Loading...
EAC Agenda 07/05/2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 5, 2006 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building IAF")—Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV Approval of June 14, 2006 Meeting minutes ► n r ng 4PP : R ,r fe laat. T, ... V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. Continue Proposed LDC Amendment- 2006 CYCLE 1 VIII. New Business A. DEP letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP B. Mirasol PUD extension IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ************************************************************************** ****************************** Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2006 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2424). 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. Double UnderlinelStokethroucill reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th LDC Amendment Request /",N ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services AMENDMENT CYCLE #OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2006 LDC PAGE: LDC 3:36 LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07.H.1.d. Allowable uses in preserves CHANGE: Add criteria to allow for treated stormwater in wetland preserves or in hydric preserves when the additional storm water will either benefit the preserve or will have absolutely no detrimental affect on the native vegetation in the preserve. REASON: There are times when it is appropriate for storm water to be directed into preserves and this amendment defines those times. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: This will reduce the time staff spends on requests of this type since there will be criteria to utilize. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version dated March 10, 2006; amended 15, 2006. Amend the LDC as follows: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards. H. Preserve standards. 1. Design standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 95 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wd1 EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double Underline/Strikethrough,reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th h. Allowable-t ses within preserve areas. Passive recreational uses the purpose of this section, passive rccr ational uses arc those b ids of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species section preserve area. h. Allowable uses within preserve areas. Only the following uses subiect to the associated design criteria have been determined to ensure that the ecological functions of the preserve areas are maintained and are allowed within preserve areas. i. Passive recreational uses subiect to the following criteria. a) For the purpose of this section, passive recreational uses are limited to such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. For the purpose of this section, passive recreational uses are those uses that would allow limited access to the preserve in a manner that will not cause any negative impacts to the preserve, such as pervious pathways, benches and educational signs. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species section 3.04.01 D.1.c. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. ii. ,099- • i ,', :.. -#. stormwater and s•ecified support facilities are allowed in the Preserve Areas eu `:, ha I r 'v .9®. -0.,.`®.. .9, 9.9 45, 41'.414... 01. /Jrpm A aa feektife meats, The criteria €1.999#904 apply to WateC— . .. d SQIIt .f d Water 1,404siement ritt preserves "-s' - klfig pnly when they are used to satisfy the County's native vegetation retention requirements. 96 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wdl EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double Underline/Strikethrough reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th a) For FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) classifications not otherwise identified below, the County shall allow stormwater in Preserve areas. b) stormwater may be disonarito into a Preserve Area containing Ate following upland FL.9pFCS .(FDOT 1999) classificatiompNV t'n the average gond elevation of the 'LUCFCS (FDOT199) areas is ;>more.'°'...than 3 feet aL c t e.:control e -,.ion: of the st•.r= w d ohc'actortcticc the docign of t ctotmwator dice-hargo' into a Procorvo Area, oxeopt whop eleselfi • 413 Sand Pine • 421 Xeric Oak • 432 Sand Live Oak • 436 Upland Scrub peviatton yIrgm this 3-foot threshold play Iv Qor►stder g an analysis of th stq , 4 onst -$ the water levels aener�t 0 will not exceed trIk *®ns • '10.7-_,74-•_ ar- s .f2(i • w x c) Stormter a m - -- - -_ - may be discharged into a Preserve Area containing the following upland FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) classifications that either individually or in combination comprise more than 5% of the Preserve Area, providing the average ground elevation of these FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) areas is more than 2 .t; ae 1 foot above the control elevation of the stormwater system: • 321 Palmetto Prairie • 411 Pine Flatwood Deviation from this Jopt threshold may be considered if the underlying tweesei# soil type,.. on-site groundwater monitoring wells. or hydrobiological indicators suggest a wetter base hydrology. 97 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wd1 EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double UnderlinetStrikethrougb reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th d) Stormwater is allowed in Preserve Areas that are created pursuant to Section 3.05.07 H. 1.e. of the LDC. The selection of plant material shall be based on the hydroperiod expected from the management of the stormwater. e),„ , Stormwater genergietiLfrom less than the 25- year/3-day storm is prohibited in Preserve Areas yv er the preserve area will,function as a hresery far'Gopher Tortoises or Burrowing Owls., f) Stormwater must be treated before it enters a Preserve Area which is used to satisfy either all or part of the County's native vegetation retention requirements. (1) For all situations, treatment shall meet the following requirements: (a) The Preserve Area may not be used to satisfy the water quality treatment requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. (b) Prior to discharge to the Preserve Area, the stormwater must pass through a treatment iiirookio mechanism employing best management practices to treat sediment, oil and grease, and floating debris. Such mechanisms include wet or dry. r- -a '• • ( •n vegetative filter strips, baffle boxes, skimmers or other devices accepted by the South Florida Water Management District. (c) Discharge of treated stormwater into a Preserve Area shall be in a controlled manner to prevent erosion, scour, and to promote even distribution. Alkwvolato.diooOotOe A maintenance plan to service the device must be incorporated into the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.05.07.10.H.1.g. of the LDC. (2) For Preserve Areas comprised of wetlands having a UMAM score of 0.7 or greater, the following criteria shall apply: 98 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wd1 EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double Underline/Strikethrough reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th (a) Stormwater entering the Preserve Area must be treated to meet the water quality volumetric requirements of Section 5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review For Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District, (SFWMD Febru ry » • (b) The stormwater entering the Preserve Area must pass through the treatment system that provides the full pre-treatment volume for the contributing area. (c) The location of the discharge point within the treatment system used to convey the treated stormwater to the preserve must be located such that short-circuiting does not occur. (3) For Preserve Areas not comprised of wetlands having a UMAM score of 0.7 or greater, the County shall accept the permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District addressing: water quality.tret " fo) For those protects where stormwater is allowed in Preserve Areas, the associated stormwater facilities such as berms, conveyance systems, or discharge facilities, may be located within the Preserve Area, but the area of the facilities can not count towards the native vegetation preservation requirement required in Section 3.05.07. of the LDC. These facilities are not subject to setback requirements found in Section 3.05.07.10.H.3. of the LDC. f) Where stormwater is allowed in a Preserve Area, the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.05.07.10.H.1.q [PROVIDE CROSS REFERENCE' of the LDC must address stariwit= -r "n' re•uire that an assessment be conducted if 20% of the preserve vegetation is lost. The assessment must consider the effects of stormwater on the preserve vegetation and determine a re-planting plan that considers the effect of stormwater on the hydro period of the Preserve Area. : . " ' . Double UnderlineIStrikethrough,reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th mors Brig program must include provis ns to recprc,n thly ground and urface water,layels and appropriate .protocols to conduct arm* vegetation surveys` The monitoring grogram must - A-as 6,-606=>* A -asp submitted to the County_ APaselinqjeport must be su•mitted in accordance with a schedule contained in' the Preserve Management Plan, Thereafter annual reports are required for 5:years and must be submitted to the County no la r th n;30 days after the anniversary,date of the baseline report. ounjy w ll:a e t wetland i oni p i reports submitted to the South Floridater Management District as longepo conf minimum requirements provided Anglein and of the Preservar, Area receiving rmwater. 100 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wd1 EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double UnderlinelStrikethrough reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC June 14th P"'N This page intentionally left blank. 101 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater criteria in preserves (061506wd1 EAC0614 revsions shown).doc Double Underline1$trlkethrouph reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC,June 14th LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services AMENDMENT CYCLE#OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2006 LDC PAGE: LDC 3:35 LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07.H.1.b Minimum dimensions. CHANGE: Add calculations to serve as a standard to evaluate and approve the acceptable dimensions and shapes of preserves. REASON: To assist the development community in creating preserves those fulfill the requirement for the largest contiguous area possible. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: This will reduce the time staff spends meeting with the applicants to explain the intent of the dimensional requirements. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version dated April 1, 2006; amended June 15, 2006. Amend the LDC as follows: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards H. Preserve Standards 1. Design standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * * b. Minimum dimensions and preserve shapes. The-minimum-width-of the preserve shall be: The following criteria have been established to ensure that Preserve Areas provide for a core area that has the 92 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 preserve dimensions calculations (061506wdlEAC0614 revisions shown)(2).doc Double UnderlineiStrikethrough reflects chanties to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC,June 14th greatest potential for wildlife habitat and has the smallest possible interface between the Preserve Area and other land uses. The selection t f the ! . and amou 8. of ve etatio® re.' ed fo proposed Preserve- Areas. shall conform to-.the xegirement ...01 Section 3.05.07A, 3.0547 I and 3.05.0/C In order to meet this purpose and other LDC and GMP objectives, specifically the GMP requirement to identify the largest most contiguous area, the shape of the proposed Preserve Area must meet the following criteria: i. twenty feet, for property less than ten acres. ii. an average of thirty feet in width but not less than twenty feet in width, for property equal to ten acres and less than twenty acres. iii. an average of fifty feet in width but not less than twenty feet for property of twenty acres and greater. i. Shape Factor Ratio (SFR). The SFR of the Preserve Area must be equal to or greater than 0.6 unless the Preserve Area qualifies for any of the listed exemptions. a) SFR Formulas. The SFR ex.ressed as a decimal value, is a comparison between the Area: Qualifying Perimeter ratio of the Preserve Area and the Area: Perimeter ratio of a circle having the same area as that of the Preserve Area. SFR= "-Area of preserve area/qualifying perimeter of preserve area] 'Area of circle/perimeter of the circle] Or SFR =740 x JArea(acres) QualifyingPerimeter(feet) b) Calculation Requirements. i) Qualifying Perimeters. The qualifying perimeter for a proposed preserve area that is used in the above calculation is the total perimeter less the length of the perimeter that has any of the following characteristics: • Where the perimeter shares the same boundary as that of an off-site preserve area 93 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 preserve dimensions calculations (061506wdIEAC0614 revisions shown)(2).doc nulale Undgrtine/Strikethrough reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC,June 14th or an area that is being preserved by a permanent conservation easement, • Where the perimeter adjoins a natural water feature such as a river or estuary ii1+ Multiple Preserves. The wth WinienrintTPian requires th e tiF vege$tign retention r it nients lie geotnpled 6y en-1:p E ,; - . '• t ,gc con are p ib1e. A st �f Prese 40* is therefore ti iredd in1e s yonmzn w conditions, dete .;by the priority raulFing critert= ,1 - tion ! for .; ® .reset:,;: ' areas. Where-multiple,P, f e Areasarq • ' the SFR for each Preserve Area must be • calculated separately . . Each SFR must be equal to or reater than the allowable SF' '- P, ;ire 1 I lilies for an exeratAtion to r� .1' 44, 44 iii) Documentation. The site plan must provide a summary of the SFR calculations for each of the proposed Preserve Areas, to include the area of the Preserve (acres), total Perimeter (feet) of the Preserve and Qualifying Perimeter (feet), and calculated SFR . c) ii_st,,J1is is.....II _ r 4 -11`.. The following conditions serve as exceptions to the minimum SFR requirement: i) The Preserve Area is being used to buffer a natural feature and the size of the area meets all of the retained native vegetation retention requirement. ii) The Preserve Area boundary is a wetland jurisdictional determination, is required to be preserved on site by a federal or state agency and no opportunity exists for an 94 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 preserve dimensions calculations (061506wdIEAC0614 revisions shown)(2).doc Double UnderlinelStrikethrou reflects changes to the April 18,2006 draft reviewed by the EAC,June 14th upland buffer to be added so that the SFR can be increased to the minimum required value. iii) The Preserve. re . a undary confisrn s tri the natural vegetation boundary of -the vegetation required to be preserved,and .te jze of the area meets all,of.the retained native vegetation retention requirement. ivy The size or shape of the preserve area is necessary to protect listed species and the ile of the area rogue:all of the retained n tiv v .etation reteniti n requirements.tgio . The design of the Ptescrve Aja. that is used for a wildlife c d ,_stgl, be supported through T nical Assistance letters from Federal and State wildlitfe.agencies. d) Applicability. The requirements specifying the SFR sal not apply to projects where a .co ple#od a® s _ .t,r N .:+ " acted •rlorti se ... 0.v"m date of theseregulations. For those projects where the SEK*rrquetnent shall apply for those p r ct prgp ,se a change to more than 5O% of the previously adopted Preserve Area boundary, ii. Minimum Dimensions. The minimum width of the preserve shall be fifty feet, unless the only existing native vegetation on site does not meet that minimum dimension and then the preserve may be reduced in size but not to less than forty feet. The minimum dimensional shape criteria shall be applied to all required preserves. 95 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 preserve dimensions calculations (061506wdlEAC0614 revisions shown)(2).doc Department of do 4. "5 E. j Environmental Protection 4/4Y ii,4-0 6 VaigagadalMger Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Jeb Bush 300 Tower Road Colleen M.Castille Governor Naples, Florida 34113 Secretary (239)417-6310 Fax(239)417-6315 April 26, 2006 Jim Mudd County Manager Collier County Government 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Dear Jim: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. In order to protect the long-term ecosystem integrity of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,we believe the first step that a public agency should take when planning for current and future _ development is to understand the importance of the natural environment to Collier County. It appears that the proposed changes put forth by the Environmental Advisory Committee to the Growth Management Plan have taken positive steps to minimize wetland impact through the Watershed Management Plans. We strongly support Watershed Management Plans and the suggested changes to the Growth Management Plan. However,we believe that any additional delays in development and implementation of Watershed Management Plans will cause further harm to the sensitive environment of Collier County. We would suggest a more aggressive time frame to develop and implement Watershed Management Plans. Growth is occurring in Collier County at an unprecedented pace. While there are multiple environmental regulations in place designed to protect wetlands and natural areas,these measures do not provide holistic protection to watersheds and their associated flow ways. New developments and roads have the potential for watershed disruption as they can be viewed out of context within each watershed and adjacent watersheds. For example,upland areas adjacent to wetland areas are habitats critical to maintaining healthy watershed function. While it is generally recognized that wetlands are important to watershed function and wildlife habitats,there should also be a greater emphasis placed upon the value of upland habitats which are becoming more rare in the landscape of Collier County. The conversion of natural upland areas,to developed impervious areas is often detrimental to natural hydrology(including groundwater)and water storage capacities. Wetland areas,which are adjacent to developments, should not be viewed as potential for stormwater treatment unless it can be scientifically demonstrated to be of habitat benefit. The amount of growth in Southwest Florida is also increasing demands on water supplies. Long-teen water conservation should be the cornerstone of any water supply planning. Southwest Florida naturally _ experiences very wet and dry periods,which may have an impact on water supplies. However,the ecology and environment of Southwest Florida is well adapted to these dry and wet cycles. In the past 100 years,human development has drastically changed how natural watersheds function by altering the "Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources" quality, quantity, and duration of freshwater flows to estuaries like Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. In a rapidly growing area, diligent growth management and watershed planning is necessary so that regional water supply needs do not further impact natural systems. We recognize that managing growth in Southwest Florida must balance social, economic, and environment factors to strike a balance of sustainable development and a sustainable environment. The economic basis for development often appears more valuable than the perceived intrinsic and aesthetic values of the natural environment. Growth managers should emphasize that the potential economic value of the environment to Collier County is substantial and plan to conserve large core conservation areas. In one study(Costanza et al, 1997)the value of a hectare of mangroves provides $9,900 per year in service, seagrasses provide $19,004 per year, estuaries and bays deliver$22,832 per year,and coastal waters offer $4,052 per year. Based on these values and acreage for each system within the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve provides approximately$407,250,000 in environmental services to Collier County and the State of Florida every year. This is more than ten times the estimated tourist revenue of $35,282.000 during the 1993-1994 fiscal year(derived from tourism development taxes in Collier County; Pierce 1995). The long-term conservation of targeted core conservation areas,buffers, and corridors will ensure a continued positive contribution to the economy of Collier County. These staff comments are preliminary and are designed to assist in the review of the application prior to final agency action. The comments provided herein are not the final position of the Depaitment and may be subject to revision pursuant to additional information and further review. If I can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, , on Enviro -ntal Administrator Cc: Commissioner Frank Halas Commissioner Jim Coletta Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Tom Henning Clarence Tears, South Florida Water Management District Layne Hamilton,Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge Jim Beever,Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission /Judy Hushon, Collier County Environmental Advisory Council Mark Strain, Collier County Planning Commission Brad Cornell,National Audubon Society Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Michael Shirley,Rookery Bay Reserve Research Coordinator Tad Bartareau, Rookery Bay Reserve Environmental Specialist Keith Laakkonen,Rookery Bay Reserve Resource Management Coordinator Printed on recycled paper.