.12 100.0 1 i Li it 'l Kom v N.T.S. R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 4 35 36 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 GOLDEN GA E BLVD PR JEC I F L ATIO t0 91 12 7 B 9 SIC 8 9 i D, T 49 S, 1R. 27 E 7 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 1 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 w 20 21 - 0 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 �� 30 W 29 28 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 I-75 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 a PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists CLARK-NORTH BELLE MEADE PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BKM DATE: 3/18/02 2 L-Lj L--�] = = = = = = ELI F �l = LL-2 L--] � --� = = = I SOILS r The soils for the property, per the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil L] Conservation Service), are shown in Figure 3 and listed in Table 2. The "Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook (Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists 1995) lists Halopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (2); Oldsmar fine sand (16); Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum (18); Boca fine sand (21); and Hallandale and Boca fine sand (49). Soil descriptions are provided in Appendix B. Table 2. 1Soil Types 4 l 2 Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum Hydric 16 Oldsmar fine sand Non-Hydric 18 Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum Hydric 21 Boca fine sand Non-Hydric 49 Hallandale and Boca fine sand Hydric JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands were estimated in the field during the March 27, 2002 vegetation mapping. The wetlands were identified per the "Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters" (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code). Flagging of the wetland lines and confirmation with the agencies was not included within the scope of this assessment. Jurisdictional wetlands and "other surface waters" by FLUCFCS Code are summarized in Table 3. The estimated SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands for the property are shown on Figure 2. SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands constitute a. total of 1.13f acres -or 1.3 percent of the site. Table 3. SFWMD Wetland Acreages by FLUCFCS Codes or , �oi�e � Vftetl�n�s 641 Freshwater Marsh 0.48 6419 Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0-24% Brazilian Pepper) 0.55 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 0.10 Total 1.13 0 4 It appears that historically a greater portion of the property may have been wetland habitats. This is evident from the soils mapping, which depicts the majority of the property as having hydric (i.e., wetland) soil types. However, the construction of the Golden Gate Canal system appears to have effectively drained the property reducing on -site surface water levels. A large drainage canal is located within a'/2 mile of the property to the north and west (Figure 4). LISTED SPECIES A listed species survey was conducted on May 2, 2062 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state or federal listed species. The listed wildlife species survey included, but was not limited to, red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), woodstork (Mycteria americana), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and their commensals, such as the Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher frog (Rana areolata), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus �f niger avicennia), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), and Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) (FGFWFC 1997). The listed wildlife species survey included species typical to upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region. In particular, the survey was conducted to identify gopher tortoises and their burrows, as well as red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. (� The 84.12± acre tract was surveyed for wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife (J Conservation Commission (FWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The survey was conducted by a qualified ecologist walking transects through suitable habitat to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of the habitat was obtained. Transects were spaced from 25 feet to 100 feet apart, depending on habitat. Habitats were inspected for listed wildlife species. At regular intervals the ecologist stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Additional observations for listed species were conducted incidental to on -site activities associated with vegetation mapping on March 27, 2002. Gopher tortoise sign (i.e., scat) were observed within the pine flatwoods and palmetto prairie habitats during the May 2, 2002 survey. No listed wildlife species were observed on the property during the vegetation mapping conducted on March 27, 2002. The "Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies" (Runde et al. 1991) was referenced for the location of breeding colonies for both listed and non -listed wading birds including the snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron a (Egretta caerulea), woodstork, and white ibis (Eudocimus albus). There was no reference in the atlas to any breeding colonies located within or adjacent to the project site. Review of FWCC occurrence records for listed species found no records of red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees, bald eagle nests, Florida black bear telemetry points, or Florida panther telemetry points on the property. Florida black bear telemetry points were recorded just east of the property in Section 13. The nearest recorded panther telemetry points were I V2 miles to the south of the property. The property is not located in Priority 1 or Priority 2 panther habitat, as designated by the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993). J. 0 QUAD SHEETS BELLE MEADE NE USGS QUAD SHEET PHOTOREMSED 1987. PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC. FIGURE 4. USGS QUAD SHEET Consulting Ecologists CLARK-NORTH BELLE MEADE PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BKM DATE: 2/25/02 7 �1` SUMMARY r A wetland and vegetation communities assessment was conducted for the 84.12f acre Clark - North Belle Meade property. A total of eight vegetation associations and land use types were identified on the property. The dominant vegetation community is Cabbage Palm, Drained (FLUCFCS Code 4285), which occupies 54.5 percent of the property. SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands occupy 1.13t acres or 1.3 percent of the property. The property may have historically contained a greater percentage of wetlands as evidenced by the soil types; however, the adjacent canal system has effectively drained the property. Gopher tortoise sign (i.e., scat) was observed LI within the pine flatwoods and palmetto prairie habitats during the May 2, 2002 listed species survey. A review of the FWCC records found no recorded occurrences of listed wildlife species on the property. 8 0 REFERENCES Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition. Victor W. Carlisle, Ed. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1997. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 0 6 yr7ri y ,�•yrA, 'f•. �y�'�•j h� r 4 �7 1 �j, Pr1 r�`' '1a�1 ''y• `rep s r :tee i.1,? .t.�:� �•r' ' r n*.` 4 �vitJY4,44t�yQ]'R'+. *r, 3 v ''` t ,+i�"�a f,`i in r • p• t } �" �t� a : .•'.��� .� ! ��i4,� 1 , 7R . ", ,.,trip ' it'=4.' �.•! a�. }'��'• ti ,: , •• "t , 1 1. 4 �,� j`�1+A(lt '4 •�llr t. r t ;t• .`'. r )) yrc.. r'i• 1r�TMA 4 rY 4 } X '' ♦ � ,.���4 ♦ t t a'y 4 �r at :' 41 'rr- r S � .y ^ ,'. 7 r. t Y r q f Fr4 ♦ " t � a : � S �'•'ir, 1�tit w!.''a+r. titi�� `,5�:• M.a ' i ; t t'vt' ` ' '; ', �+ , �wr - w �a ° t,' ^ ' { ,� I Yjad f • :�l�''�r .� a �r" � "'rt' ii.Hj"r �p � �y4i' �YA}rt,L� �' ♦ 1 � riy-� :� �y�I f.� r �. ♦t le{rEiN7 �tr• r,r'rw_y� A r'.•+a ,u,�,,'ti \1 +���51 N��' y^rit/ {4 }�. '`• { .1,��1•11 1�+•� i��i A � �'�'. .Er �Ak"• �, Y`J Y� r.' �f::C;, i•, !�+rs ` rA Y K l � 1'rf'4 1 V ` M � o�'Z `t • 1�r' ✓, - . � *1'• T r , b• y � .�,• I R'' .� [5 �:n I �'r Are ++ ♦ r ! t '# f } • �'ha�. , T ♦�1 ! �'N. t ti. - i �„�• f`r 'tr T At ♦. •r i � I + r7 F��Sft �.�A}{ 4tM y e'N� ♦V�.: ♦i a�'* r �r •^et♦ .; a..0 ., , .. tl '�'r! 'i�"i} b � ;y., Sr" " J zhr,r� { ,{•,� �o rt"A it e,?'r r' P��r r ,h F 1{ � 1♦ r 'S 1 { kgt C�1%n,: Sd j1 r t,. r .. 1 � w_ a.•i`b.1' �' (Y�. • J '* yr„ w SM:♦f a rz'',r� r �`r . ti+, ntlr�w• i ,. t - • H C tZ 1 ✓ ;!� yt �}`�' t 1 ,y. P' . d , t �, r1`"' r r q (�,„ M,. : 4.�S R is Ytw `` Pf•' •�...'� Ir , �+ . t 4 R,w'i ' 7 �, .ds a},r �: �L.4 hr (I tv .t^ ♦ }. .1: h It r, t "�` *.�, s. tty•.,�p � r ..k4 r o~ ` � ++t'1. e�y ♦ L' yrc�trr r1i \, III Cr•{� i XR ••S i r� �`tr.t r-. , f � r �� - t -k!'a rt� � i,• ' ,J pf. • � .... C i(Y��f r � ,� � ti����'{ty,,�{' I _,,, •y u 4 i�+ /Vu't rj t {.. 41 a r` r• ♦ 71MA�d' . r�, � f<R'4iyi ` e;.f &('. i `t,�t t ,7p�n�yti ►�!;•• �0 d+.t♦ ' '� i I MA fi 1 ,•; > fPo P yl ••. r f r� •y ,kP✓ �. � v ,'T. . '� F'' 1 11•f$: rt.. t. rr � * / •r 1r�' .�t4 � r �N •; tr 1 ` ♦ % t.T k { 2Aa" RS.I'."ir y �, ". 4 k rr �%,� '1 " * �t t t• �' s '1\va W ,� * ♦ '?•tt drf / ,{ 1r , 'ti d�.. �� + ♦r,.; r A.�, ,• r t .• 1 „", Arlo i �; r th,rij'' . t4Fti :4' L w Ak111�r t.,, 1 `; ti �,. 4 �"�Tr,F•.�{Rl t c't",M Fqi 7'}'. R+r .Yi4 wI• r= t ? R�F,� ttr P' ' / ?'� f.. •' ' r• %,- P t'.`rY{ t ,:1�'"� 1, 1 „'..•'ry{,y te.'r v�y%{ Y� f+! -:.i 1U•yt . ..° L ."4 , i( +' .- Lt ,: r r i r' �1� • ;; •'.,N '4il..ia 4 i1rr { x' " ' `��1µ�I .Olt It 1 1. k��. fA• r �y�j -�, .a'. r Cr'••'f rNf'`' `rfti'r t y' .. _.1. ., �. L_� ,.. Y � �. .�'� •,. J j ,. T~. .{4�� � � M�lF11�4.�?r`�r. r.Raa+6,i."aiN'%�! FLUCFCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE % OF TOTAL 321 PALMETTO PRAIRIE 14.1E Ac 18.e% 411 PINE FLATWOODS 0.2]A., 0.3% 41S PINE 18.3EAc 21.8% 423E CABBAGE PALM, DRAINED 45.Be Ac.z 54.5% 841 FRESHWATER MARSH 0.48 841 E1 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) O.EE ]40 DISTURBED LAND a 33 Ac± S.1% 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC a 10 AO.± 0.1% TOTAL 84.12 AO.± 100.0% NOTES L� e ZeIIf -ty"tr I �, FLUCFCS UNES ESTIMATED FROM 1'=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). WETLAND UNES HAVE NOT SURVEY LOCATED AND HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY AGENCY. 2000 AERIAL PER COLUER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE. M.F.. .%+/"2 N a __ C01LS96tt9.7Lg Ecologists CLARK-NORTH BELLE MEADE PROPERTY D2BDC757 J,wV27 911GCalle Pointe Court, It. Myers, FL 33919 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS OVERLAY APPENDIX A P.A.L- a%1/"a 13/A9/9e I APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH FLUCFCS OVERLAY I I ho APPENDIX B SOIL DESCRIPTIONS wi 2-Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in sloughs and broad, poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 20 to 300 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 5 inches. thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of about 57 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer is white, and the lower part is light gray and dark grayish brown. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 62 inches. It is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 62 inches. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum, Holopaw and similar soils make up 78 to 97 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Holopaw soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Malabar, Pineda, and Riviera soils that have a limestone substratum are similar to those of the Holopaw soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Basinger, Boca, and Chobee soils in landscape positions similar to those of the Holopaw soil. These soils make up about 3 to 22 percent of the unit. The permeability of this soil is moderate to moderately slow. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slowly moving water.for about 7 days'. The natural vegetation consists of scattered areas of South Florida slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, waxmyrtle, sand cordgrass, chalky bluestem, and gulf muhly. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water -control and soil -improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit. and vegetable crops. A water -control system is needed to. remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover- crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water -control measures, the soil is moderately suited to citrus. A water -control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water -control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass -clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is well suited to range. The dominant forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Management practices should include deferred grazing. The Holopaw soil is in the Slough range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of the high water table. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the wetness, poor filtration, and the slow percolation rate. Building sites and septic tank absorption fields should be mounded to overcome these limitations. This soil also has severe limitations for recreational development because of wetness and the sandy texture. The problems associated with wetness can be corrected by providing adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control the high water table. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by resurfacing the area. This Holopaw soil is in capability subclass IVw. 16=Oldsmar fine sand This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and 0 B-1 iS I D irregular in shape, and they range from 20 to 450 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine. sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer is light gray, and the lower part is light brownish gray. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 80 inches. The upper part of the subsoil is black fine sand, the next part is very dark grayish brown fine sand, and the lower part is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Oldsmar fine sand, Oldsmar and similar soils make up 80 to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Oldsmar soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Immokalee soils are similar to those of the Oldsmar soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Malabar and Pineda soils in sloughs. These soils make up about 20 percent or less of the unit. The permeability of this soil is slow or very slow. The available water capacity is low. Natural fertility also is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is between a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. The natural vegetation consists mostly of South Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, waxmyrtle, chalky bluestem, and pineland threeawn. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. The number of adapted crops is limited unless very intensive management practices are used. With good water -control and soil improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water -control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus. A water -control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water -control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass -clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is moderately suited to range. The dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn, and chalky bluestem. Management practices should include deferred grazing and brush control. This Oldsmar soil is in the South Florida Flatwoods range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness and slow percolation. If this soil is used as a septic tank absorption field, it should be mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table. For recreational uses, this soil also has severe limitations because of wetness, slow percolation, and the sandy texture; however, with proper drainage to remove excess surface -water during wet periods, many of the effects of these limitations can be overcome. This Oldsmar soil is in capability subclass IVw. 18-Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum This nearly level, poorly drained 'soil is in sloughs and broad, poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 25 to 500 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is gray fine sand about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of about 32 inches. The upper n /_1_. U B-2 part of the subsurface layer is light brownish gray, and the lower part is light gray. The subsoil is sandy clay loam to a depth of about 54 inches. The upper part of the subsoil is grayish brown, and the lower part is dark gray. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 54 inches. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum, Riviera and similar soils make up 80 to 96 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the named soil or soils make up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Pineda soils that have a limestone substratum are similar to those of the Riviera soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Boca, Copeland, and Holopaw soils in landscape positions similar to those of the Riviera soil. These soils make up about 4 to 20 percent of the unit. The permeability of this soil is moderate to moderately rapid. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. The natural vegetation consists of scattered areas of South Florida slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, waxmyrtle, sand cordgrass, gulf muhly, blue maidencane, South Florida bluestem, and chalky bluestem. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water -control and soil -improving measures, the soil is suitable'for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water -control measures, the soil is moderately suited to citrus. A water -control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water -control management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass -clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is well suited to range. The dominant forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky bluestem, bluejoint panicum, South Florida bluestem, and gulf dune paspalum. Management practices should include deferred grazing. This Riviera soil is in the Slough range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of the high water table. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness and poor filtration. Building sites and septic tank absorption fields should be mounded to overcome these limitations. This soil also has severe limitations for recreational development because of wetness and the sandy texture. The problems associated with wetness can be corrected by providing adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control the high water table. The_ sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by resurfacing the area. This Riviera soil is in capability subclass IIIw. 21-Boca fine sand This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 20 to 350 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark gray fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a. depth of about 26 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer- is light gray, and the lower part is brown. The subsoil is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam to a depth 0 B-3 0 I of about 30 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 30 inches. In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Boca fine sand, Boca and similar soils make up 79 to 93 percent of the map unit. In the remaining areas, the Boca soil makes up either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Hallandale soils are similar to those of the Boca soil. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Pineda and Riviera, limestone substratum, soils in sloughs. These soils make up about 7 to 21 percent of the unit. The permeability of this soil is moderate. The available water capacity is very low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. The natural vegetation consists mostly of South Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, waxmyrtle, chalky bluestem, and pineland threeawn. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness and droughtiness. The number of adapted crops is limited unless very intensive management practices are used. With good water -control and soil improving measures, this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water -control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus. A water -control system that maintains good drainage' to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing when the trees are younger. With proper water management, this soil is well suited to pasture. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass -clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. This soil is moderately suited to range. The dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, pineland threeawn, and chalky bluestem. Management practices should include deferred grazing and brush control. This Boca soil is in the South Florida Flatwood range site. This soil has severe limitations for most urban uses because of the depth to bedrock and wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the shallow depth to bedrock, wetness, and poor filtration. If this soil is used as a septic tank absorption field, it should be mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table. For recreational uses, this soil also has severe limitations because of wetness and the sandy texture; however, with proper drainage to remove excess surface water during wet periods, many of the effects of these limitations can be overcome. This Boca soil is in capability subclass IIIw. 49-Hallandale and Boca fine sands These nearly level, poorly drained soils are in sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and they range from 20 to 600 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the Hallandale soil has a surface layer of very dark gray fine sand about 3 inches thick. The subsurface layer is grayish brown fine sand to a depth of about 9 inches. The subsoil is yellowish brown fine sand to a depth of about 12 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 12 inches. Typically, the Boca soil has a surface layer of very dark gray fine. sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is fine sand to a depth of about 26 inches. The upper part of the subsurface layer is light gray, and the lower part is brown. The subsoil is dark grayish brown fine sandy loam to a depth of about 30 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 30 inches. n n n 0 B-4 7 1� L Mapped areas can consist entirely of Hallandale and similar soils, entirely of the Boca soil, or any combination of the two soils. The two soils were not separated in mapping because of similar management needs and soil characteristics. The characteristics of Jupiter soils are similar to those of the major soils. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Copeland and Pineda, limestone substratum, soils in similar landscape positions. These soils make up about 0 to 5 percent of the unit. The permeability in the Hallandale soil is rapid. The permeability in the Boca soil is moderate. The available water capacity of both soils is very low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. The natural vegetation consists of scrub cypress, sand cordgrass, waxmyrtle, and maidencane. These soils are poorly suited to cultivated crops because of the wetness, the shallow depth to bedrock, and droughtiness. With good water -control and soil improving measures, these soils are suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows. Applications of fertilizer and lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water -control measures, these soils are moderately suited to citrus. A water -control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees above the seasonal high water table. Planting a good grass cover crop between the trees helps to protect the soils from blowing when the trees are younger. With good water -control management, these soils are well suited to pasture. A water -control system is needed to remove excess water during the wet season. They are well suited to pangolagrass, bahiagrass, and clover. Excellent pastures of grass or a grass -clover mixture can be grown with good management. Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. These soils are well suited to range. The dominant forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Management practices should include deferred grazing. The Hallandale and Boca soils are in the Slough range site. These soils have severe limitations for most urban uses because of the high water table and the shallow depth to bedrock. They have severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness, the shallow depth to bedrock, and poor filtration. Building sites and septic tank absorption fields should be mounded to overcome these limitations. These soils also have severe limitations for recreational development because of wetness, the shallow depth to bedrock, and the sandy texture. The problems associated with wetness can be corrected by providing adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control the high water table. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by resurfacing the area. The Hallandale and Boca soils are in capability subclass Vw. 0 B-5 MAP AMERICAN * FARMS David Weeks Chief Planner Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: FLUM Amendment American Farms, LLC 11/4/04 Dear Mr. Weeks: By letter dated November 6, 2003, your department notified landowners regarding the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a properties. designation should be changed from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. American Farms, LLC wishes to be included in the Counties upcoming 2005 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Amendments. Please find enclosed a completed application and all supporting environmental documents for your review in considering.the redesignation,of lands located on the American Farms, LLC 55± Acre Property. C R-. Somo l> r / Managing Director P.O.:Box 990490 * Naples, -Florida 34116-6060 1484 Kean Avenue S.W. * Naples, Florida 34117 Phone 941.455.0300 * Fax 941.455.1755 Education Experience Continuing Education Professional Associations Certifications ANDREW WOODRUFF Senior Ecologist, Passarella and Associates, Inc. Environmental consultant and ecological services for private and public development, and road projects. Services include state, federal, and local wetland and wildlife permitting; agency negotiations; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys, permitting and relocation; state and federal wetland jurisdictionals; wetland mitigation design, construction observations and monitoring. M.S. Environmental Engineering 1993. Major: Aquatic Science University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Thesis: Florida Springs Chemical Classification and Aquatic Biological Communities B.S. Biology 1989 Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Ecologist, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc., Fort Myers, Florida, December 1992 —August 1997. Environmental consultant to private land owners, land planners, commercial and residential developers, engineering firms, and state and federal agencies. Experience in state and federal wetland delineation, endangered species surveys, ecological monitoring, prescribed bums, gopher tortoise relocation, and land mapping. • Basic Prescribed Fire Training. Hillsborough Community College. (1993) • Florida Association of Benthologists Annual Keys Workshop. Keys Marine Laboratory, Long Key, FL. October 16-18, 1996. • 120' Annual Environmental Permitting Summer School, Marco Island, FL. July 1998. • Shorebird Seminar with Ted Below, Rookery Bay, Naples, FL. January 1998. • Dr. David Hall, Plant Identification Workshop 1999. • Master Wildlifer Program 2003. • Creation and Restoration of Wetlands Course. The Ohio State University; held in Naples, FL. April 2003. Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Local Board of Directors (1999) Society of Wetland Scientists Coastal Conservation Association U.S. Power Squadron San Carlos Bay Chairman Environmental Committee (1999) Certified Wetland Delineator by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Certified Prescribed Burn Manager by the Florida Division of Forestry i t EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1. The West V2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less the South 30 feet thereof for road right-of-way purposes, Collier County, Florida. 2. The East %2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest V4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less the South 30 feet thereof for road right-of-way purposes, Collier County, Florida. ©o `3 ; o/z 0003 ¢- 3. The West %2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest V4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less the North 30 feet for road right-of-way purposes, said land lying and being in Collier County, Florida. OO 3 Z 6 76 ®®06 9S 4. The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest V4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less the South 30 feet for road right-of-way purposes, collier County, Florida. 5. The West V2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest V4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, less the North 30 feet thereof for road right-of-way purposes, Collier County, Florida. 00 3 3 1 7 6 opo 6 '1 7 6. The West V2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South;. Range 27 East, less the North 30 feet thereof for road right-of-way purposes, Collier County, -Florida. Vv 33 21600o3 tz ` F /VG p-� "1"r 1 �—�ChSi+r iLe� 5� I AMERICAN FARMS LLC EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1. ID#00329440008 �J 3 East % of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 south, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida 3 2. ID40032Y920008 4�- z c East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/, subject to 30' easement of record along the North line of said property for road purposes, all lying and being in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Fl. 3. ID#00329520009 �# 3q East l/r of the Southeast 1/ of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Section 29 --Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Fl. 4. ID#00329160003 � 31 East:% of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the -Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Fl. N section 20 IHEZ RD KEANE AVE. ID9330120003 09330080004 ID#329440008 ID#329480000 ID#330660003 AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS LEASED SINCE 1991 LEASED SINCE 1991 ACQUIRED 10194 AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS ACQUIRED 6/12103 ACQUIRED &I2/03 ID#329 D009 IDA 328760006 ID# 329920008 AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS ACQUIRED 3/95 LEASED SINCE 1991 ACQUIRED 8/96 � 3� /-I� - =# 3& AMERICAN FARMS ACQUIRED 6i12/03 ID#329160003 ID932672004 A AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS ACQUIRED 11/94 LEASED SINCE 1991 3 / -7 AMFRICA ARMS ACQUIR 6/12/03 IDA 331760006 IDN 332160003 ,AMERICAN FARMS AMERICAN FARMS" LE,(sED SING1991 'iFJtSED SINCE 199€ AMERICA�ARMS AMA FARMS IRED6 2/03 ACQU D8/12(03 •!�� ,,(S C £ AvI A rr-ave4 ^ AMERICAN FARMS 55t ACRE PARCEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT November 4, 2004 Introduction On September 29, 2004, Passarella and Associates, Inc. conducted an environmental assessment on the American Farms 55f Acre Parcel located in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). The assessment was prepared to address vegetation communities, jurisdictional wetlands, and listed species. Vegetation Communities The vegetation mapping for the subject property was conducted using 2004 rectified (scale 1" = 200') color aerials. Groundtruthing to map the vegetative communities was conducted on September 29, 2004 utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), Level III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). AutoCAD (Version 2004) software was used to determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Figures 2 and 3). A total of eight vegetation associations (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the property. n A summary of the vegetation communities identified by FLUCFCS code is as follows: Nursery (FLUCFCS Code 240) This upland land use occupies the majority of the site and contains no native habitat types. Pine Flatwoods. Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4119) This upland habitat has a canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The sub -canopy is mostly open with scattered melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), wax -myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and cabbage palm. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with rusty lyonia (Lyonia ferruginea), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), caesarweed (Urena lobata), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). Pine (FLUCFCS Code 415) This upland habitat has a canopy that consists of slash pine. The sub -canopy includes slash pine and widely scattered cypress (Taxodium distichum). The ground cover includes scattered saw palmetto, cabbage palm, chocolateweed (Melochia corchorifolia), blackroot (Pterocaulon pycnostachyum), St. John's wort (Hypericum tetrapetalum), false pimpernel (Lindernia spp.), and grapevine. Cynress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219) This wetland habitat has a canopy consisting of cypress and cabbage palm. The sub -canopy includes swamp bay (Persea palustris), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), wax -myrtle, Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of 5 #04AFL1186 11/04/04 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and salt bush (Baccharis halimifolia). The ground cover includes swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), and hempvine (Mikania scandens). Pine -Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6249) This wetland habitat has a canopy of slash pine, cypress, and cabbage palm. The sub -canopy includes Brazilian pepper, swamp bay (Persea palustris), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes swamp fern, salt bush, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginiana), and Brazilian pepper. Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6419) This wetland habitat has an open canopy with scattered cypress and cabbage palm. The sub - canopy includes Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and buttonbush. The ground cover includes maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), flatsedge (Cyperus haspan), swamp fern, inundated beaksedge (Rhynchospora inundata), alligator flag, salt bush, and pickerelweed. Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401) This wetland land use has an open canopy and sub -canopy. The ground cover is mostly open with scattered dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), sesbania (Sesbania sp.), and maidencane. Spoil Area (FLUCFCS Code 743) This upland land use has an open canopy and sub -canopy. The ground cover is dominated by beggar's tick (Bidens pilosa) with scattered dogfennel, sesbania, and maidencane. Jurisdictional Wetlands The subject property was reviewed for both state and federal wetland jurisdiction using the "Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters" (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code) and the Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1997). Approximately 10.37 acres of the property are potential state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. Potential wetland areas include areas mapped as Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219); Pine -Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6249); Freshwater Marsh (FLUCFCS Code 6419); and Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401). Wetland limits have not been verified by any agency. Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Survey for Collier County (Soils Conservation Service 1998), the subject property contains one hydric soil type identified as Unit 18 - Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum (Figure 4). Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the state and a Dredge and Fill Permit from the COE. ERP's are issued by either the Florida Department _of Environmental Protection or the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) depending on the type and size of project. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 2 of 5 #04AFL1186 11/04/04 10 ., Listed Species A survey for listed species was conducted as part of this assessment. No state or federal listed species were observed on the subject property during the September 29, 2004 site inspection. The proximity of listed species to the project site as recorded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) is provided as Figure 5. Listed wildlife species that were not observed but have the potential to occur on the undeveloped portion of the project site are listed in Table 1. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered -Biota of Florida Volume I. Mammals (Humphrey 1992); Volume ' III. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moler 1992); Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 1. Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur on the Undeveloped Portion of American Farms Property - Alli ator mississi iensis American alli ator SSC T S/A) 6419 Go herus of hemus op her tortoise SSC 4119 Rana ca ito Gopher frog SSC - 4119 Drymarchon corals couperi Eastern indigo T 4119/415/6219/6249/ T snake6419 .... ..A- Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC - 6219/6249/6419/7401 Endocumis albus White ibis SSC - 6219/6249/6419/7401 Haliaeetus leucoce halus Bald eagle T T 4119 Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC - 0219/6249/6419/7401 A'aia a'a'a Roseate spoonbill SSC - 6219/6249/6419/7401 Aramus guarauna Lim kin SSC - 6219/6249/6419/7401 M cteria americana Wood stork E E 6219/6249/6419/7401 Picoides borealis Red -cockaded T woodpecker E 4119/415 Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel T 4119/415 Sciurus niger avicennia Big Cypress fox T s uirrel _ 4119/415/6219/ 6249 Ursus americanus oridanus Black bear 1' - 4119/415/6219/ 6249 Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E1 4119/415/6219/6249 FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SSC — Species of Special Concern T — Threatened E — Endangered Yassarella and Associates, Inc. 3 of 5 #04AFL 1186 11 /04/04 Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's July 23, 2002 draft survey protocol, a "diminishing 10-11, quarters" survey was conducted to verify the site did not contain red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. The cavity tree survey was conducted by qualified ecologists walking east/west and north/south parallel transects spaced approximately 50 feet apart (Figure 6). No red -cockaded woodpecker cavities or start holes were observed within the survey area. No red -cockaded woodpeckers were seen or heard during the survey period. Listed plant species that were not observed but have the potential to occur on the undeveloped portion of the project site are listed in Table 2. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these -species included personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 2. Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur on the Undeveloped Portion of American Farms Property f NZ 'esl •� 'at ,l�tatil ' M yam ¢' lat -r+ lat., n ..,!. ra .r •.tom`. a.-'i �'kY_ v. . ic':-a-__��-::_*i�'y's i_�� ' '�cFi�,'.'t'at�4.vr7 .0 �.i rr�L`s.c�.�7�.... _ 'fi z+..� 'f' Y Enc clia tam ensis Butterfly orchid _ C - .?s+�::,. 6219 Campyloneurum an ti olum Narrow strap fern E - 6219 Tillandsia asciculata Stiff leaved wild pine E - 6219 Burmannia ava: Fakahatchee burmannia E - 4119/415 C rto odium punctatum Cowhorn orchid E - 6219/6249 Deeringothamnus pulchellus White -squirrel -banana; beautiful pawpaw E E 4119 Tillandsia pruinosa Fuzzy-wuzzy air Vlant E - 6219/6249 Zamia oridana I Florida coontie C - 4119 FDA — Florida Department of Agriculture USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service E — Endangered C — Commercially Exploited Summary A total of eight vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) have been identified on the American Farms 55f Acre Parcel. The subject parcel contains 42.69± acres of developed land identified as Nursery (FLUCFCS Code 240). Approximately 10.37 acres of remaining undeveloped land may be considered potential jurisdictional wetlands by the SFWMD and the COE. No state or federal listed species were observed on the subject property during the September 29, 2004 site inspection. rassarella anti Associates, Inc. #04AFL1186 11/04/04 4 of 5 /1- REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Moler, Paul E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Rodgers, J.A., H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith. 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Soils Conservation Service. 1998. Soils Survey of Collier County Area, Florida U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Passarella and Associates, Inc. #04AFL1186 11/04/04 5 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY RIDGE RD �a a S —a GATE BLVD RD (EXIT 101) S PROJECT LOCATION SEC 29, TWP 49 S, RGE 27 E ap PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES INC FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP Consulting Ecologists AMERICAN FARMS-55t ACRE PARCEL DRAWN BY: P.F. DATE: 11/11/804 k } k j . . � � § ) } = \ 2 \ j } § �A 00 0 * � g w 0 q m / § 0 2 6 @ )) { � w U J , cr \ \ (L +I § )( }) r \LO ; |]§ \ k LU LL ) 2 4 U cr w � « m A k .\ t 2 o� co.3 3LLJ Q3! m.0 �/ \ 2/J 3 Cl) m ) o 8LU .\82 ,Lil> ~ ) � ( ) } k ; 0 / 3 / $ k \ LIJ ) ¥ � - � 2 § Co ) cm g § 2 J ° © t I § r a cc E k i ¢ 2 § k§ k% m m 0 9 u � LO � ® ® 2 c § \ 0 Lf) � -j ± U ; 3 < @ m uj r § , „\ OA ? 3 LLI cc ƒ _ 2 4 U 2 L 2 4 C/3 :a�e�/ SJ S f } I � 4A, f. • � t � �. _ h� •3 Cf L 1 J t t } N O e a g w ¢ U W c W W g oo`s a 2 J a W W yj U ff°7gwo W Q LUW C aa�z U ink ¢ w O y F m ¢ :3:Wo d w W Y = Z C wya U LL W U z oOQ O G $mme3 U a Z a U w 3e�oe w W G U J `go�a3 �I N w o¢¢ o O o g J s a m LL¢ ° a s 3 i ® O = wem o C Q w LL z w • • Qcc foe Q • • i • •• • t • •�s • !• • •!• • • • N • • c) p •• • c) 02 f • • r• • � • ; ! u • • • = ® j ♦• !• ® i •! U c cu • ♦ • (tS a ♦ m • w W a w U ® U Lu w • U m `' J W 3 8 J j W N Z Q � • a v v o 0 0 �I t LU d a x� f I i �m 8 , )OA"I8 a3n oo � I ¢ k¢ $m d � i i •• 0 , jv lift- IL.� t 1 �► IT +•' G . T I A ii yn�;ra4rr Arm � .4}� v • ,4 ` .ra . � fit•. �:.����..4+' '�4�',`y ,9 1 )) 1 M 1■. ' `•. I 7 I t'tF jif 'I i F.F - �I �-I r r 1. I i r.� I ' f �II �' / ;•i r�7. T. !�'w 'TM; Y Fri or � � it y' �•4..�a� �'i 1�C'i ri4 % , sl 64 20111m, , 1iiY LEGEND: NOTES: A41 APPROXIMATE LOCATION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED �yk9 .S 1.•.e�' 1 �y,. M[�'�j �� „r " 1'�,..+% OF SURVEY TIWJSECTS THROUGH COWER COUNTY PROPERTY I I� �,, • _ 1 �-1 wr �.' E APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT SFWMD WETLANDS DATE OF JANUAFM 2004. � t (10.37 Ae.t) PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ESTIMATED , i ,�„ if" t' 1 + r"► 1 FROM COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSRE FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1,-200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND y�y LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, , COVER AND FORMS CL SSIFICA71ON `A v t r. i•' _ 11R 'ti,l _ �I SYSfBA (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). F"J w i •tiXj,"�'i - 'M �tl� �'' LS :y WETLAND LINES HAVE NOT BEEN �� � �' 7f+1 ,f 4 }II"�''1j'•n t F' .0 SURVEY LOCATED AND HAVE NOT Y J'I1 /.•�, f � BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY AGENCY. FLUCFC % OF k Yn. ! r �•.xA' „GA . rl{ �ni S•sW t� Az S CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE TOTAL 240 NURSERY 42.69 Ac.± 76.1% 4119 FINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED 1.64 Ac.± 3.3% ` - • �'. 416 PINE 1.01 Ac.z 1.8% 5219 CYPRESS, DISTURBED 0.55 Ac.± 1.0% I. .+T 7G •yi, 'Y" y 1 -- 6249 FINE -CYPRESS, DISTURBED 8.42 Aam 1..0% 6419 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED 0.95 AC.± 1.7% 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 0.46 AC.± 0.8% 4 743 SPOILAREA 0.21 Ac.± 0.4% •' ~1 r TOTAL 56.12AC7 IOD•0% v * .�y'4' ' hi�,��,•1 4 1 K.C.P. f0 04 K.rs PASSARELLA o;•nd ASSOCIATES. INC. K.C.P. l0 os M A Consulting Ecologists AMERICAN FARMSm55tuACRE PARCEL owt,lsa NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE AC R LEGEND: THROUGH COWER COUNTY PROP APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A RIG SFlYMO WETLANDS APPRAISER'S OF JANUARY, 2DO4. (10.37 Ac.t) PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ESTIMATED FROM COWER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WE85ITE. FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1'=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). WETLAND LINES HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEY LOCATED AND HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY AGENCY. FLUCFC % OF S CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE TOTAL 240 NURSERY 42.89 Ac. 76.1% 4119 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED 1.84 Acs 3.3% 415 PINE 1.01 Ac.t 1.8% 6219 CYPRESS, DISTURBED 0.55 Ac.s 1.0% 6249 PINE -CYPRESS, DISTURBED 8.42 Ac.x 15.0% 6419 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED 0.95 Ac.s 1.7% 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 0.45 AQ± 0.8% 743 SPOIL AREA 0.21 Ac.: D.4% TOTAL 56.12 Aam 100.0% A ..ss4 AVVAf'TATSv Tan PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Ecologists 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, FL 33919 Phone (239) 274-0067 Fax (239) 274-0069 November 5, 2004 Mr. David Weeks Chief Planner Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: FLUM Amendment Gargiulo Trust Property Project No. 97WAI152 Dear Mr. Weeks: � By letter dated November 6, 2003, your department notified landowners regarding the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the county in an attempt to demonstrate a properties designation should be changed from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Garguilo Trust Property wishes to be included in the county's upcoming 2005 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Amendments. Please find enclosed supporting environmental documents for your review in considering the redesignation of lands located on the Garguilo Trust Property. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Bob Mulhere of RWA, Inc. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 61r/s-'1 AndrewqWooff Senior Ecologist AW/mh Enclosures cc: Don Barber, w/enclosures Bob Mulhere, w/enclosures RECEIVED PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Ecologists r� 9110 College Pointe Court Fort Myers, FL 33919 Phone (239) 274-0067 Fax (239) 274-0069 May 11, 2005 Mr. Stan Litsinger, AICP Collier County Government Community Development and Environmental Services Division Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Gargiulo Properties . Project No. 97WAII52 Folio No. 00209280003, 00113400005 Dear Mr. Litsinger: In response to your letter dated April 13, 2005, please find enclosed a notarized Letter of Authorization from Jeffrey Gargiulo verifying that I am authorized to represent the landowner in matters related to the Garguilo Properties Growth Management Plan Amendment. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, SARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Andrew Woo f Vice President AW/mh Enclosure cc: Don Barber, w/enclosure Jeffrey Gargiulo, w/enclosure Bob Mulhere, w/enclosure Apr 27 2005 8:56AM HP LASERJET 3200 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I hereby authorize _AAm)RL:*iA1 WtooL>OFF (Name of Agent - typed or printed) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth'Management Plan affecting property identified in the Application. rW. _ Jeffrey D. Gargiulo, as Trustee Date: (Name of Owner(s) of Record) I hereby cent fy that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature App#cant JEFFR O V b. 6R&6-1 u(-y Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF COUNTY OF ( ) Sworn to and subscrib d ore me this _ day of A 20 p,5 By . S _ (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: _ who is personally known to me, who has produced and as identification p.5 did take an Oath ARL11*1. C. _ did not take an Oath omnMhgon # 1503M �y hm _ cawana tea MpN� County NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: MVCWM&0=JW2?.2006 Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Statements Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the Intent to mislead a public servant in they performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of $600.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail terns" 0 02/2002 FLUCFCS AND LISTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED SENDING/RECEIVING BOUNDARY FOR THE GARGIULO TRUST PROPERTY November 5, 2004 Introduction On October 19, 2004 and November 2, 2004, Passarella and Associates, Inc. conducted an environmental assessment on a part of the Gargiulo Trust (BCB Sod Farm) 619.94f acre parcel located in Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East; and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). This assessment was prepared to address vegetation communities, listed species, and historical and archaeological resources within areas proposed for redesignation as receiving lands (Figure 2). Vegetation Communities The vegetation mapping for the subject area was conducted using 2004 rectified (scale 1" = 400') color aerials. Groundtruthing to map the vegetative communities was conducted on October 19, 2004 and November 2, 2004 utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), Level III and IV (Florida Department of ^ Transportation 1999). AutoCAD (Version 2004) software was used to determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS Detail of Proposed Sending/Receiving Boundary Map (Figure 2). A total of seven vegetation associations (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified within the areas proposed for redesignation as receiving lands. A summary of the vegetation communities identified by FLUCFCS code are as follows: Sod Farm (FLUCFCS Code 242) This agricultural area is actively being farmed for sod. Inactive Farm Field (FLUCFCS Code 261) This agricultural area has been used for the production of row crops but is currently inactive. Ground cover vegetation includes dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), flatsedge (Cyperus sp.), and torpedograss (Panicum repens). Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4) (76 100%E2otics) This disturbed upland habitat is vegetated by a scattered canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The sub -canopy consists of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), cabbage palm, and wax -myrtle (Myrica cerifera). The ground cover includes Brazilian pepper and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). Brazilian pepper occupies greater than 75 percent of this area. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 1 of 5 #97WAI152 11/05/04 �•, Brazilian Pepper LUCFCS Code 422) This disturbed upland habitat is vegetated by a canopy of Brazilian pepper with scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana) and slash pine. The sub -canopy is dominated by Brazilian pepper with scattered wax -myrtle and primrose willow. The ground cover is open with muscadine grape and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli). Brazilian pepper occupies greater than 75 percent of this area. Ditch (FLUCFCS Code 514) This other surface water area is predominantly open water with scattered Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Brazilian pepper, and primrose ,willow. The herbaceous cover includes water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), Asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and paragrass (Urochloa muticans). Reservoir FLUCFCS Code 530) This agricultural reservoir is vegetated by scattered Brazilian pepper and Carolina willow. The ground cover includes torpedograss, water pennywort, cattail (Typha sp.), and primrose willow. Berm (FLUCFCS Code 747) This disturbed upland habitat is vegetated by a canopy that includes slash pine, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), live oak, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm. The sub -canopy includes Brazilian pepper, wax -myrtle, and scattered Carolina willow. The ground cover includes Spanish needles (Bidens pilosa), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), caesarweed (Urena lobata), virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), swamp flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis), primrose willow, and muscadine grape. Listed Species A survey for listed species was conducted within areas proposed for redesignation as receiving lands on October 19, 2004 and November 2, 2004. Three state listed species were observed during the survey conducted on October 19, 2004. The little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) were observed in the Ditch (FLUCFCS Code 514) and Reservoir (FLUCFCS Code 530) habitats. The proximity of listed species to the project site as recorded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is provided as Figure 3. Listed wildlife species that have the potential to occur in areas proposed for redesignation from sending to receiving are listed in Table 1. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume I. Mammals (Humphrey 1992); Volume 111. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moles 1992); Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 2 of 5 497WAII52 11/05/04 Table 1. Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur in the Area Proposed for Redesignation as Receiving Land e$#ifiCaIII4 7r =_C`O']nitlolla (ELU Code) and -Re tiles= - - -- Alligator mississip iensis American alligator SSC T (S/A) 514/530 Go herus oly hemus Gopher tortoise SSC 747 Rana ca ito Gopher frog SSC - 747 Drymarchon corais cou eri Eastern indigo snake T T 261/4159/747 Birds Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC - 261/514/530 Endocumis albus White ibis SSC - 261/514/530 Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC - 261/514/530 Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron SSC 261/514/530 A'aia a'aja Roseate spoonbill SSC - 261/514/530 Aramus guarauna Lim kin SSC - 261/514/530 M cteria americana Wood stork E E 261/514/530 Ursus americanus floridanus Black bear T - 261 Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E 261 Mustela vison ever ladensis Everglades Mink T - 514/530 FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SSC — Species of Special Concern T — Threatened E — Endangered Listed plant species that were not observed but have the potential to occur in areas proposed for redesignation from sending to receiving are listed in Table 2. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species included personal experience and knowledge of the geographic region. Table 2. Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur in the Area Proposed for Redesignation as Receiving Land �-. �, � .�� �_� N� cie�ttfi�Naitne- E ■/�� TM.. 4Cononlime d 3Go _ - ~E^ Tillandsia fasciculata I Stiff leaved wild pine - 4159 FDA — Florida Department of Agriculture Passarella and Associates, Inc. 3 of 5 #97WAI152 11/05/04 USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service E — Endangered Historical and Archaeological Resources A letter was received from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources dated June 17, 1998. This letter stated that "no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded for or likely to be present within the project area". A copy of the letter is attached. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 4 of 5 #97WAI152 11/05/04 REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-0 10-00 1 -a. Third Edition. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Moler, Paul E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Rodgers, J.A., H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith. 1996. Rare- and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Passarella and Associates, Inc. 5 of 5 #97WAI152 11/05/04 I 7 VANDERBILT BEACH RD FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP GARGIULO TRUST ..; F S MAI OIL 1 EE RD OJECT LOCATION EC 34, TWP 47 S, RGE 7 E 3EC 3, TWP 48 S, RGE 7 E I I /\ PASSARELLA and ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Ecologists DRAWN BY: D.B. DATE: 11/05/04 Z 0 > �. W ¢1 W siL7 z o a O Mw �a =aa U W a a W N O U P z z wax w°'O zl_ W z 3z-4 1-KIW- �No p Z V1 =0�'N � 0E 'no Om (� \ F- eT ,tom Z< W aCLL K W 20 ON y `'Vpa in W d J "J W yZ dZ O J07 W Jd `L0Er LL U v r X O mO O V SO< Z10 W 0 J O t\l LJ W M d m = IO- v TT`^ r •51 .I Q QO IUioff .i a. ua< »r~iF ,may '• , It• W o x a a J t o J o r '4 Z a f- a 0 IL _ J 1L U N vJ e�syNN� a. fi. DQ •• � iT' {', .1,� O � (O to m O N N pO DTI Cl) 8 �I w +1 +1 +I +I +I +I +I UQQQQQQQ is3 oX m LU Z 0 w r'rLLJ J � a Q � ~ Q w D w w OF Y O w I o mW m d rr. (L C7 r: I Z O t; QCOQ 7 Qw6Um� > Z E- W via macrm U W OU- W U (/ + � N � N d• (O� P (, LL O N d' dN' t0 W r z " w Y WQo �a N E '3' uu n rn ppo --,0 to N O Q W +I +i +I +I fN T' r alp" tr r r t` QQQQQ 91 CL w t— U¢ W� L i< rp F rL Q _ ¢ Lr. J O V f` w W N _ D OVW �AB 63LtOld N 0£:£ -'100Z '£0 AON 3IVOS 00V :.Vl OM6'SlAlnIA-ONINOZ\g00Z\ZSINML6%L6614r Z 3 w ul U U1 f z ¢ W O ¢ ai wUJ w 'a€- `z� �= N w Q U 0 wrr x o Q W O J Q? o O¢ zz � ma W ii U m O W< OUa U Q W Q 3 O Ci m LL LL LL J a .400 �_ 0CC a oLL o LL j O o `� OJ O - 1 t� ; m Q3a'0'1Jtl3A3 m a O O 1 co LL O coo 0 C o LL O W sl O C) co a. Uo i -) O cu Cl— E! sve'tl�/a a owwi ff k 0 CD 00 � O O O O O <gar W - p h S O 0 n Na N- w J i- O O a 0 0 O 0 O oo� e m m O c6eo O O a 0 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 O 8 O O O O O O a On O O O 0 O O 00 I 0 O Q O 0 0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Secretary Office of International Relations Division of Administrative services Division of Corporations Division of Cultural Affairs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES June 17, 1998 Mr. Andrew Woodruff Passarella and Associates, Inc. 4575 Via Royale, Suite 104 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RE: Cultural Resource Assessment Request USACOE Nationwide Permit Application BCB Farms Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Woodruff MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET Division of Library & Information Services Division of Historical Resources Ringling Museum of Art Division of Licensing Division of Elections In Reply Refer To: Frank J. Keel Historic Preservation Planner Project File No. 983811 In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part 800 ("Protection of Historic Properties"), we have reviewed the referenced project(s) for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The authority for this procedure is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended. A review of the Florida Site File indicates that no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded for or likely to be present within the project area. Furthermore, because of the project location and/or nature it is unlikely that any such sites will be affected. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. If you' have any questions concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Your interest in protecting Florida's historic properties is appreciated. GWP[Kfk Sincerely, George W. Percy, Director Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer DIRECTOR'S OFFICE R.A. Gray Building 9 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 • (850) 488-1480 FAX: (850) 488-3353 • �W� Address http://www.dos. state.fl.us O ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH C9' HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 HISTORICAL MUSEUMS (850) 487-2299 • FAX: 414-2207 (850) 487-2333 • FAX: 922-04% (850) 4PA-]484 0 FAX- 901-Imm 14 13 1 49 49 18 49R F M U D 16 15 13 18 rote tia�6Re 27 esigna ion29of 49 endng 49 Lands 4 49 4 _ _ _- 2 � �- 3-1 19 ------- 20 - 22 23 24 49 49 21 24 4 19 49 49 27 27 49 23 49 2 26 26 27 49 27 28 27 26 >025!'�' 30 49 28 49 227 26 25 4 30 49 26 27 49 49 27 27 27 49 28 • 35 I 36 09 49 31 33 35 31 34 26 49 27 9 36 29 49 49 49 28 2 27 27 -BL=VD 3 50 1 0 2 50 6 50 6 50 5 50 27 50 26 26 27 50 20 27 28 27 20 11 12 1 c 50 50 26 7 50 8 50 9 - 10 12 50 11 50 7 26 27 27 50 27 50 27 50 27 27 i 28 13 1 14 50 26 14 1+5 50 13 18 50 18 17 50 16 50 50 26 50 27 27 27 50 27 50 27 28 27 23 24 19 20 50 21 .22 23 50 50 50 24 19 50 50 50 26 26 27 27 27 27 50 28 27 26 25 50 50 30 50 29 50 28 26 50 27 50 25 50 30 26 26 27 27 27 50 27 27 50 28 27 36 36 31 31 32 33 34 35 35 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 26 2 1 6 5 6 51 51 51 51 4 2 1 51 51 26 26 27 27 51 51 51 28 27 27 27 11 ��� ,9 10 �iy� 7 8 10 11 51 12 6 26 ��F 51 51 27 51 9 51 51 27 51 27 27 12 7 51 26 27 51 28 27 13 5 14 51 18 51 17 51 16 14 13 51 1 51 26 6 26 18 \ 27 51 51 27 28 51 27 27 27 ® REDESIGNATION REQUESTS --- - NEUTRAL RECEIVING 19 20 2 51 5 23 24 19 51 SENDING 51 27 27 51 27 51 27 28 NRPA 25 51 30 511 51 51 Created E y CDES A/CAD MappiLl.pa"Jll 51 51 51 51 26 :\Lindsey\120cts\Plano rs\David V2f5s\RuralFri51127/mxd Date: 01/29/07 27 27 27 27 27 28 I RFMUD 1 Potential Redesignation of Sending Lands 6 5 4 3 2 47 47 47 47 47 1 27 27 27 27 27 47 7 27 7 10 12 47 27 8 47 9 47 47 27 11 47 47 27 27 27 27 7 28 18 - 47 __-- 17 16 47 14 47 13 47 18 27 47 27 15 47 27 7 28 27 27 19 24 19 41 23 47 20 47 27 47 27 47 27 27 47 28 27 30 29 47 47 r 25 30 47 27 27 27 1 26 47 47 27 47 28 p 27 31 Legend 47 dw33 34 35 36 31 REDESIGNATION REQUESTS 47 27 9 27 47 27 47 27 47 28 27 NEUTRAL 3 1 - 6 RECEIVING 48 5 foe 8 9z 2 48 48 SENDING 6 48 277 48 27 27 48 27 27 28 Q NRPA 27 7 48 10 12 10 7 8 9 48 48 48 9 48 48 12 48 48 27 27 11 48 27 28 48 26 26 27 27 26 6 15 14 13 17 48 16 4848 15 14 48 27 13 48 18 48 48 48 18 27 27 277 27 16 26 26 26 48 _ OIL-WELL-RD 26 23 22 21 48 23 48 24 48 19 20 48 21 48 22 48 28 48 24 27 1 48 48 26 26 26 28 27 27 27 26 27 26 IMMOKAL•EE-RD 29 28 z p 27 26 25 30 48 28 26 n 48 26 25 48 48 27 48 27 m 28 28 2$ 48 28 48 E) 26 27 Z O 26 m 34 36 31 48 33 _ 3:48 35 36 48 1 33 48 35 48 48 27 48 + 34 27 27 18 28 48 26 48 26 27 27 z 48 26 26 II J 27 - -tco - z 2 1 6 5 O 3 2 2 3 49 49 49 49 U) 49 49 1 4 49 26 26 27 27 4 27 27 49 49 26 26 49 27 11 2712 GOL-DEN_GATEBLVD W 49 49 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 27 27 49 49 49 49 49 6/� ted By CDES GIS/CA Aping Dep rtment 'i li dsey\Projeeis tanners\Da id Weeks\ IFringeNof17511X17.mf§ate: 01/29/07 27 49 27 49 27 49 27 r. 09,1�p 41 0-�VLt FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ahated truth Nati A ..� ©nal IYlaldl�e Fe�leratzon Southwest Florida Office Phone: (239) 643-4111 2590 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 105 Fax: (239) 643-5130 Naples, Florida 34105 Email: fwfnaoles0earthlink net September 14, 2006 3 ? I? .J t; S--I S Charles Gauthier, AICP, Director ' Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oaks Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Collier County CPSP-2005-14 Growth Management Plan Amendment - Transmittal Sending Lands Re -Designation for Map Property #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, $, 9, and 10 owned by Symphony Real Estate/William G. Clark Dear Mr. Gauthier: Florida Wildlife Federation is opposed to the re -designation from Sending to Neutral land of 80 acres in northeast North Belle Meade. The property is now owned by Symphony Real Estate. When the land was designated Sending in June 2002, the owner was William G. Clark. At the transmittal hearing, Collier County commissioners voted to re -designate the Symphony Real Estate property from Sending to Neutral land. This property is identified on Page 1 of the CPSP-2005-14 spreadsheet as Map Property # 3 though 10. The Federation's position mirrors Collier County planning staff s recommendation to deny re -designation. (Attachment 1) F When the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) was adopted, Collier County commissioners included a growth management plan provision that provided the opportunity for Sending land owners abutting Neutral or Receiving lands to submit additional data and analysis proving that their Sending lands were incorrectly designated in June 2002. (Attachment 2) The growth management plan required county staff to send notices within three months of the effective date of the RFMUD amendments adopted in June 2002. Owners of Sending land had one year from date of the notice to submit their data and analysis to Collier County staff. Staff then compared the county's 2002 data and analysis with the additional 2002 data and analysis submitted by the landowner. For all properties incorrectly designated in June 2002, Collier County initiated and paid for the growth management plan amendment. This is CPSP-2005-14. The purpose of the growth management plan provision was not to offer landowners a placeholder for a free plan amendment re -designating land degraded after June 2002, but rather to correct erroneous designations made at the June 2002 adoption hearing. The RFMUD states that if a landowner clears Sending land, he is not eligible for Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) for 25 years. In December 2002 William G. Clark received a county permit to clear Map Property #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. According to county staff who compared 2002 aerials with subsequent year aerials, several of these parcels were cleared after June 2002 the date the RFMUD amendments were Adopted. (Attachment 3 and personal communication with Mac Hatcher September 12, 2007) No Data and Analysis Refuting Sending Designation In December 2003 attorney Richard Yovanovich submitted a request on behalf William G. Clark to re -designate 80 acres from Sending to Neutral land. Accompanying the request was a May 2002 document titled "Clark -North Belle Meade Wetland, Vegetation Communities and Listed Species Assessment" prepared by Passarella and Associates. It was offered as additional data and analysis supporting the re -designation. (Attachment 4) Passarella's May 2002 assessment, done before part of the 80 acres was ^ cleared, provides no data and analysis refuting the Sending designation. In 2005 Symphony Real Estate purchased William G. Clark's property. A change of ownership and site clearing after June 2002 does not qualify as data and analysis justifying re -designation from Sending to Neutral land. (Attachment 5) Collier County planning staff produced a 2002 aerial map reconfirming the June 2002 Sending designation and supporting their recommendation to deny the landowner's request for re -designation to Neutral land. (Attachment 6) By re -designating the Symphony Real Estate property to Neutral land, Collier County commissioners immediately restore density lost for 25 years on Sending land cleared after June 2002 and they increase the density from one unit/parcel (8 units) to one unit/5 acres (16 units). Symphony Real Estate is rewarded for circumventing the 25 year TDR prohibition and the taxpayers pay for the growth management plan amendment to re -designate the land from Sending to Neutral land. Object to Neutral Designation No data and analysis has been presented to the Florida Department of Community Affairs effectively disproving the June 2002 Sending land designation of the Symphony Real Estate property in northeast North Belle Meade. Therefore, the Florida Department of Community Affairs must object to the re - designation of these parcels from Sending to Neutral lands. Sincerely yours, w wVC7 a. ��*V Nancy A. Payton Southwest Florida Field Representative Attachments: 6 1-1� cc: Thomas W. Reese, Esq. 4 Attachment 1 CPSP-2005-14 Spreadsheet, Page 1, and Staff Report Attachment 2 Future Land Use Element/Rural Lands Mixed Used District Sending Lands "Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries" Attachment 3 County Emails Regarding Land Clearing on Symphony Real Estate/William G. Clark Property A chment 4 December 19, 3, Letter to C ier County and 4-Wi. 2002 Cl -North Belle eade Assessment�� Attachment 5 Current Collier County Property Appraiser Records with 2007 Aerials for Symphony Real Estate/William G. Clark Parcels Attachment 6 2002 Aerial Map Identifying William G. Clark/Symphony Real Estate Parcels ,-. Attachment 1 CPSP-2005-14 Spreadsheet, Page 1, and Staff Report A 3 A--. Agenda Item 4.0. Co �r Co 4-Plty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CPSP-2005-14, SENDING LANDS RE -DESIGNATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) AGENT/APPLICANT: Multiple — the agents and owners of 90 properties are identified on the attached re -designation spreadsheet. However, Collier County government is the petitioner. r. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: This petition consists of 90 properties comprising ±3,606 acres. They are located in the following Sections -Townships -Ranges and general areas: Section Twr) Rng Area 34 47 3 27 2 miles N=NW of Fairgrounds 48 11 27 1.75 miles N-NW of Fairgrounds 48 25 49 26 2 miles N of CR951/lmmokalee Rd. intersection 29,32 49 26 2 miles E of CR951 in North Belle Meade 13, 14, 22, 27 49 27 N of 1-75 in North Belle Meade 27 N of 1-75 in North Belle Meade NRPA 15,21 51 27 N-NW of US41/CR92 intersection REQUESTED ACTION: In each case, the property owner is requesting the property be re -designated from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands (whichever it abuts). BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) a/k/a comprehensive plan to establish the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and related Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for ±73,000 acres designated on the countywide Future Land Use Map as Agricultural/Rural and generally located between the Golden Gate Estates subdivision and the coastal urban area. The RFMUD consists of Sending Lands, Receiving Lands, and Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are so designated because, at the landscape (macro) scale (not site - specific parcel by parcel view), they contain lands of higher environmental value — wetlands, listed species habitat, etc. Accordingly, allowable land uses are greatly restricted and native Agenda Item 4.0. vegetative retention standards are stringent (80%). The desire is for these lands not to be developed and instead transfer (send) the residential development rights from these Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, lands possessing lesser environmental value and where development is directed and encouraged. Each of the 90 subject parcels is designated RFMUD Sending Lands, though five are partially Receiving Lands as well, and some are also within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and/or the North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay; and, each is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use zoning overlay and some are in the NRPA and/or NBM zoning overlays. During the public hearings in 2002, many owners of proposed (and now -designated) Sending Lands asserted their property had been previously cleared or otherwise did not warrant the Sending Lands designation. Recognizing this possibility — it was made well-known that the designations were based upon landscape scale analysis, but also that allowing Receiving or Neutral Lands designations to be surrounded by Sending Lands designations (Swiss cheese concept — holes of Receiving or Neutral Lands within Sending Lands) was not acceptable, the BCC included a GMP provision giving a one year window in which owners of Sending Lands property that share a boundary with either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands could submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of the date of adoption of the RFMUD (June 19, 2002), the Sending Lands designation was not warranted. Also, staff would re-evaluate the data used in 2002 (panther telemetry data, red -cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat data, land cover classification data, etc.) to determine the boundaries of Sending Lands. Please see the GMP provision below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD Sendin Lands "I L Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land/Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these . notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map." During the allotted one year period, twelve submittals were received comprised of 98 parcels (but only 90 are under consideration as two are already designated Neutral Lands and six were subsequently withdrawn). The total acreage of these 90 parcels is ±3,606 though that includes roughly 1,245 acres of Receiving Lands as five parcels have split Sending/Receiving Lainds designations, leaving about 2,361 acres of actual Sending Lands. Per BCC direction in October 2005, contiguous parcels under the same ownership are to be viewed as a single property for purposes of determining if the property is contiguous to Receiving or Neutral Lands. However, Agenda Item 4.0. in viewing the submitted data and analysis for purpose of determining the appropriateness of Sending Lands designation, each tax parcel is viewed separately. Given that the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate the Sending Lands designation is not warranted, staff's approach is to look for conclusive evidence. Most of the submittals simply verify the existence of native vegetation on the subject parcels. The attached re -designation spreadsheet identifies each tax parcel, its location, staff's recommendation and rationale, and other information: As noted on the spreadsheet, and on the two maps identifying the 96 parcels, staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re -designated from Sending Lands to Neutral or Receiving Lands. These 16 parcels are highlighted on the spreadsheet, and outlined in red on the maps. One issue unrelated to the submitted data and its evaluation pertains to authorization of property owners for their property to be submitted and evaluated in this process. Some agents have submitted a notarized letter of authorization to demonstrate they have the legal authority to represent the owners of the subject parcels for which they have submitted data and are requesting a re -designation; however, some have not — and may not have been previously advised by staff of the need to do so. (The owners of one property listed under the agent Don Lester/15,000 Coalition recently met with staff and advised they never granted authorization to that agent or any other to represent them in this process.) Only a property owner or their authorized agent may petition the County to request a GMP amendment. Therefore, staff will advise all agents and property owners for which a notarized letter of authorization has not been provided, of the need to do so; failure to provide such a letter will likely result in the affected properties being withdrawn from this GMP amendment requesting re -designation. Finally, a GMP amendment such as this would ordinarily be evaluated for impacts upon infrastructure, effect upon the TDR program, compatibility considerations, etc. However, amendment is being reviewed only under the specific criteria established in the FLUE and stated above, as it is a special provision authorized by the BCC in the 2002 Rural Fringe GMP amendments (which were subsequently found to be in compliance with state statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Note: Two property owners are participating in this petition and have filed their own petition -- I.M. Collier Joint Venture, petition CP-2005-8; and, Francis and Mary P. Hussey, CP-2005-12. STAFF ANALYSIS: As previously noted, staff has reviewed each property to determine if it abuts Receiving or Neutral Lands, and has reviewed the data and analysis submitted by property owners and has re -reviewed data used by the County in 2002 to determine if either conclusively demonstrates property characteristics do not warrant Sending Lands designation. The results of these analyses are indicated on the attached re -designation spreadsheet. As to GMP consistency, this is a proposed amendment to the countywide Future Land Use Map as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re -designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Staff's determination for each parcel is identified on the attached re -designation spreadsheet. Staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re -designated, as noted on the spreadsheet and as identified on the two attached maps (in red cross hatch). Agenda Item 4.0. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS County staff duly advertised, noticed and held the required NIM on January 17, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., at the Golden Gate Community Center. The meeting was attended by approximately 55 persons in addition to staff present. A meeting summary is provided below. Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department staff member David Weeks provided background of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and its establishment in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in 2002; generally explained allowable uses in Sending Lands, Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands; explained the GMP included a provision for owners of Sending Lands along the Sending/Receiving or Sending/Neutral boundary to submit environmental data in an effort to demonstrate that their property does not warrant the Sending designation and that the designation should be changed to the abutting designation (either Receiving or Neutral); noted that owners of 92 properties [now 90], comprising 3,646 acres [now 3,606], took advantage of this opportunityand submitted data; advised that, based upon staffs preliminary review of the data, only about 10 properties would be recommended for change, but noted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would make the final determination; and, advised that the County regulations require notification of owners within 1,000' of any of these properties for which the re -designation request was made so that they might be aware of requested land use changes that could potentially impact their property. Also, that the owners initiated these requests but that the County was taking the requested amendments forward through the hearing process at no cost to the owners. David referred to the table at the back of the room which contained his business cards for future contact; a sign-up sheet as sometimes people want there to be an official record to show they attended; and, a handout containing excerpts from the GMP (RFMUD of the Future Land Use Element) — this opportunity to request re -designation, and portions of the Sending/Receiving/ { Neutral Lands designations. David invited the audience to contact him with any follow-up questions and/or to check the Department's website for additional information about this petition, e.g, hearing dates, Staff Report. Several questions were asked about Sending/Receiving/Neutral designations, such as what the allowable uses are [David explained]; if nearby owners would be notified of future development for those properties successful in this re -designation request [depends — yes if a public hearing process is involved, e.g. conditional use, no if not, e.g. building permit]; about the GMP amendment process, including whether they could file a request for re -designation [David explained; yes, anyone has a right to submit an application but at their own expense]; whether the County owned any of this property [no] or initiated this request on behalf of any owner [no]. Various comments were made pertaining to the history of the RFMUD, the process to establish it, the Rural Fringe Advisory (citizen) Committee appointed by the BCC, opinions about the RFMUD and the (inappropriate) designation of some properties as Sending Lands, various procedural matters of state law (e.g. dispute resolution process, visioning process). In response to a question, David advised the first set of hearing dates as: Environmental Advisory Council — first Wednesday in February [7t'']; Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) — March 5, with carryover dates to be decided at the CCPC's 1/18/07 hearing; BCC — June 4 with carryover date to 5t'. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) held their hearing on this petition on February 7, 2007. At that time, staff advised that properties under ownership by Curtis Mitchell (map property numbers 12-16, 93) were withdrawn from this petition at petitioner's request, thus staff's recommendation was modified accordingly. Also, staff advised they would be making a Agenda Item 4.0. site visit with the petition agent for map property number 1 and 2. The EAC recommended approval for re -designation per staff's modified recommendation, except for map property numbers 1 and 2, which were continued to the March 7 EAC hearing so that interested EAC members could make a site visit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP-2005-14 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit - but only for map property numbers 1, 36-41, 43, 56, 61, 70, 79, 91, 92, 95 and 96 (identified on the attached re -designation spreadsheet, and depicted in red cross hatch on the two attached maps) - to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. [At the CCPC hearing, staff will report on its site visit to view map property numbers 1 and 2; as a result of this site visit, the preceding staff recommendation could be slightly modified.] PREPARED BY: DAVID WEEKS, DATE: AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RANDY COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: Agenda Item 4.0. 2' za -0-7 DATE: 2- 2 a -C3 MARIL M. TUDENT-STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: JO EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE: C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &'.�/ NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PETITION NO.: CPSP-2005-14 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Transmittal CCPC Staff Report CPSP-05-14 G. Comprehensivecomp. Planning GMP DATA1Comp. Plan Amendments12005 PetitionslCPSP-2005-14; Sending Lands Re -designation dw,2-19-07 FAINA f- Attachment 2 Future Land Use Element/Rural Lands Mixed Used District Sending Lands "Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries" =� �ilV CWNhaxatm •r N 3 r - ; ` 1, e , . abitat preservation and rsetvationlises f) ' Passive parks and passive recreationai Gsesr t yg), ,Essent!alservices;'as authorized iri`Sending Lands.. t h). Mextraction and related' p�bcilislnqiv excluding earth mining. Native Vegetation shall be pteserrred as sef forth -in CGMe Policy 6.1.2. g 'Adjustment=r for the.. Sending=`Land '_Bdundarles= rFo�all�properties designated . ' Serf, Lands where; such; property48g contiguous to, - teal ;Sending: LancUNeufral' = Land'° boundary or.. Sendingt Land/Reeelving -,L-anduboundary;=-the' County; will. provide written: notice to Ahe ro e p p rtys,owre#oe of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the Gounty in anrattempt to demonstrate° a change -to the boundary is warranted. Said written noticev ll be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe: amendments. Within one year from the date these. notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does. not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. (IX) D) Additional TDR Provisions: Within one year of adoption of this plan amendment, Collier County will amend its land development regulations to adopt a formal process for authorizing and tracking the Transfer of Development Rights. This process will include, at a minimum: 1. The establishment of a simple, expeditious process whereby private property owners may, by right, "sell' residential dwelling units from lands designated as "Sending Lands". Said units may then be "transferred" by right to lands designated as "Receiving Lands", or to Urban Lands where authorized. Once- established, the TDR program shall be administratively reviewed and approved, requiring no further public hearing or Board approval if consistent with the provisions for administrative approval. 2. The establishment of a process for tracking and recording all transfers of residential units in the public records of Collier County. This shall include the identification of the entity or department responsible for on -going administration of the TDR program. In addition, the County shall consider the feasibility of establishing a "TDR Bank," to be administered by the County or some other not - for -profit governmental or quasi -governmental public agency established for this purpose. The County shall consider and evaluate the funding options and sources of revenues for such a TDR Bank as part of the FY04 budget review 66 Nran Ameft-UM—ent by Ordinance No. 2002-32 on June 19, 2002 Attachment 3 County Emails Regarding Land Clearing on Symphony Real Estate/William G. Clark Property Page 1 hatcher m From: student m Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:06 AM To: hatcher m Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels Importance: High Thanks Mac I will be over to talk to you about this Margie From: hatcher_m Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:52 AM To: weeks _d; lorenz_w; SchmittJoseph; SchmidtCorby; student m Cc: RoysLaura Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels I just got a large report from R. Yovanovich regarding Symphony Project CPSP-2005-14. For consideration June 22, 2007. Mac From: weeks d Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:42 AM To: hatcher_m; lorenz_w; SchmittJoseph; SchmidtCorby Cc: RoysLaura Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels Thnx, I'll forward to Rich. From: hatcher m Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:01 AM To: forenz_w; Schmittloseph; weeks_d; SchmidtCorby Cc: RoysLaura Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels Regarding the a tearing on these parcels I found the follow g permits: AR- 359 (ACP) for Cl ,William included parcels 00299680008,00299480004, 00300800007, 0029920001, 00299660005, 00299800008. It was opened 12/12/2002 and closed 12/20/2002 with effective - c ve data on permit of 12/18/2002. Clearing 40 ac for grazing. These are some of the the Clark - Symphony parcels Mr. Yovanovich inquired about. AR 4780 for Mr. Acunto (immediately east of Clark and applied for change # 49, submitted no data) parcel 299440002 for 10 ac. note there were 4 active gopher tortoise burrows that were to be avoided. Property was bought by Symphony. --> AR- 3670 for Clark's Nursery parcel 299240008 is in Neutral area and has been purchased by the School Board. n I identified these through search of CD —Plus for the STR for Clark's parcels. Laura didn't find any additional permits for other Symphony parcels an 100nl Page 2 of 3 Mac From: hatcher_m Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:41 PM To: lorenz w; SchmittJoseph; weeks_d; SchmidtCorby Cc: RoysLaura Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels Laura is putting together a records request from Symphony for clearing permits as well. Mac From; lorenz_w Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:39 PM To: SchmittJoseph; weeks_d; SchmidtCorby; hatcher m Cc: lorenz_w Subject: RE: Symphony Parcels Mac is working something up to run by David William D. Lorenz, P.E. Collier County Environmental Services Director 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Tele: (239)213-2951 Fax: (239)213-2960 E-mail: Williamlorenz@colliergov.net From: Schmittloseph Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:35 PM To: lorenz_w; weeks d; SchmidtCorby Subject: FW: Symphony Parcels Ask that one of you respond. I Joseph K. Schmitt Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Division office -- (239) 403-2385/2390 cell -- 595-9751 "Balancing the demands of growth and the demands of the community" From: Richard Yovanovich [mailto:ryovanovich@gcjlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:17 PM o i l I /Inner Page 3 of 3 To: mudd^j; Schmittloseph; CohenRandall; lorenz_w Subject: FW: Symphony Parcels FYI From: Richard Yovanovich Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:07 PM To: weeks d Cc: Melissa J. Schwartz (melissa@finmarkllc.com) Subject: Symphony Parcels David As you know, we provided a detailed analysis of the property. The staff report simply states that staff is recommending denial. There is no specific staff analysis of the information we provided and why in staff's opinion the information does not support our request to be changed from sending. Please provide me with the specific reasons for the staff's recommendation. Rich 10 9» 9MO7 Attachment 5 Current Collier County Property Appraiser Records with 2007 Aerials for Symphony Real Estate/William G. Clark Parcels licLails Page 1 of 1 Property Record Aerial: Sketches Current Ownership Folio No_ 0029912nnng -- A ---_X ... ------- Legal 13 49 27 E112 OF SE114 OF NE114 OF SW114, W112 OF SW114 OF NW114 OF SE114 Section Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 250,000.00 (+) Improved Value $ 0 00 {_} Market Value $ 250,000.00 (-) SOH Exempt Value ; 0.00 M Assessed Value $ 250,000.00 0 Homestead and other Exempt Value {_) Taxable Value ; 248,300.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Acres %apNo�4927113 Strap No10 3 001.0014C13 62 l 11,9374 Latest Sales History a Book - Page Amount 3Ww 2191 $ 4,950,000.00 2.408__1466 $ 35,000 00 2136. -1661 $ 32.000.00 Naw search The Information is Updated Weekly. APP al-� 4�3 http://www.collierappraiser.com/RecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299120005 9/13/2007 wSearch F .y F• 1 V �j W +� { �t a "• JE Now Search Fu z Page I of I Property Record Aerialj Sketches Current Ownershi FOlio NO. 00299480004 Pmnerw A,4,1--U fin arm Ann a Legal 13 49 27 NW7/4 OF SW114 OF SE1/4 t W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SW OF SE1/4 15 AC OR 1569 PG 302 *For more than four lines of Legal Description please call the Property Apprai: Section I Township Ran a Acres 13 49 Map No. 27 15 4C13 49271, Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER u Millags Area `` Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 82 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value Im roved P V 1 a us $ 0.00 (_} Market Value $ 375,000.00 Exempt Value $ 0 OQ {=j Assessed Value $ 3T5,000.00 (-} Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 372,450.00 (=} Taxable Value $ 2,550 OQ SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date �834 ok -Page Amount QT / 2005 _ 2191 $ 4,950,000.Q0 1212000 2754 - 2980 $ Q.00 0512000 267'9- 675 $ 725,000.00 The Infonnation is Updated Weekly. 101"N' http://www.collierappraiser.com/RecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299480004 9/13/2007 +� r�K11J Page 1 of 1 Property Record '. Aerial Sketches 4?:P.-;i r SMALL ME.D U1t I LARGE Introduction Layers Legend Print 4) Help A# FeedBack As Aerial Photography: January Urban - 2007 - Rural - 2007 2 C a Page Refreshed at 9/13/2007 3:26:34 PM i r . The Information is Updated Weekly. http://www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299480O04 9/13/2007 Lcuutb Page 1 of 1 ut Property Record Aerial Sketches Current Ownership EP Not Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER u Mill e A '�, Mill ' Use Code fi0 AGRICULTURAL 62 age 11.9374 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roil Land Value $ 125,000 00 (+} Improved Value $ 0 00 {=j Market Value $125,000.00 {-} SOH Exempt Vaiue $ 0.00 (=j Assessed Vaiue $ i25,000.00 (-} Homestead and other Exempt Value $124,350.00 (_} Taxable Value $ 650 00 Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 0712005 3834 -.2191 $ 4,950,000,00 1212000 2754 -,2970 1 0.00 0'S 12000 2679 -.675 $ 125,000.00 �%-•Fl — nave vur rtomes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. The Information is Updated Weekly. http://www.collierappraiser-com/RecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299560O05 9/13/2007 '-:� •ck ,.i• `+.;+ .� ? {< 4� h, '-y�.�a{'t � .''S• t �'.''. �'� .� � 4. _7 �r �"�� t {. -S, 1 tIN ? t ,i 3r is i R 3utr �� y ¢�• 1 �;?E t L'xe+`'�'> . �y�4 b �` d�'g'� 'c -J_`"r .��3 rX f "; L.� ;F'��t �rr l{�. '� ,�.�^'£3K� � •Xy�. 'i�a ,ryN-y„ k` � S. i.�teS,t�t,,.�..��;yyi� a c °�` `{" - " � � d FfiYf] t k } , ���,�<� d c �`' � 1 . � k,i { t � ". .,s y _i- ''�` 1 � : ,> � � � jv. :,�, �- .,✓ st._ F�- , is '�'� �'{'>s.#�.'6,`�y�' t i� t �' t.�'�„_ si. ";. ,�`y'a t� } s v �+ •Y J�K .'i� �� yr PAC.: „x - ���r AT'. -��` _� x ,�,-'t+ � �h��' � +z• at &}`�., '.>t r t�'' e- ''� y �S., �,� � .�� i� a�`� 4} +�?` �i£'::: �.µ �-• 4r4` ��_`'3." i 'LR� ..�[ �+'yG �, f• 5 IN:" s ¢„t, s . 'w.c y •z ..,}` a � +E� v �� � �-'��- "fir ,�;, r ,�{.�'„ F,�-* �y�� 'g ,� z ' 7v 15 rS `Y 1 1 thy`'1.5'}c. �- :f'Yn�.N;.. � , "- �j4' 3_�` d -� ^,a.a... -�^—� ^-tP.a„ -..a � �_ �`. _+, � � -•� �,�' .rdn 1., ;,{, s �, sue, �. � <' `� .• E � ,�� ti3' � �s ,�'�. �,� P, ";� .! ;� ;y, s •� ' .Li -�, �-:tii J � ,. y, � `:L � i� � �� � � .�`, u/ A }�^�,"* u'S'-�"fi..s>,. �f`�"4. vl3 '' �x _.� 3= > 1r A}=t t •'S` Ai" 19 FIN t., i y `may °+I�,..,t `� � { � "!� y�C ' ..>�r J� �,t� �• '� Page 1 of 1 Property Record r Aerial Sketches _ Current Ownershi 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Latest Sales History Land Value (+) Improved Value $ 375,000.00 pate Book -Page Amount (=} Market Value $ 0.00 0712005 $ 375,000.00 3834 -_2191 $ 4,950,000.00 {-)SOH Exempt Value 1212000 2.754 - ?980 $ 0.00,0.00 (_) Assessed Value $ $0.00 0512000 $ 37 5,450.00 2679 - 675 $126,000.00 {-} Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 37 {=} Taxable Value $ 2,560.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. The Information is Updated Weekly. Illy PAILf -?�76 h4://www.collierappraiser.com/RecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299680008 9/13/2007 "I"Lal1J Page I of I Alo�_ 11—N rim =1-1.77111 Property Record Aerial �, Sketches . VAP 5:2E: SMALL ( IVEDUV I LARGE Introduction v# Layers 4# Legend : +0 Print Help 40 FeedBack f k E F Aerial Photography: January Urban - 2007 - Rural - 2007 The Information is Updated Weekly. Page Refreshed at: 9/13/2007 3:31:54 PM 11 M 5�p Aa 2 C http:Ilwww.collierappraiser.comiRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299680008 9/13/2007 1/ V ccula Page 1 of 1 Property Record Nix Aerial Sketches Current Ownershi Owner Name SYMPHONY REAL ESTATE LTD Addresses C10 THERESA L PEARSON-THOMAS PO BOX 2681GT 4TH FLOOR CENTURY YARD HUTCHINS DRIVE GEORGE TOWN GRAND CAYMAN Country CAYMAN ISLANDS 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll wrl = "bave vur Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Mail a Latest Sales History Date I Book - Page Amount 07 i 2005IL3834 -. 2191I $ 41950,000.00 0311999 2521 - The The Information is Updated Weekly. /� http://Www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299800008 9/13/2007 +�vaaaaiu Page 1 of I Property Record f ' Aerial fi Sketches VAP - SMALL i VEDUM BARGE Introduction "f ,At Layers Legend Print Help 4 FeedBack E] m As Aerial Photography: January Urban - 2007 - Rural - 2007 2 t • The information is Updated Weekly, Page Refreshed at: 9/13/2007 3:35:39 PM http://www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299800008 9/13/2007 1JCLa11b Page 1 of 1 Property Record Aerial Sketches Current Ownershi Folio No. 00299920001 Property Address NO SITE ADDRE 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created. after the Final Tax Roil I Cana vaule �� $125,000.00 M Improved Value $ 0 00 M Market Value $125,000.00 (-)SOH Exempt Value $ 0 00 (_# Assessed Value $ 125,000.00 0 Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 124,350.00 (_} Taxable Value $ &50.00 - -Qyc �u� numes-- exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. a Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 0712005 3034_- 2191 $ 4,950,000.00 12 / 2000 2j� 754 -. 2980 $ 0.00 05 / 2000 2§79.- &75 $ 125,00Q.06 The Information is Updated Weekly. AO-N http://www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000299920001 9/13/2007 Next �py�' { Fry, � •T`S � � ♦ 3Y t C 4i-- N�pw Saatcit 1lGLajub Page i of 1 Property Record j# ,q�r��t 1 Sketches i` �l Current Ownersh Folio No. 00300800007 Property Address NO SITE ADDR I Legal 13 49 27 E1/2 OF SW114 OF NW1/4 OF SE1/4 + W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NW114 OF SE1/410 AC Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 13 49 27 10 11 4C13 492713 040.000 Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER M_ ills a Area '�� Milia e Use Cod 60 AGRICULTURAL 62 11.9374 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 250,000.00 M Improved Value $ 0.00 (_� Market Value $ 250,000.00 (-) SOH Exempt Value $ 0 00 (=► Assessed Value $ 250,000.00 {-) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 248,300.00 {_ Taxable Value $ 1,700.00 SOH = Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History 131 A F��Bookage �4,9950,000.00 0211996 2147 -.2348 $ 15,500.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. /00—N http://www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetaii-asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000300800007 9/13/2007 Page 1 of 1 n Property Record _ Aerial Sketches ;AP_'LE. SMALL j rED;UV ( LARGE 10 Introduction t 40 Layers 4 Legend 40 Print 40 Help 40 FeedBack Aerial Photography: January Urban - 2007 - Rural - 2007 f f, The Information is Updated Weekly, Page Refreshed at 9/13/2007 4:01:34 PM 2 C http:// ww.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=0000000300800007 9/13/2007 j/ b ui11A Page I of I Property Record tt Aerial Sketches Current Ownership Folio No. 00300880001 IL Property Address 1330 20TH ST SE A4,KtA(it HEADER AGRICULTURAL 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Millage Area Millaae 62 11.9374 Latest Sales History Land Value $ 375,000.00 Date Book - Page Amount M Improved Value {_) Market Value $ 0.00 07 / 2005 3_834 - 21-1 $ 4,950,000.00 {-) SOH Exempt Value $ 375,000.00 01 f 1993 1.707-_1345 $ 188,000.00 $ 0.00 1111992 1767_-_1474 $ 0.00 {_)Assessed Value $ 375,000.00 0 Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 372,460.00 (_) Taxable Value $ 2,550.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. The Information is Updated Weekly. http://www.collierappraiser.com/RecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=00000003 0088000l 9/13/2007 tl�+Kl11J Page I of I Property Record Aerial Sketches V P ;tF SMALL I' Etltutl � GE 4) Introduction Layers d� Legend +) Print Help 40 FeedBack Nax Gat cr'�suri�anmtYAu�raa5ar.ilaprs.L • Y A*, Aerial Photography: January Urban - 2007 - Rural - 2007 2 t Page Refreshed at: 9/13/2007 4:13:40 PM The Information is Updated Weekly. http://ww-w.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=000000030088000l 9/13/2007 Attachment 6 2002 Aerial Map Identifying William G. Clark/Symphony Real Estate Parcels � t 'Y't 1'i�N, j' •,.. 1 � w1-J -^ �.•J- •. Y, a. r.Ma � yt �.:: � 1.♦P f �1 rat . i ti�k� Ft � •�` rt` '� !~� ; 7:, r, h l� ` T' J��,�, yjM�i�,9 �P�'y"•�,4 1 ,- .�4( thy, c '�Y1r '> j -►r` ; f,� .�{-�t�1' �+ry, to �4r11 it`v..�, 03 a•G"a t ..�� tdi/'t i l ,S '} a 'X . �i� ��,t%'Vl!'r�'��t► t:-� e� C al �,,�, T.����,tf�lyt•x•� ti i'/.,` �..y s. wry lr t�`: 04 , 11eF4 �' • -�` — •= t�i'.'.'w '7. 'fir � �i{ s T.. i � i !. • Q tl t o al. l p 4. �4 �. F+ i' « •` J d (/1 � YY 1 . 'i• 1 r d rs ', S j� A ��•. t x A�qp.� 1 rY.`-�,.�y�wt .: �_,� �, !i`,�"' 1 '� ,t 1! .A������s?,,��rn �+;�1�S,d'it`�r'1i'S (��;�. � i�ij yip }awY +eT t..tf �1• ?=+`F .' 4 • .y'� �• {,tT,;.it • r `!i t t u+,�isl, r('+� '�a 4 ta�.,. i.� s '�+4.. t ••1� f -1�x^•I cT'�� �v s'I�. R• ♦ r � :. i•i: r� F •� � i.,.s , � •j a �.♦, !.,�. 11 {, w��."'� ;� �4• } • • i ♦�� �r t•�, i � ' �".�- ♦ ,St• ' , r• +� ; ._T. �W « '` *',yfl; > v;r, a#�..q ..'�' �i:; j a ,s: wi"':!•.':,� �5."r• •� ,.Mt Ki `.. 4fi.(+4• 1 ! �r T f�'.F*� w 4lr'i ..��♦`K`y'� • '_ r. a ..t •Yt�-� ii(.. `'C « r'�'' t+h+.;. v {«�`+•�yrr" ?Ivy C�' ♦ J♦ 4 rf - ?' n •t.1 r'M.. bti ♦ ..� . �t�...` �Ca ~ "�w •,LV.taa /;i'' u�i'rt rs 'P.T•t'•. (tt r-� •, �r `r �1$j . l �p.1yJ'-;s. :�f ~♦h'.Id 1 1.•TM- � µt7"'1 '«��.�-. ' •, r�•t.,� �( 1.` ..... •'7.�t'1 �:� ,. �i I� �� .Ir ,� � � , ;ti ' ►�,r. '�' gyp'. •., , .qt ,; -.'4 . • a ' + <.: „ ; r ►'1'ji:.. ".a ' sMaSf.4 i � j' i '.y �' �'!L'f • t: a •M �' 3! i •1 � o;• r� �; < t:� `� }. r�. t 4 � t 7 F."`r•`t � �+• w � '• 1 M4 •.'F �.�1*Y� ` • $. �it:i •.•�M•Ar%i4. � mF r •Td%,� �>s r y�' 4 � p"• r; � �•• *.��,• ,�d� •; y;ry, .� � t'�► irF••c.� �u ,v+T�.�� .-�:�tjr r•rl� f "2 • w x ,+'r. � • • Arr -y ♦� is t r !.Y .r ,. . .. �;S+�j �a ,�' '�r�l �+ r Y`: i �,'{ A1 . � # • wC. � M1 �. � ��a ; 1. .i � ♦ a��jr`�1 �l J r �:vL ll11F 1\• �' ^t 1� a F!` t" 'h « i jl ��qp �#%-}a yMld'�' ao` ;•.= a: t! +�94� �yi� j 'R< ' �St1 r�`1 .,! _ ,Z T3•;.q � .� �n 1�� '�wE f7�j�i �;a+► yM�py„,� � »s• ,l,R, rlf� 3ii,�� a �it.t - ,• it! a li' '�•"y - i' �'•�,C''��'w a ,i +y+ryl,a9r(•, •c"R<.rC rr11 `'+' " • 'b• r ♦ .r .. d - �' �ww,. w • s� n .•s * �Y �` M,�1 n%t�.' r�,i'r- ,j1� T' «* S ,,.�+*,'f�, ♦p 4Y '.�'�F� �" �c r _ g�. �,t���.y� h h tty�'%rR*•7^ `...,."-s�rY °.a,�.,'.6:v% t t r- , ~ ♦i�. �R- s•3R .�'r�k%i" 4. Cox t ,ti N •! g/ � t 1/ rxJ- - � .,.+ r may., ~ y • ��"; ' '', .r �• �{« ' �ir. �� � •'} ! '1 iA:..%tirrMHw•e.r .- "ir+ L`- -c+ � ,, WLIC ! wtu rmre►1 ■ N a Q N Q � N oin 0- N �-c� 3 E E rn 0 J 0 o' o W II U tocro N ,� N W EUc� Cl p �(n mM n � W N � �UF (D0