The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 11/01/2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA November 1, 2006 9:00 A.M. Community Develo ment and Environmental Services Building Rooms 609/610 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of October 4, 2006 Meeting minutes—will be sent out in separate mailing V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. New Business A. Roberts Rules of Order Presentation —Sue Chapin B. EAR Based Amendment: Section 24 Sending Lands Recommendation— will be sent out in separate mailing VII. Land Use Petitions A. This petition was moved to the December meeting, B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR 66810 "Hamilton Greens" Section 31, Township 48S, Range 26E C. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2006-AR-10030 "Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD" Section 14, Township 50S, Range 26E VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects X Subcommittee Reports XI. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment ************************************************************************** ****************************** Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2006 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (213-2987). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. October 4, 2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 4, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Terrence Dolan (excused) James Harcourt William Hill (excused) Lee Horn Judith Hushon Iry Kraut (excused) Nick Penniman Michael Sorrell ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Director of Environmental Services Barbara Burgeson, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 4, 2006 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W.Harmon Turner Building (Building"F")—Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of September 6, 2006 Meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Rezone No.RZ-2005-AR-7271 "Public Facilities Rezone" Section 10,Township 51 South,Range 26 East B. PUDA-2005-AR-7818 "Pine View" Section 18,Township 49S, Range 26E VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. GMP discussion of EAR-based GMP amendments(CCME only)(Will be mailed in separate mailing once complete.) VIII. New Business A. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson election 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 September 29. 2006 if you cannot attend this meetina or if you have a conflict and will abstain from votina on a petition(213-2987). 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. � I, October 4,2006 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:05 a.m. II. Roll Call A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carries unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of September 6,2006 Meeting minutes Changes: - Page#3 LDC Section: 3.05.07. H.l.d. Dr. Hushon would like for her comment to say"storm water in preserves"instead of"small projects". - Page#4 under the comment by Bruce Layman it should have been "areas" not"area" and under the comment by Doug Lewis it should have been "rigid" note "ridged". Dr. Hushon moved to approve the September 6, 2006 minutes with changes. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carries unanimously 6-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr. Hushon will be out for the meetings in December and January. Susan Mason announced that the November 1st meeting will be at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Rezone No. RZ-2005-AR-7271 "Public Facilities Rezone" Section 10,Township 51 South,Range 26 East - Presenters were sworn in. - No disclosures. Fred Reishel gave a presentation. He noted that Collier County would like to have this property rezoned to "Public Use" so that it is known that it will have a government facility on it in the future. It has not been decided what the use of the site will be. The gopher tortoises that were on the property have been relocated. Land that is designated for preservation was demonstrated. 2 October 4, 2006 Alicia Abbott mentioned that the property is currently being used for water storage and will potentially be used for a water treatment facility. Open discussion ensued with the following objections expressed: - Not to have an emergency facility on land that is in a flood zone. - Gopher tortoise mortality rate is high after relocation. The person that prepared the report is also the person managing the preserve land for gopher tortoise relocation. - The actual use of the property is undefined. When it is defined the project can return for review. Susan Mason mentioned that the habitat was not suitable for gopher tortoises. Dr. Hushon moved to deny the petition due to lack of information and stated comments. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carries unanimously 6- 0. B. PUDA-2005-AR-7818 "Pine View" Section 18,Township 49S,Range 26E - Presenters were sworn in. - No disclosures. Tim Hancock, Davidson Engineering introduced his team. The project is located on the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill. He gave a description of the area and project. There has been a transition of wet lands over the site since 2000; which is possibly due to the surrounding developments. The high quality wet lands (as defined by a representative from Collier County who has been on the site) are set to be preserved. Stan Chrzanowski mentioned that this area up until ten years ago was largely undeveloped. Development started all at once. The last person to develop tends to hold all the water as a"sump" lot. Tim Hancock added that two gopher tortoise burrows were located at the initial survey, one was active and the other was inactive. A later survey found both burrows abandoned with one of them flooded out. It was suggested for the developer to utilize a semi permeable surface which will assist in protecting the lot from flooding. 3 October 4,2006 Mr. Penniman moved to recommend approval of PUDA-2005-AR 7818. Second by Mr. Horn. Mr. Penniman amended his motion and restated it to recommend approval of the petition with a strong urge that the petitioner look at the use of semi pervious services as part of the project to mitigate the situation down stream. Mr. Horn seconded again. Motion carries unanimously 6-0. VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Susan Mason reported: - Windstar PUD was continued to the October 10`h meeting. - Keewaydin has been under dramatic redesign and has withdrawn from their BCC hearing. - Brooks Village has changed their plan; a wall was added. - Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee had a panther presentation. The meeting recessed at 10:27 a.m. reconvening at 10:41 a.m. B. GMP discussion of EAR-based GMP amendments (CCME only) Bill Lorenz reviewed the"Objections Recommendations and Comments Report for Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 06-1ER" (see attachment). A sub-committee was set up to address the objections which were factored into the language suggestions. Randy Cohen mentioned that they have tried to come up with acceptable interim standards while meeting the DCA requirements. There needs to be sufficient data to support the language. Ms. Student-Stirling reiterated the essential need of data analysis to back up the language. Bill Lorenz addressed questions on the Total Maximum Daily Loads to establish the South Florida Water District Basin rule. Public Speakers: Nicole Ryan,Conservancy of South West Florida would like a change in the language"all development projects shall meet 'the' 150%" under line item 'a' to read "all development projects shall meet 150%". She would also like to see the words"flow way"switched to"slew"since "flow way" can also denote a man made drainage ditch. She suggested that the County could later incorporate Best Management Practices into the Land Development Code. 4 October 4, 2006 Council Members had an open discussion on potential changes. The following recommendations were made: - Change the language to "Until the water shed management plans are completed, the County shall develop and apply Best Management Practices for all new development and redevelopment projects including but not limited to the following as interim standards for development:" (James Harcourt left the meeting at 11:18 a.m.) - Title the figure. It was suggested by the staff to limit the restrictions to non-single family homes and not define just "new development"while Robert Wiley suggested applying the restrictions to single family homes. Bill Lorenz agreed to provide the new language changes to the Council. Ms. Student-Sterling suggested a member of the Environmental Advisory Council go to the Planning Board to raise any issues that may arise after the language is crafted by the staff. Mr. Lorenz reviewed in detail item #2 from the "Objections Recommendations and Comments Report for Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 06-1ER"(see attachment). Robert Riley gave further details. (Mr. Sorrell left the meeting at 11:43 a.m. a quorum no longer existed.) Council Members had an open discussion on potential changes. The following recommendations were made: - Compliance with the regulations is followed through by the County and if remediation is necessary then it is performed. - Make sure there is a certification procedure. (Mr. Sorrell rejoined the meeting at 11:48 a.m. again creating a quorum.) Ray Smith,Pollution Control Department reviewed in detail item #3 from the "Objections Recommendations and Comments Report for Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 06-1ER" (see attachment). (Mr.Horn left the meeting at 11:54 a.m. a quorum no longer existed, rejoining at 11:56 a.m. again creating a quorum.) Council Members had an open discussion on potential changes. The following recommendations and issues were addressed: 5 October 4, 2006 - Concurrency with State issued laws that do not address the unique issues of Southwest Florida. - Change the language to "by land use"instead of"of land uses." Mr. Lorenz reviewed in detail item#4 from the "Objections Recommendations and Comments Report for Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 06-1ER" (see attachment). Council Members had an open discussion on potential changes. The following recommendations and issues were addressed: - Adding a concept of very small preserve areas. - Suggested language was "When a preserve will be smaller than can remain functional as a preserve area for flora and fauna." Public Speakers: Nicole Ryan the language should not be left open to interpretation. She suggested that the language could include rarity of the habitat and the priorities listed in the Land Development Code. Ms. Burgeson suggested adding a line item "e" under line item"(9)" that would say"Required preserve would be smaller than can remain functional" and to change the language under"(9)" to read "preservation retention requirement to be requested to be satisfied by..." (Mr. Penniman left the meeting at 12:20 p.m. a quorum no longer existed.) Randy Cohen reiterated that the Environmental Advisory Councils recommendations will be transmitted. (Mr. Penniman rejoined the meeting at 12:22 p.m. again creating a quorum.) Mr. Lorenz invited those concerned to address the Planning Commission in October. Dr.Hushon moved to recommend these responses with the changes that have been specifically recommended on individual items. Second by Mr. Penniman. Motion carries unanimously 5-0. Mr. Hughes would like a review of water quality of source wells and distribution. VIII. New Business A. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson election 6 October 4, 2006 n Mr. Penniman moved to reelect the current Chairman and Vice- Chairman. Mr. Hughes encouraged others to get involved and join. Motion carries unanimously 5-0. IX. Subcommittee Reports Ms. Burgeson mentioned that the Panther Presentation is now posted on the Habitat Conservation web site. X. Council Member Comments Mr.Hughes added that the November meeting will be recorded and televised at a later date. XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:29 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 7 Data and Analysis Supporting Re-designation of Various Neutral Lands To Sending Lands in Section 24, North Belle Meade Overlay Prepared for the EAR-based Amendment Adoption Public Hearing Process Collier County Environmental Services Department October 18,2006 r-. OIfo Z advd •jZ uoi3o0S JoJ uopuu2isaQ spuul in.i1naN puu spuul 5uipu0s posodoid 343 spidap i 31115i3 •spunl iu.i3fON su uoguu2isap 2upsix0 ski ui ureuiai mom uoi3oas 3ii3 Jo aouning aii•j, •spun? 2uipuas su pa1uu2isap-3a aq tZ uoi3oas 30 %£c JO SAM OSspuaunuoow Buis `s3u3tgnii mix jo uopnooi alp pun luauidoianap anunJ pun 5ui3six0 jo u.io d 041 uo pasug •A i punoq uialsua q nos pun uialsua 341 uo pa1igiiix° imp se walled luauidoianap aures 341 anug ician Tiro&Azupunoq uia3sam alp uo s3oi papinipgns iiumS £OOZ 041 ui pa3ou suns sn `Pn3rquii max uin3uoo Sou op bZ uopas Jo uoiliod Isamii3nos 34114 as.inoo Jio2 u puu uopiod 3sualpiou 043 uiii3im sai3ini3ou inmgnop5u `osi\/ •i,Z uopas Jo uof iod uaa3sna glnos puu uza3sua alp utii3im 1Ci3uuo!Jiu5!s pasuaaoui snit luauidoianap JCJTurJ-apuis •suoippuoo 03is 043 paungo pig luomdoianap 3u303.1 aiaiim seam panaasgo osin pm `.ianamoH 'APIMS £OOZ alp Jo 51.4ddnuz Pu3Tgnq 043 Jo Aonmoon 343 pa!J!.ian siaotud 3s0g1 uo suoTPnnaasgp •uoissiuuad .iaumo puui paniaoaa am aiagm SAM 9L i uo suoi}oadsui alis pa3onpuoo pun saaumo A iadoad L uioig uoissiuuad aniaoaI o3 aign sum 3BuiS 'AP IS £OOZ 343 Jo ifonanoou 343 XJ!.ian impo3 s3tsin Nag Pnpuoo o3 JJu3s JoJ zapio ui saaumo Aaiado.id 3on3uoo o3BBuis papa.up Dpg 043 pun SIiuJJV icl!unuuuop Jo 3uaui3.indOQ 3ii3 o3 uopupuauiuiooai siii3 pa33Tuisuna3 A3unop aii1 •214puas sn poluu2Isap aq pinoiis puu 0INEIN 343 ui spuul 2uipu0s 10430 03 xeiiuiis so9sua3onlniio peg bZ uoi3oaS Pnii3 (33g) s iauoissiuiiuo0 A3unop Jo moil 341 01.11MMS Xq pasn puu (stlba ioq sapzoald) dapadp000 papn1poa pad atlJ'of ubld£Giaaoaaj;viigvH dvidanp apnaj, allag tlJJoN) EON nclui333CEui monpuoo sum Apn3s 5u4dduui y •spuu7 2uipuoS sn pa3nuS!sap -al ag pinoiis spuul iuiinaN pa3uu5!sap Xi3uauno 3i auiuua3ap pun uopoas u1 2uOn.ioJ pun 2ui}sau (mix) .ia)ioadpoom papn)iooJ pa)i 043 aluninna o} c3unoD 341 sagnbaa 3uauiaig asn puel ain3nd 341 Jo (ovum) Jcui.zanp 3pl0JA aiiag 4110N 3141 suoi3npuauiuioaaH puu uipui,J Jo /Cieu suns 9002'8I-a4°1°0 (auuvaH uo:Idopy sluaeupuaued pasvq div )sesdlvuy spuv7 Suipuas 0AWWN 6Z uoipas Section 24 NBMO Sending Lands Analysis(EAR based Amendments Adoption Hearings) October 18,2006 Analysis of Available Data Background Within the NBM Overlay (NBMO) there are four distinct areas, as depicted on the current Future Land Use Map and Map series. These areas include the Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), the Receiving and the Sending Areas for the transfer of development rights, and two Neutral areas, one consisting of an area in the northeast portion of the NBMO and Section 24 located in the northwest portion of the NMBO. (See Figure 2.) The NBMO of the Future Land Use Element states that Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) nesting and foraging habitat be mapped and protected from land use activities within Sending Lands, and Section 24 designated Neutral Lands. RCW nesting and foraging habitat are to be mapped within all Sending areas within the NBM Overlay and an assessment is to be made as to the applicability of the current Neutral Lands designation for Section 24. Within Section 24, the Neutral Lands designation may be adjusted based upon the findings of the updated RCW nesting and foraging habitat study. Habitat Mapping Study Staff engaged the services of Geza Wass de Czege, President of Southern Biomes, Inc. who has had a variety of experience working for various property owners both in Section 24 and other areas of the North Belle Meade Area. The results of his work (Figure 2) were compiled in the attached December 2003 report, North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The data in this report improved on the data previously used by staff in the recommendations of the NBMO for the Final Order amendments that the BCC adopted in June 2002. This improved data set together with site property visits in conducted by staff in the summer of 2006 has been used in the development of a RCW strategy for the NBMO and for analysis of Section 24 RCW habitat as compared to RCW habitat in other NBMO Sending Land Designations. A summary of the report is as follows: 1. The methodology for determining RCW habitat was much more extensive than that followed to support the June 2002 Final Order amendments. The consultant utilized his professional knowledge of the area from past consulting contracts, 2001 color aerial photographs (1 in = 400ft), and selective field verification to identify important RCW habitats. 2. Two types of habitat were characterized (foraging and cavity/nesting) and were identified on the aerials that staff utilized for a subsequent GIS analysis. The consultant utilized 7 separate habitat variables to identify and characterize the habitats. The variables were evaluated by aerial interpretation and selected areas were field verified for accuracy. Page 3 of 10 MP a8nd 343 uo sloj papinipgns !fetus atp `ifjjtuo!3ippv •snp s padojanap luauno put azis items 11041 Jo asntoag 3gau04 03.1nosar jtrn3tu 2uto Jiu isu! ut ant4 sUa.1E Ampunog asaujI imp sJOp!suooJe3S •sa1t1sg atj3 u!ofp13 put tZ uopoag Jo apa atj3 uo art J311.100 ura3SOmtp.10u put Ista `Trios 041 ui sloi hums Jo Coit put `suutj padojanap `asrnoo pa ata •smaH jo jroddns /Cut apinord fou op put JipIUS £OOZ 043 U! 3 3igt4 A1i2I st pa Ji1uap! 3011 3.13M start 3S3iLL •uor3o3S 041 Jo uoi3.1od uralsam put uogiod uza3statilou 3ti1 ui pa3tooi 0.113 stu.re. j1ranas put uopuooj 1samtpnos 3ti1111 sisixa ifj3uarino as.moo 3io$ 13 `padojanap 2utag sloj Hums asap 03 uO!pppt uI (•ta.re situ u! samotj iiiitutJ apuis Jo luauldojanap panupuoo un3to!pu! 3stgt1.ep SIJ £OOZ .13gtuao3Q 041 ui umOtjs asotii tuo.1u auipjmg ituollIppt s3otd3p 1131101' 900Z 041 1tuj3 aioN) •.zauzoo lsta Trios put apis 1sta 041 2uojt padojanap 2uiag art JO padojanap are slot asap Jo 611 141 a3to!pu! astg t3tp SIJ £00Z 1ogm0000a pure sjti.1at 900Z 04J 'Sam Z•j 11343 ssaj art 1 43 tZ uopoas 111 s1oj tjZ 313 0134J •3tpgtuj mpxJo tare snoa!3uoo `a.rej aouo t SUM INtjm jo uor3t3uatauu pasnto set! put start asatp ui smm .1oJ own 3t3igt4 auj1 pagsru!u up set! uotloruisuoo asnouj moue o3 Su!maio uopula2aA •tZ uouoag Jo apa mama 3uj1 Suojt put 1311.103 tua1s1a tilnos alp u! spared !tutus ati1 uo Apn1S auu3 lung 041 gouts paIon.usuoo uaag antuj SatuOuj AjitutJ 332u1s AutINj •uua td luatudojanap 3113331 Isom am Jo uoI3tn.1asgo pamojjt suopoadsu! alis s J3131S 5uunp Rawls atp. uo Ou!nup Put gull= 900Z masrerddy AjJodord A3uno3 1311103 alp Jo uogoadsu! `Ajjtuoiiippy (•uolpsmbot A.1adord raijjo3 uot1tnlasuo3 arot-S9 041 Jo uopuooj atp. s! pa3o!dap osjy .tZ uogoos roJ su.13 td luatudojanap put sltpigtuj mDZj 3o!dap 11341 t put £ sa1n !J a3S) •satuoti AjiuuEJ-apuis 1oj putj Jo &.!!majo 0111 uj2nostp uot3t3aan ati3 pa&utujo stat luatudojanap 3uaoal arauim 3.daoxa 4pn3S £00Z alp 41inn paa.1at siaortd asap uo suot1.tn.1asg0 '9002 '8 3sany put LZ aumf uo suo933dsui alis ati3 pauuuojrad Buis 'salol 9L1 2uu3n03 sjoored Zj psin 03 s.1311m0 if113do.1d L tuo.1.1 p3n1333r SUM uoissituuad ▪tZ uo11ooS 10J ApnIS £00Z au Jo Aot.1no3t atj3 AJuan 03 rap.10 u! sMj2I 10J Ttligt ' atj1 a3tnitna 01 Aijodord 1!01.11 .103113 01 uo!ssruuuad 5uusanba.1 S.13UMO 03 sr3330j was Buis •tZ uopoa5 upp!isn sappua 081 gig paumo sjwortd a1tntld ttZ 1cia113tu4xorddt are wag' (9002 aamtans) s;isIA a;Is gado td 'OWEN Sul Jo uoialod umisam 1.441!m spurej 2uipua513410111 sim!cteuj AkaH 41!nn 3uais!suoo tZ uoi3oas uI sltligttj m3Zi 2upsawA3into put 2upe10J Tog pagiluap! lutljnsuoo 041 t wodai sup Jo uoi3tr0ua ati3 2uunp panrasgo gram SALON ou ing tZ uogoas ui pa3uauumoop uaag osjt set! /f4ni1ot �C1�2i liinpot n13J pawatunoop !sed pug «g„ put «y„ s3iun S.r3n0o0Zi 1 41 palm! 1!un A.13n03313 Jo .red SUM .Z 1101333s •s31113t3J luatudojanap .10 `putj a.1n3sltd uado `slsa.1oJ ssa.1dAo st tions sa.1n3taJ apttu-uttu 10 itrn1tu /Cg poltutdas a.13M 41343„ Rpm A.1anooa.1„ 10 stall qns amrtdas £ mu! OI^igN 01111 paltltdas 1u11jnsuoo au •£ 9002`87 aa9o900 (sJuunaH uopdopv ivaeupuautd pasnq dye)sisrfjnuy spun?2uipuag OWEIN 17Z uolloas Section 24 NBMO Sending Lands Analysis(EAR based Amendments Adoption Hearings) October 18,2006 �., western side, although not currently developed, when developed with single family homes would not provide for intact RCW habitat. Accordingly, re-designating these areas from Neutral to Sending would not have an appreciable benefit for RCW protection. Comparison of Land Use Designations within the NBMO Based on the information and analysis described above, staff recommends that Section 24 be partitioned into Neutral and Sending Lands as depicted in Figure 1. Neutral Lands would therefore comprise 305 acres of Section 24 with Sending Lands amounting to 350 acres. A total of 387 acres of RCW habitat is found in Section 24. The proposed land use designations set aside a total of 345 acres of RCW habitat into the Sending Lands Designation. Proposed Sending Lands therefore account for 89% of the RCW habitat found within Section 24. The proposed Sending Lands are comprised of 99% RCW habitat. The balance of the habitat within the Sending Land designation is mapped out as a Pine/Cypress community. It should be noted that other NBMO Sending Lands are comprised of 62%RCW habitat(See Figure 5). Proposed Percent of RCW Section 24 Land Area Percent of RCW Habitat Percent of RCW Habitat Habitat in Land Use Designation (Acres) Section 24 (Acres) in Section 24 Use Designation Sending 350 53% 345 89% 99% /-"\ Neutral 305 47% 42 11% 14% Total 655 100% 387 100% 59% The 305 acres of Neutral Lands contains 42 acres of RCW habitat, 11% of Section 24's RCW habitat. The proposed Neutral Lands are comprised of 14% RCW habitat. As noted above, this habitat is generally found in areas that are sub-divided in relatively small lots that are located in the western, eastern and southeastern boundaries of Section 24. The eastern and southeastern areas have experienced significant development from single family homes. It should be noted that other NBMO Neutral Lands are comprised of 27% RCW habitat. Receiving Lands, where development is encouraged, are comprised of only 15%RCW habitat(Figure 5). Implications to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)Program Excluding the 65 acres of land that is in County ownership (Conservation Collier land acquisition), the proposed Sending Land acreage of 350 acres could generate 57 Base TDRs. A maximum of 171 TDRs could be generated using the Bonus TDR, Restoration/Management TDR, and Conveyance TDR. Page 5 of 10 OI0 9 advd j SdiYe 40 5Z0 SZ l'6 Q 06/0Z/6 WI di770 + + f �Pw S�adtzs ApiryawsaaMs6e4116 PY0,,,c1t4S—J001-54 040II a3.Rtra<0.043i 5393 6 43 P.100,0 naradp Ayaawd 4 Boa�49aa-gxird9 7n+ay pp rainafi eNtl spuei 6uipuas a6ulad leanN OA A3i1NVk /t / -_-,:e/7;27 N. _ 4/ /r/, ff /.yam /Jj !/ { J j rT , „, Jf1I / > / j / 1 t' / �/;� `, saW4s3 sa4e4s3 4/ //'/ /` ; , a4e0 a�eo f uaploo ueplo9 f/,/// ref /,> - . 4/ 1 f A O N Ls N De OSC M5 MV 1-1161. /- 6uipuas i A- �- ,f / 1 // / / ! De 90E I aN Pasodad / '` bZSsH9aed / /t •6s fr Pu l // �/ / 11 Ms 3AV Nib ° / MS 3AV 1-119 saaels3 awed uaploo uol4eualsea leimeN pasoaoid pue moues(39Z DUN S617 unnl►tiZ uoRpas qnl.Ianp apnaIAT aiIag qpoN ,rz uogaas IN uollnut!saU spunq In.';naN pun 2uipuas pasodoad 1 aan2L4 9002`87'agoiaO (sSuuvaH uopdopy sruawpuawy pasvq dd..)sbv-Alvu y spuv7 SutpuaS ONFIN bZ uopaag Section 24 NBMO Sending Lands Analysis(EAR based Amendments Adoption Hearings) October 18,2006 Figure 2. Existing Land Useerlay Designations and Mapped RCW Habitat for the North Belle Meade Ov NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT SURVEY ig Legend RCWHab�at RCWCavdies i -,4 '1,-76 , Catty RCW Lwdy Lees '' Foragirq • WAA RCW Cl _. n LI FWrIFnnge • USFW RCW 93 fithil .! r� a I 1 i I 0 0.5 1 2 Miles t N s *s '1' ' ' - --TI „ ,. ,,_ „,.., _,., 4, ,- r”'Tr C 0,,r",-.4-,,...r.4 ,,,C ' ,41, a t �. ' s RECeiVint� � �� mq , Lt".a,:„Wa* ,,,,,:.* ' rr'r '77',4:" :1 i:1 t ; Na,I Brant', ' Mme.'!iay 3 ney �« ^ '' ' : Sending � f '-‘ t BstnaI 81a kf,urn ��;,' a'' 0, - ---:'-' -L- ' '1'4'''' a . _ ,It.t. yk:4,6':-4.'°-.T'''''it'r-* C er County §an Page 7 of 40 OLID g aXvd Nu+toj as nj Wit. sa�q IG . . 916 , �,p ®sv�•n-,. ._a�•i'u„y,emerrewrc P',...arza'sa;.1 s ac i�.AW4...e$umor.ra i..av 4.1.0SA.. ry.0 t` a .,i,�� -,ak _; , , LI ;ilia. 1 .,, a 3 ' -$ • , :` k' R89rHMJN,, I-3C f - £0'a s8upmr 1 s'. , ”-. _ j-ae A£Isunap�pasodoid - I i "�}F 1 ("' 4°'�' ..a � i swaleduossnivad w +s. N. trZS SPaied 1 `t• :' IOW S € ii,: ' ! ' ° '. ,�� j x-* 00 ffl----- .V tic)lit,A.tasuop ,in - .,,, zggI 11 s,'t a t '- '- '.. - ,,,2,..-, 1 - r „s' ii '''''i - -;,,,,-i »me g �.4,.. t-� ,� . �y 4 s h �:,+3'- s`. ., 'i'y .> --,,,,„-t„,-,^ f ' a tae .:..-4,4 g r _ . .x uo!#eu�!sa, !e V asodaid pile s!aaaed i;ei!geH Mab t39Z auk S6b until) trZ Uo! S udeao3ogd tetiay 900Z uo pasodunaadns e3eU iaaaed pun ;e;ige-I •£aan�!,41 9002'87.4a40100 (s'uuvag uoiidop'sivaupuauv pasvq 21-V3)s:sr1jvuy spuv7 8upuas°NEN bZ uotuaas I Section 24 NBMO Sending Lands Analysis(EAR based Amendments Adoption Hearings) October 18,2006 Figure 4. Habitat and Parcel Data Section 24(Twn 49$Rna 26E1 RCW Habitat and eronosed Neutral Desianatjon Golden Gate Estates ': 16TH AVE s41' • I 41 *" III io --_-----------4,. i ! yc. lei -.ice ,.y., ',. ' • i I 1 17TH AVE SW ConservationI la 1 "- .41Collier • t4• * ir I ,� e t I. 19TH AVE SW • ik !� ', •;co • p a m 1 Legend 1 N b a Parcels 524 allProposed Neut al 90.5 ac a a MI Buildings Doc 03 ■ Sodding RCW Habitat GoIdek ,f Cavity 342 ac 'Golden Foraging 3 ac Gate i (e Nadia'RCW Habitat Estates Gate cavity 22 ac ' :t Foraging 16 3C Estates3• i Preserve 4 ac ._* i1t a-P. r to Ill M00 .r a. • a� ' t k ■ RAN7te Y dLVD iasw Se ,a IDaL bauroe05 MrYk SF.rGk.Catarv�"N 7i.pxrty AGyaex =B/GiS CDES i Ercnanm..Seroi:aa 928w,waA .tar k3W,! 1 -. I r a I i 95 MlesGw3T3000240.ma NFzlpx025ovhmsssCAr Couxi t Page 9 of 10 01.x°07 aSod uogeu6isea esf puei OWBN lea}naN 6u!pues iea}neN pZ uoipes 6uipues 6uipues PZ uopas 6u!A!e308 W8N 101.140 pasodoad Vd21N OWBN Jam pesodoid ' %0 %LZ — - %OZ %Oti —— %OP cp n %Z9 CD %09 -. %08 %66 suogeu6isaa asf purl OWBN uomsodwoa ;eigeH MON ABiaanp ap1a}J aijag gpaoN alp u►q;int suopeudisaU asn puew 3o sisAfIIuy luPgeH •s aanNu 9002`8I daq°100 (si uuvaH uoiadopv s,uawpuatu y pasv(1?I6'?)sl gvuv spun?SuipuaS OLYSA bZ uop°aa North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) :..;;;;' .,','-':;,,,-.7A, ':...':;;'::.. ' li a :. � a 54,..74.y4.. w . W". ' \ tt7Aek.v 4 It./‘ °4111'/„/ ' 'i'''' ' !ft'' .' ' ... 1--t ' '1-4 -::-F;:ti...06# A - * . V•t 4 1f'= tstil 3 < < �. Date: Feb. 8, 2003 First Draft Revision: Sept. 15, 2003 Second Draft Revision: Oct. 30, 2003 Final: Dec. 10, 2003 Compiled For: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Collier County Natural Resources Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Southern Biomes, Inc. Environmental Information Services 1602 Woodford Ave., Fort Myers, FL 33901 mail to: P.O. BOX 50640, Fort Myers, FL 33994 Ph. (239)334 6766 Ge Wass de Czege, President FAX(239)337_5028 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT PRESERVATION PLAN INTRODUCTION: The ultimate recovery goal for any listed endangered or threatened wildlife is species viability. To help in this goal, Collier County has committed to the assessment of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in the Amended Collier County Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element (by Ordinance No. 2002-32 on June 19, 2002), and is defined in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, SubSection IX. Overlays and Special Features, B. North Belle Meade Overlay, Planning Considerations, part 4. Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) specifically as follows: "RCW nesting and foraging habitat shall be mapped and protected from land use activities within Sending Lands, and Section 24 designated Neutral Lands. Although RCW nesting and foraging habitat shall be mapped within Sending areas within the NBM Overlay, this shall be accomplished by a study specific to Section 24 conducted by Collier County within one year of the effective date of the NBM Overlay. Within Section 24, the Neutral designation may be adjusted based upon the findings of the updated RCW nesting and foraging habitat study." RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER Picoides borealis (RCW), STATUS, DESCRIPTION, DISTRIBUTION, HABITAT REQUIREMENTS, POULATION DYNAMICS, AND MANAGEMENT: - STATUS: Endangered (FWS), Threatened (FWC) DESCRIPTION: About the size of the common � ° r�411, cardinal, the red-cockaded woodpecker is �. approximately 7 inches long (18 to 20 centimeters), ,• with a wingspan of about 15 inches (35 to 38 4- 7 .` '''''."- 4 , -0 centimeters). Its back is barred with black and white �� " horizontal stripes. The red-cockaded woodpecker's _ , yo, most distinguishing feature is a black cap and nape 111 that encircle large white cheek patches. Rarely visible, except perhaps during the breeding season ` F,;:--4,:lit,k, f'il and periods of territorial defense, the male has a ':,-,;-'1A-:-- ; small red streak on each side of its black cap called a *.'-'•:.,-.1:' cockade, hence its name. The red-cockaded :,. . woodpecker feeds primarily on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood-boring insects, and spiders, and _ ,',- -i-„,/,,, occasionally fruits and berries. DISTRIBUTION: Red-cockaded woodpeckers are a territorial, non-migratory, cooperative breeding species, frequently having the same mate for several years. The nesting season lasts from April through June. The breeding female lays three to four eggs in the breeding male's roost cavity. Group members 2 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 incubate the small white eggs for 10 to 12 days. Once hatched, the nestlings remain in the nest cavity for about 26 days. Upon fledging, the young often remain with the parents, forming groups of up to nine members, but more typically three to four members. There is only one pair of breeding birds within each group, and they normally raise only a single brood each year. The other group members called helpers, usually males from the previous breeding season, help incubate the eggs and raise the young. Juvenile females generally leave the group before the next breeding season, in search of solitary male groups. Historically, this woodpecker's range extended from Florida to New Jersey and Maryland, as far west as Texas and Oklahoma, and inland to Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Today it is estimated that there are about 5,000 groups of red- cockaded woodpeckers, or 12,500 birds from Florida to Virginia and west to southeast Oklahoma and eastern Texas, representing about 1 percent of the woodpecker's original range. They have been extirpated in New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee and Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker makes its home in mature " pine forests. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are most •,.- T commonly preferred, but other species of southern pine, rSi* ,,, ' such as the South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliotii, var. , ,; densa) are also acceptable. While other woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees, where the wood is rotten w . and soft, the red-cockaded woodpecker is the only one „fi - which excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees. `4 , The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker .-'. 1% often suffer from a fungus called red heart disease which •. „4 attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood, .,;, ,. K` . . , the heartwood, to become soft. Cavities generally take . . 4'+ 1- from 1 to 3 years to excavate. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. Cavity trees that are being actively used have numerous, small resin r� t wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing , apparently as a cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and possibly other predators. The typical territory for oi '_' a group ranges from about 125 to 200 acres, but observers �; lit have reported territories running from a low of around 60 '` acres, to an upper extreme of more than 600 acres. The F size of a particular territory is related to both habitat .”.. suitability and population density (A more detailed habitat description and requirements for the South Florida red ; , ' ` — cockaded woodpeckers are covered in the section titled Distribution and habitats of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Florida). 3 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 The red-cockaded woodpecker plays a vital role in the intricate web of life of the southern pine forests. A number of other birds and small mammals use the cavities excavated by red-cockaded woodpeckers, such as chickadees, bluebirds, titmice, and several other woodpecker species, including the downy, hairy, and red-bellied woodpecker. Larger woodpeckers may take over a red- cockaded woodpecker cavity, sometimes enlarging the hole enough to allow screech owls, wood ducks, and even raccoons to later move in. Flying squirrels, several species of reptiles and amphibians, and insects, primarily bees and wasps, also will use red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. As with most endangered species today, the major threats to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker are habitat loss and fragmentation. HABITAT REQUIREMENTS. ,: . Red-cockaded woodpeckers _ ' require open pine woodlands a0' ' - . and savannahs with large old .; �. tit s .4k.„,..,,' .i i,.*.,,7 i.,,,tiii ,7.7,0 r_ H . pines for nesting and roosting '. habitat (clusters). Large old ' ' pines are required as cavity430/".1. j- trees because the cavities arett. .�,.. # excavated completely within ,t inactive heartwood, so that t _ the cavity interior remains free i � ; �' � �� from resin that can entrap the t birds. Also, old pines are preferred as cavity trees, because of the higher incidence of the heartwood decay that greatly facilitates cavity excavation. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little or no hardwood midstoryand few or no overstory hardwoods. More prevalent to south Florida is 1/4 . X4 litv . the rapid encroachment of the .= open pine savannahs by `` melaleuca trees, Brazilian ,„:1:1' ` : :::..'F'''•-tr:::'4, '. � .' If peppers, andcabbagepalms. The`` 7,0, f encroachment of these trees �` resulting from fire suppression, = combined with hydrologic �' _41 ,tt ', �`1 . - alterations, is a well-known cause " of cluster abandonment. Red- cockaded woodpeckers also require abundant foraging habitat. = ` _ Suitable foraging habitat preferably consists of mature pines with an open canopy, low to moderate densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, with groundcover dominated by native grasses and fortis. However, foraging has been observed throughout South Florida within dense canopies of pine and pine-cypress associated forests, with an open or 4 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 moderately dense midstory of pine, cypress and melaleuca, when they are in proximity to suitable nest cavity habitat. Limiting factors are those that directly affect the number of potential breeding groups, because this is the r _ � � primary determinant of population ' '4,--",21`' ' , size and trend. Several factors : currently impact the persistence of breeding groups. Foremost ,_ ,. ......, ..„, ::*:1::::;::::::;!::::1::: among these are the factors that�� limit suitable nesting habitat, : . _)3, namely fire suppression and lack {' of cavity trees. Fire suppression l . t- � ,: has resulted in loss of potential � :,,:4" 1 breeding groups throughout the ‘ '' r,, ,�,; range of red-cockaded . , woodpeckers, because the birds cannot tolerate the encroachment of non-pine midstory vegetation that results from lack of fire. This limitation is addressed through the use of prescribed burning. The Red-cockaded faces other problems as well: clearing of land for non forest uses, and the replacement of pine forests with hardwood, cabbage plam, and melaleuca, has played a major role by replacing the large acreages of — hydric pine forests. Lack of cavity trees, or potential cavity trees, limits the number of breeding groups in most populations. This limitation can be addressed in the short-term through cavity management tools such as artificial cavities and restrictor plates, and over the long-term by growing large old trees in abundance and appropriate forest management. Another factor directly limiting the number of potential breeding groups is habitat fragmentation and consequent isolation of groups, which results in disrupted dispersal of helpers and failure to replace breeders. This limitation is best addressed through the appropriate development practices, placement of clusters of artificial cavities, and implementation of silvicultural and land management practices that minimize fragmentation and provide wildlife corridors. Another threat to the existence and recovery of the species is the loss of valuable genetic resources because of small size and isolation of populations. As currently limiting factors, such as lack of cavity tree habitats, are relieved, the continued growth and natural stability of red-cockaded woodpecker populations will depend on provision of abundant, good quality foraging habitat and careful conservation of genetic resources. POULATION DYNAMICS: Red-cockaded woodpeckers are a cooperatively breeding species, living in family groups that typically consist of a breeding pair with or without one or two male helpers. Females may become helpers, but do so at a much lower rate than males. The ecological basis of cooperative breeding in this species is unusually high variation in habitat quality, due to the 5 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 presence or absence of a critical resource. This critical resource is the cavities that red-cockaded woodpeckers excavate in live pines, a task that commonly takes several years to complete. Group living has profound influence over population dynamics. In non- cooperatively breeding birds, breeders that die are replaced primarily by the young of the previous year. Thus, variation in reproduction and mortality can have strong, immediate impacts on the size of the breeding population. However, in red-cockaded woodpeckers and other cooperative breeders, a large pool of helpers is available to replace breeders. As a result, the size of the breeding population is not strongly affected by how many young are produced each year, or even on how many breeders may die. Because of this, we use the number of potential breeding groups rather than number of individuals as our measure of population size. Because of the cooperative breeding system, red-cockaded woodpecker populations are unusually resistant to environmental and demographic variation, but highly sensitive to the spatial arrangement of habitat. The buffering effect of helpers against annual variation operates only when helpers can readily occupy breeding vacancies as they arise. Helpers do not disperse very far and typically occupy vacancies on their natal territory or a neighboring one. If groups are isolated in space, dispersal of helpers to neighboring territories is disrupted and the buffering effect of the helper class is lost. When this happens, populations r� become much less likely to persist through time. Also, the cooperative breeding system does not allow rapid natural growth of populations. Colonization of unoccupied habitat is an exceedingly slow process under natural conditions, because cavities take long periods of time to excavate and birds do not occupy habitat without cavities. As forests age and old pines become abundant, rates of natural cavity excavation may increase. Understanding these three components of the population dynamics of red- cockaded woodpeckers provides us the foundation for recovery efforts: (1) population size and trend are determined by the number of potential breeding groups rather than annual variation in reproduction and survival; (2) the buffering capacity of the helper class must be maintained, by maintaining close aggregations of territories; and (3) colonization of unoccupied habitat will be very slow without management assistance. POPULATION AND SPECIES VIABILITY: Four types of threats to species and population viability have been identified: genetic changes (consisting of both inbreeding and genetic drift), demographic changes, environmental changes, and catastrophes. We now have some knowledge of population sizes of red- cockaded woodpeckers necessary to withstand these extinction threats, primarily from research performed with a spatially explicit, individually based simulation model of population dynamics developed specifically for this species. 6 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 Red-cockaded woodpeckers exhibit inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Inbreeding is expected to affect population viability in populations of less than 40 potential breeding groups, and may be a significant factor affecting viability in isolated populations of 40 to 100 potential breeding groups as well. Immigration rates of 2 or more migrants per year can effectively reduce inbreeding in populations of any size, including very small ones. Effects of demographic changes on population viability may vary with the spatial arrangement of groups. Populations as small as 25 potential breeding groups can be surprisingly resistant to random demographic events, if those groups are highly aggregated in space. Populations as large as 100 potential breeding groups can be impacted by demographic changes, if groups are not aggregated and dispersal of helpers is disrupted. Demographic changes are not expected to affect populations larger than 100 potential breeding groups. Similarly, effects of environmental changes may vary with the spatial arrangement of groups. Based on preliminary results of models and estimates of potential environmental changes derived from the North Carolina Sandhills, 250 potential breeding groups will likely withstand effects of any environmental changes regardless of their spatial arrangement. Loss of genetic variation through the process of genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of finite population size. New genetic variation arises through the process of mutation. In large populations, mutation can offset loss through drift and genetic variation is maintained. Just how large a population must be to maintain variation is a difficult question. Currently, researchers recognize that in general, only populations with actual sizes in the thousands, rather than hundreds, can maintain long-term viability and evolutionary potential in the absence of immigration. However, if populations are connected by immigration rates on the order of 1 to 10 migrants per generation (0.5 to 2.5 migrants per year), the genetic variation maintained by these populations is equal to that of one population as large as the sum of the connected populations. Thus, sufficient connectivity among populations can maintain genetic variation and long-term viability for the species. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITATS OF THE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER IN FLORIDA: The Red-cockaded Woodpecker is found in suitable habitat throughout Florida south to the Big Cypress National Preserve and adjacent lands. The key words are "suitable habitat." Once widespread and perhaps even common, the Red-cockaded Htstrxical Woodpecker has declined in numbers Current and Martel - throughout the state and now occurs only 7 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 in isolated populations. With isolation, each population becomes increasingly vulnerable to extinction. Today, most of Florida's Red-cockaded Woodpeckers are found on large tracts of federal and state land and on private lands adjacent to such areas. The largest remaining population anywhere is on the Apalachicola National Forest. Examples of other populations include ones on Eglin Air Force Base, Avon Park Bombing Range, Big Cypress National Preserve, and several state managed forests and wildlife management areas, such as Cecil Webb-Babcock Wildlife Management Area in Charlotte County. The Red-cockaded woodpecker is found in these areas because each family group requires about 200 to 300 acres of pine associated forests that include large areas of mature open pine habitats, and even short-term population stability requires a minimum of about 6 groups in an area. Thus large tracts of pine forest are essential. Populations on public lands are often intensively managed for the birds, but those on private lands are important as well, providing vital links between larger populations. This is especially true for private lands within Collier County, where links become essential for maintaining connectivity to the few viable groups outside of the core populations located within publicly owned lands. SOUTH FLORIDA SLASH PINE COMMUNITIES: Native slash pine communities support red- cockaded woodpeckers in qs south Florida (Beever and .: �' Dryden 1992). This ; subspecies of slash pine ` . 0.14:': (Pinus elliotti var. densa) is the only native pine in the ;_ -*t ' ' NBM and is similar to longleaf in both . appearance and fire � i _ resistance. Similar to longleaf pine, native slash `4" pine has a grass stage � : - and large taproot. Much of ' _� - _ - � the native slash pine used by red-cockaded woodpeckers is in hydric communities (Beever and Dryden 1992). The most obvious similarity of these two communities is their open midstory and herbaceous groundcover. It may be that slash pine replaces longleaf pine in this region because it can better tolerate the very wet conditions of our nearly flat, low elevation topography. For red-cockaded woodpeckers, native slash pine habitats differ from those further north in that the southern pines are generally smaller and may be more sparsely distributed (Patterson and Robertson 1981, Beever and Dryden 1992, 8 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 Landers and Boyer 1999). It has been reported that the largest size that south Florida slash pines achieve, even in old growth woodlands, is typically 20 to 30 cm (8 to 12 in). Cavity trees in this habitat type are much smaller than normally found in other habitats '"V w' i. (Beever and Dryden 1992, .4,, .. . l , Bowman and Huh 1995) ' However, the presence of fire ' . and old trees in both nesting l � , and foraging areas are ' critically important here as elsewhere. The photograph i - _ ,. • shows how sapling pines and melaleuca growth can ' i t ` !. eventually dominate the open f f, ' `, pine savanna or pine-palmetto . ' �� t - .' habitats, thus making them , • ':' undesirable for cavity tree habitat. Woodpeckers in native slash pine have not been well-studied. Preliminary research has indicated that home ranges of birds in native slash pine are larger than those in other habitats (Patterson and Robertson 1981, Beever and Dryden 1992), but the relationship between habitat requirements and habitat quality has not been investigated in this forest type. Thus, it is not known whether larger home ranges in south Florida result from degraded habitat, natural differences in habitat quality, population density, or even lack of cavity trees. Although further research is necessary to determine the cause of large home ranges in south Florida, results from studies elsewhere suggest that as habitat quality increases, the size of these home ranges will decrease. It is likely that, as pine density, age, and herbaceous groundcovers of south Florida slash pine woodlands increase, resident woodpeckers will still require more foraging habitat than woodpeckers in most other regions but less than they appear to be using at the present time. ' ' '_ .,. -y <..f, . ,� The graphic on the left details locations of RCW �..ay ~, i,.., habitat within and around NBM per the Vii R Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the I I �� - Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida, dated r l piiilm Him' F July 2000, as prepared by the US Army Corps of t._ OIL Engineers, Jacksonville District. The dark shaded a ^'•a s,#=t r . N,; areas depict the locations that have or are most -., ii. — likely to have RCW habitat, which appears to be Pte• # ' ' t ' ..•. _ . nearly 50% of the NBM area. However, wildfires v Pt x W"''1"`_ 4. - ; have destroyed some of the forested areas. 9 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT RECOVERY GOAL: The ultimate recovery goal is species viability. This goal is mandated by the Amended Collier County Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 2002-32 on June 19, 2002), and defined in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, SubSection IX. Overlays and Special Features, B. North Belle Meade Overlay, Planning Considerations, part 4. Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW): "RCW nesting and foraging habitat shall be mapped and protected from land use activities within Sending Lands and Section 24 designated Neutral Lands. Although RCW nesting and foraging habitat shall be mapped within Sending areas within the NBM Overlay, this shall be accomplished by a study specific to Section 24 conducted by Collier County within one year of the effective date of the NBM Overlay. Within Section 24, the Neutral designation may be adjusted based upon the findings of the updated RCW nesting and foraging habitat study." The North Belle Meade (NBM) area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1-75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises +24 sections of land, or ± 15,960 acres, depending on the size of individual sections. The NBM Overlay area is unique to the Rural Fringe area because it is surrounded by areas that are vested for North Belle Meade Overlay(NBMO) District Legend Q NMBO Boundary TDR Status z Receiving xavamrrs w Neutral NRPA Sending IS. . Rural Industrial Sending . SAV ` e ti+r a 61,6 df9 115 Wes er COS=ES ae�.+w.ri.a+Alm too. 44,4.1,J41114 rt. r.. . Sao Oroto IOW= development on three sides. Because this area is largely undeveloped and includes substantial forested areas, the Sending Lands can and do provide valuable habitat for wildlife, including endangered species. Within the NBM 10 r North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 Overlay area are also areas that have been previously impacted by canal construction and past clearing and agricultural practices which have altered the natural hydroperiod. The challenge for the NBM Overlay area is to achieve a balance of both preservation and opportunities for future development that takes into account resource protection and the relationship between this area and the Estates developing around the NBM Overlay area. Accordingly a more detailed and specific plan for the NBM Overlay has been approved. Within the NBM Overlay are four distinct areas that require separate treatment based on existing conditions within this area. These areas include the Natural Resource Protection Areal (NRPA), the Receiving and the Sending Areas for the transfer of development rights, and a Neutral area, which is neither a Sending nor a Receiving Area comprising a section and a portion thereof of land or ± 1317 acres as depicted on Exhibit "A". It was the intent to perform the physical planning of the NBM Sending Lands within twelve (12) months after the effective date for Red Cockaded Woodpeckers, Greenways and Wildlife Crossings. This report provides baseline information for future RCW planning and protection strategies, and for establishing appropriate greenways and wildlife corridors. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plans require good land utilization and management practices which includes; 1) the location and preservation of viable pine forested habitats, 2) restoration of degraded pine forests, and 3) maintaining or creating pine forested wildlife corridors which link or have the opportunity to link potential breeding groups. A potential breeding group is an adult female and adult male that occupy the same cluster, with or without one or more helpers, whether or not they attempt to nest or successfully fledge young. A traditional measure of population size has been the number of active clusters. Once a plan has been implemented, the size, number, and distribution of populations can be more sufficiently provided for in an effort to counteract threats of demographic, environmental, genetic, and catastrophic stochastic events, thereby maintaining long-term viability for the species as defined by current understanding of these processes. Regions and habitat types currently occupied by the species will be represented by the best available data provided, given study and habitat limitations, and existing resources. The NBM NRPA includes seven sections of lands and three partial sections or a total of ± 6,075 acres and is located in the eastern portion of the NBM Overlay. This area comprises about thirty-nine percent of the NBM Overlay. The NBM NRPA area has concentrations of wetland land cover and listed species habitat, consistent with other Rural Fringe NRPA's (see Exhibit"A"). This consideration combined with the fragmented ownership pattern and the state's desire to purchase significant portions of this area warrants a different level of protection than in other NRPA areas, particularly for incentives for the consolidation of lots to assist in the future preservation of lands. 11 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: The assessment criteria have been formulated using two general habitat units which have been delineated according to vegetative composition, and digitized onto a 2001 color aerial photograph scaled at approximately 1" = 400'. Populations of RCW may have been distributed among these recovery units, but were not surveyed. However, data has been provided which indicate that populations exist within, or near, the majority of the recovery units, and therefore may exist to the extent allowed by habitat limitations of the recovery units. The first habitat unit consists of vegetative associations which provides potential RCW foraging habitat, and the second habitat unit is more specific, in that it provides appropriate RCW habitat dynamics necessary for cavity trees and nesting habitat. This not only includes mature trees, but also associated open pine woodlands, savannas, or potential open pine woodlands that can be created through habitat restoration efforts. The two habitat units were categorized by using seven habitat variables which were evaluated by aerial interpretation, and then selected areas were field verified for accuracy. The field verified areas were then cross referenced with similar habitat registers observed on the aerials, and then categorized by their habitat viability as it relates to the population requirements discussed in previous sections. The variables were; 1) the percent of slash pine canopy, 2) density of canopy, 3) subcanopy composition and density, 4) density of melaleuca or Brazilian pepper in association with other canopy or subcanopy species, 5) connectivity to other viable RCW habitats, 6) proximity to open, mature pine woodlands, and 7) potential for restoration Below is a summary rationale of each of the variables: 1. Percent of pine canopy as it relates to other canopy tree species such as cypress, laurel oak, cabbage palm, etc. It did not include melaleuca because habitats altered by the increased oaks or cabbage palms within the canopy or subcanopy are treated different by the County's indigenous species protection requirements than those impacted by melaleuca, and may provide a greater opportunity for habitat restoration success than the exotic impacted areas. 2. Subcanopy composition: The subcanopy vegetation is a determining factor in assessing the viability of the habitat for nesting, or the potential for it being restored. Typical subcanopy impacts are associated with an increased density of young trees, Brazilian pepper or cabbage palm. 3. Density of canopy: Canopy density was considered in determining potential for nesting or foraging habitats. Areas of open canopy (<50% canopy) provide a greater opportunity for cavity trees, while more dense canopies still provide for foraging habitat. Large areas with 12 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 mosaic pattern of mixed densities were considered more viable habitats than large areas of uniform densities, and were therefore included as nesting habitat areas, instead of separating the area into two density groups. 4. Density of melaleuca: Melaleuca has been one of the most threatening evasive exotic plants which rapidly can destroy the habitat viability of a large area within a decade. Either the habitat becomes too dense to provide open areas for cavity trees, or, in a smaller scale, can impact a single cavity tree by competing for canopy space with a single slash pine containing a RCW cavity. For the purpose of habitat assessment, areas of extensive melaleuca invasion were not considered as viable, or potentially viable, habitats. 5. Density of other canopy species: Other canopy species typically referred to cypress, cabbage palm, or laurel oak. However, other species existed, but were not considered a significant factor in the habitat evaluation. There were two common habitat types within North Belle Meade which resulted from regional ecological alterations of the area. Pine and cypress associations and pine and cabbage palm associations. The pines invaded cypress prairies and cabbage palms invaded pine prairies as the hydrologic regime was altered. The pine and cypress forested areas still provided significant foraging value regardless of their canopy density or mix, as long as there was at least a 25-30% pine canopy (personal observations). However, pine prairies which became densely populated with cabbage palms did not provide the typical open groundcover, and therefore were only marginally valuable in their existing condition, but provided a high probability of habitat restoration through appropriate forest management practices. 6. Proximity to open pine areas with mature pines: All forested pine associated habitat, with the exception of dense melaleuca areas, that were adjacent to areas of open pine with saw palmetto and/or herbaceous ground cover habitat clusters of approximately three acres or larger, were considered cavity tree or nesting habitat, since they provided the potential for nesting, as well as foraging habitat. 7. Potential for restoration: As previously mentioned, pine associated habitats, whether pine and melaleuca, pine and cabbage palm, or dominantly dense pine forests have the potential, through appropriate forest management practices, to be restored for RCW habitat. Therefore, areas meeting these criteria were also included as RCW habitats if sufficient pine density existed. SURVEY RESULTS: The field maps were digitized using the background aerial photographs. In most areas there was sufficient detail to be comfortable with the accuracy of the data transfer. To insure adequate accuracy in the process a comparison was made using a digitizing tablet and the section corners on the maps to register the map to the digital data. Area in acres was used to compare 13 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 the size of the digitized sections with GIS Section data. None of the Sections that were digitized varied by more than 0.5% from the GIS data. There is more variability in the 2 digitized habitat data sets. The RCW habitat polygons varied considerably more and the test set had a standard deviation of 8.8%. The mean of the test set of polygons was 99.4%. With this level of agreement no adjustment of the aerial digitized polygons were made. There are 3,547 acres of RCW Foraging Habitat and 3,210 acres of RCW Cavity Habitat identified in the North Belle Meade. The total 6,757 acres of RCW habitat is concentrated in the western portion of North Belle Meade. There are no RCW habitat areas identified in the eastern most sections of North Belle Meade. NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT SURVEY Legend RCWHaUMai acwcarilies Lnity RCW Gaud•Teez WO Pongig a WMRCW O lima!Rime • USFWRCW93 b as Mies la I, Neutral w+' 4 i' eutral s Sending Receiving Section Ea 24 Kea.e Brats k 4 �� ... NRPA } ear L � a.d Va � �` • ZB�1 fCaa.iaKa2rnay & Y ¢ari. LT's• ,k' n Mark, . Ev„r;Y Sending ^ o sna ..ar+a.n a r III mWaswurn Indust ai Rob $ak° eakCur, a' aPoR ebl rco`4PR+MMPatar 4a4N . 14W:7 is l „'4 .:F < ->r.,. 4 ,”' # d. The North Belle Meade study area consisted of approximately 15,960 acres of mixed use and forested areas within North Belle Meade, specifically within Sections 24, 25, and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13- 15, and 19-36 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East. The study area was geographically divided into three sub areas, or "recovery units", that were separated by natural or man made features such as cypress forests, open pasture land, or development features. Recovery Unit "A" is located on the western portion of the study area, and included Sections 24, 25, and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and the western portions of Sections 30 and 14 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 31 in Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Recovery Unit "B" is located centrally, and includes Sections 20, 29, and 32, and the eastern portions of Sections 30 and 31, and the western portion of Section 33, in Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Recovery Unit "C" includes Sections 14-15, 22-23, 26-27, 34-35 and the eastern portion of Section 33, in Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Sections excluded from the Recovery Units were Sections 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East, because either these areas were exempt from the study because they were receiving lands (ie: Section 21 and 28, T49S, R27E), or they did not have significant foraging or nesting habitats that would be considered significantly large enough to be viable RCW habitat. NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW SURVEY Legend o11AVc RCW Habitat caYav 16 1: Vorepn9 a 14 13 ..__...._' � 0 ' 0075 r 0/5 r • r 11544Ka5 o 24 1L p1, m 20 21 22 23 24 o z- �� a. _ KEAN AV '�---�-- { _ + KEY ti !�._.. 25 29 28 27 26 25 lEANKI[Y AV EVEAtY y 36 32 33 34 ' 5 36 LAKE OLVD g 175. C er County 42.4 Within each of the three Recovery Units there are large areas designated as potential, or active, RCW nesting or cavity tree habitat areas, which are connected by areas that are too densely vegetated for viable nest tree habitat, but suitable for foraging. Recovery Units "A" and "B" are also connected via potential foraging areas, but these links appear to be dominated more by cypress than by pine habitats. Recovery Units "B" and "C" have only a marginal connection through a cypress dominated slough located within Section 33, T49S, R27E. It is also important to note that only Recovery Units "A" and "B" had documented RCW activity, specifically within Sections 24, 25, and 36, T49S, R26E, of Recovery Unit "A", and within Sections 29, 32 and 33, T49S, R27E, of 15 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 sub-area "B". No RCWs were observed by the study team during the survey, but, as previously stated, it was not within the scope of the survey to specifically look for cavity trees, and data was already available which documented RCW sightings within these areas. Although no RCWs have been recorded within Recovery Unit "C", a large portion of Section 14, and scattered smaller areas of Sections 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 34 have suitable nesting habitat in conjunction with foraging habitat. In addition, there are potential restoration possibilities, with appropriate forest management, to restore or recreate sufficient nesting areas for maintaining a viable population of RCWs. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT: Supplying good quality foraging habitat is a critical aspect of red-cockaded woodpecker recovery, especially over the long term, as immediate threats from cavity and cluster limitation are reduced. Our understanding of what constitutes good quality foraging habitat comes from a synthesis of research into selection of foraging habitat and effects of habitat characteristics on group fitness. Both habitat selection and group fitness are influenced by the structure of the foraging habitat. Important structural characteristics include (1) healthy groundcovers of bunchgrasses _ .. and forbs, (2) minimal hardwood fi # , ; , midstory, (3) minimal pine <= - ' .' . midstory, (4) minimal or absent '° ; + " hardwood overstory, (5) a low to 4`; , :� intermediate density of small and ,,` .� 1. .' ., ' ` 11,, medium sized pines, and (6) a substantial presence of mature and old pines. Thus, the quality ,�� . � '1::-<71:Z1 * fit' of foraging habitat is defined by � . ., habitat structure. Although geographic variation in habitat , , , types exist, these structural characteristics of good quality habitat remain true for all geographic regions and habitat types. Previous management guidelines stressed quantity of foraging habitat, as defined by number of medium and large trees. However, we need to expand this emphasis to include habitat quality, as defined by habitat structure, and use area metrics to address quantity. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require foraging habitat that is suitable in both quantity and quality. Quantifying habitat structure (and thus habitat quality) is more complex than simply requiring a given amount of habitat or number of trees, because habitat -- structure is measured by multiple variables. Guidelines for foraging habitat are 16 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 based on the quantification of structural characteristics to the best of current abilities. Frequent fire can facilitate the restoration and maintenance of all but one of these structural characteristics (mature and old pines), and may provide further benefits by increasing the availability of nutrients. In addition, appropriate forest management techniques can protect, throughout the landscape, the mature and old trees on which red-cockaded woodpeckers thrive. Attached with this report are the management guidelines from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, adopted August 8, 2003. These guidelines provide management actions necessary to protect and maintain existing RCW clusters, increase the number of breeding groups, and restore or create habitat in unoccupied areas. All these elements will be necessary for the recovery of RCW within NBM and the remaining forested areas of Collier County. References: Baker,W.W. 1983. Decline and extirpation of a population of red-cockaded woodpeckers in northwest Florida. Pp.44-45 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Beever,J.W.III,and K.A.Dryden. 1992. Red-cockaded woodpeckers and hydric slash pine flatwoods. Transactions of the 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:693-700. Beyer,D.E.,R.Costa,R.G.Hooper,and C.A.Hess. 1996. Habitat quality and reproduction of red- cockaded woodpecker groups in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:826-835. Bowman R.,and C.Huh. 1995. Tree characteristics,resin flow,and heartwood rot in pines(Pinus palustris,P. elliottii),with respect to red-cockaded woodpecker cavity excavation,in two hydrologically-distinct Florida flatwood communities. Pp.415-426 in D.L.Kulhavy,R.G. Hooper,and R.Costa,eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery,ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry,Stephen F.Austin State University,Nacogdoches,TX. Carter,J.H.III,J.R.Walters,S.H.Everhart,and P.D.Doerr. 1989. Restrictors for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:68-72. Conner,R.N.,and D.C.Rudolph. 1991a. Effects of midstory reduction and thinning in red-cockaded woodpecker cavity tree clusters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:63-66. Conner,R.N.,D.C.Rudolph,D.L.Kulhavy,and A.E.Snow. 1991a. Causes of mortality of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:531-537. Costa,R. 1995a. Biological Opinion on the U.S.Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement for the management of the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on national forests in the southern region.Pp. 1-192 in USDA Forest Service,Final Environmental Impact Statement,Volume II, Management Bulletin R8-MB73. DeLotelle,R. S.,and R.J.Epting. 1988. Selection of old trees for cavity excavation by red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:48-52. 17 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 DeLotelle,R. S.,J.R.Newman,and R.J.Epting. 1983. Habitat use by red-cockaded woodpeckers in central Florida. Pp.59-67 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Engstrom,R.T.,L.A.Brennan,W.L.Neel,R.M.Farrar,S.T.Lindeman,W.K.Moser,and S.M. Hermann. 1996. Silvicultural practices and red-cockaded woodpecker management: a reply to Rudolph and Conner.Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:334-338. FFWCC.2003.Management plan:red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis.This management plan fulfills the requirements of Rule 68A-27.0012,F.A.C.,Sept.2001.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Hardesty,J.L.,K.E.Gault,and F.P.Percival. 1997. Ecological correlates of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)foraging preference,habitat use,and home range size in northwest Florida (Eglin Air Force Base. Final Report Research Work Order 99,Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,University of Florida,Gainesville FL. Henry,V.G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and evaluations for the red- cockaded woodpecker. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Southeast Region,Atlanta,GA. Heppell,S. S.,J.R.Walters,and L.B.Crowder. 1994. Evaluating management alternatives for red- cockaded woodpeckers: a modeling approach. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:479-487. Hooper,R.G. 1983. Colony formation by red-cockaded woodpeckers: hypotheses and management implications. Pp.72-77 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Hooper,R.G.,and R.F.Harlow. 1986.Forest stand selection by foraging red-cockaded woodpeckers. Southeastern Forest Experimental Station Research Paper: SE-259,USDA Forest Service. Hovis,J.A.,and R.F.Labisky. 1985. Vegetative associations of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:307-314. Landers,J.L.,and W.D.Boyer. 1999. An old-growth definition for upland longleaf and south Florida slash pine forests,woodlands,and savannas. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-29. Lennartz,M.R.,P.H.Geissler,R.F.Harlow,R.C.Long,K.M.Chitwood,and J.A.Jackson. 1983a. Status of the red-cockaded woodpecker on federal lands in the South. Pp.7-12 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,FL. Lennartz,M.R.,H.A.Knight,J.P.McClure,and V.A.Rudis. 19836. Status of red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habitat in the south.Pp. 13-19 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Locke,B.A.,R.N.Conner,and J.C.Kroll. 1983. Factors influencing colony site selection by red- cockaded woodpeckers. Pp.46-50 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Nesbitt,S.A.,A.E.Jerauld,and B.A.Harris. 1983. Red-cockaded woodpecker summer ranges in southwest Florida. Pp.68-71 in D.A.Wood,ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee,FL. Patterson,G.A.,and W.B.Robertson,Jr. 1981. Distribution and habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker ",.i in Big Cypress National Preserve. South Florida Research Center Report T-613,Everglades National Park,Homestead,FL. 18 North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Dec. 10,2003 Porter,M.L.,and R.F.Labisky. 1986. Home range and foraging habitat of red-cockaded woodpeckers in northern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:239-247. Reed,J.M.,P.D.Doerr,and J.R.Walters. 1988. Minimum viable population size of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:385-391. Rossell,C.R.Jr.,and B.Gorsira. 1996. Assessment of condition and availability of active red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:21-24. USFS. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the management of the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on national forests in the southern region. Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service Management Bulletin R8-MB73. USFWS. 1985. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Southeast Region,Atlanta,GA. USFWS. 2000. Technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis). U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Atlanta,GA. USFWS. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis),second revision. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Atlanta,GA. Wigley,T.B.,S.W. Sweeney,and J.R.Sweeney. 1999. Habitat attributes and reproduction of red- cockaded woodpeckers in intensively managed forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:801-809. Wilson,C.W.,R.E.Masters,and G.A.Bukenhofer. 1995. Breeding bird response to pine-grassland community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:56-67. Zwicker,S.,and J.R.Walters. 1999. Selection of pines for foraging by red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:843-852. 19 Item VII./ ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Hamilton Greens PUD-AR-6810 Petition Name: Livingston Greens, LLC Applicant/Developer: Patrick D Cunningham with Houston Cuozzo Group,INC Environmental Consultant: Craig M. Smith II. LOCATION: The site is located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road and approximately 4800 feet north of the Livingston/Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A(Agricultural) Collier Regional Park(CU 03-187) S - PUD Pelican Marsh residential PUD E - PUD Wilshire Lakes residential PUD W- PUD Livingston Road and Pelican Marsh residential PUD IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezone the 29.68+ acre subject property from "A" (Agricultural) zoning district to PUD, to permit a maximum of 88 residential units or 2.96 units per acre. EAC Meeting Page2of8 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban(Urban Mixed-Use District,Urban Residential Sub-district) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Sub-district permits residential development(variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU/A. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Since the initial review of this PUD, the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area(TCMA)has been created and incorporated into the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. There is a potential to allow increased density up to three additional units per acre if certain transportation demand management strategies are utilized(see FLUE Policy 6.3). Review of the Density Rating System deems this project is eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A. The property is within the TCMA and has a potential for increased density of up to 3 DU/A. However,the applicant has not requested this density bonus. Base Density 4 du/a TCMA Density Bonus 3 Total Potential Eligible Density 7 du/a FLUE Policy requires 5.4 ires new developments to be compatible with the q p surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.),building mass,building location,traffic generation/attraction, etc. In an effort to support the Community Character Plan for Collier County, the Future Land Use Element was amended to include Objective 7 and subsequent policies. The policies are intended to "encourage" the use of smart growth principles in local development planning and the petitioner must address these policies by indicating whether, and to what degree, the project will adhere to the policies. However, adherence to the policies is not mandatory. Relative to the proposed project, the following policies are applicable: EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 Policy 7.1: Encourages developers to connect to fronting collector and arterial roads: The PUD Master Plan and PUD document proposes access/egress onto Livingston Road. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (According to the applicant the existing conservation areas make a loop road system impossible to accomplish without greatly impacting the environment.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The property is bordered to the north and south by undeveloped lands consisting primarily of wetlands and preserves. The majority of the projects on-site wetlands are proposed to abut/connect to the undeveloped conservation areas lying north and south of the site. The site is r-. bordered to the east by the Wilshire Lakes PUD and it appears an interconnection via Clear Lake Circle would be feasible and appropriate. (The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in April 2005. The residents of the Wilshire Lakes PUD that attended the meeting were informed the proposed development would comprise of a small, gated community to serve residents desirous of a certain level of privacy. The proposed development is not proposing interconnections to the Wilshire Lakes PUD.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (The development proposes approximately 13.65 acres of wetland preserves, 1.79 acres of upland preserves and 1.97 acres of lakes. A five foot sidewalk is proposed throughout the project. However, the small scale of the development precludes a wide range of housing types and prices.) Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed density and uses for the subject site can be deemed consistent with Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging ISI EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards". To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes,retention and detention areas, and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 of the Conservation& Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Twenty Five percent(25%) of the existing native vegetation is required to be retained. Forty seven percent of the overall site has been identified for retained native vegetation preservation within the PUD boundaries. Selection of preservation areas, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. Preserve management plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: • li EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition,that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC." This project has already received a modification from SFWMD for permit 11-02126-P. The allowable discharge rate for the project is 1.19 cfs (0.04 cfs/ac), identified in Ordinance 2001-27 for sites in the Airport Road North Canal sub-basin which empties into the Cocohatchee Canal. This project was first submitted to SFWMD on 15 Feb 2005 as Livingston Greens (19.56 acres) and was given application # 050215-15. A Request for Additional Information (RAI) was sent to the engineer on 17 Mar 2005, a response to the RAI was received on 10 Apr 2006, another RAI was sent on 10 May 2006, a response was received on 13 Jun 2006, and the last RAI was sent on 13 Jul 2006. The SFWMD website shows no record of a response being received to that RAI. The design we have on file for this project is a standard design that incorporates pretreatment, wet detention, and preserves to achieve water quality retention/detention and peak flow attenuation. We don't know how it might have changed after the SFWMD RAIs. Environmental: Site Description: The property is located in northern Collier County on the east side of Livingston Road approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road. The site is bordered by preserved lands in the North Naples Regional Park to the north, a conservation easement area and single family homes to the east, a conservation easement area for the Tiburon development to the south. The vegetative communities on-site consist of upland pine flatwoods, wetland pine flatwoods, cypress wetlands, and existing cleared areas with varying degrees of exotic infestation. Wetlands: There are 14.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.8 acres of jurisdictional other surface waters. A formal jurisdictional determination was made by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) staff on September 19, 2003 and January 7, 2005. The 10 acre parcel to the south that was added to the project since the last determination is currently being reviewed under permit application 050215- 15. Approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands and 0.5 acres of other surface waters are EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 proposed to be impacted by the development. The proposed project will be preserving 98 percent of the wetlands on the property. Preservation Requirements: Of the total 29.6 acres of the project site, 27.2 acres are considered native vegetation. Twenty-five percent of the native vegetation is required to be preserved which is being met in two preserve areas consisting of 14.1 acres. This exceeds their minimum requirement of 6.8 acres. Listed Species: Five gopher tortoise burrows (two active and three inactive) were found on the site during the survey. An updated listed species survey will be required at that time of the next development order. A new survey will also be required within six months of construction of the site and any tortoises found on the site will be relocated to an approved off-site relocation area. The project is proposing five 20 foot long bridges with openings that will be 2—4 feet tall and equally positioned along the wetland crossing to accommodate wildlife likely to occur in the area. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Hamilton Greens PUDZ-AR-6810 with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. None Environmental: 1. The project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to issuance of any site plan approvals. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: W. ,itiv4 ---eeL GWait) /9T /D/00 KIRSTEN WILKIE DA ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 it.N.N) TAN CHRZANOW/ KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 6-1/1-------. 10.th Oiv C OL A VALERA, DATE RINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: 61.06etAa_ A - Lau�C a)-- Iv -/0 --OG BARBARA S. BURGESON < DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT / f°-/t o� I LIAM D. LO N , Jr.,P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR -4)r-641-t- //)-12._-067 MARJO' ui.TUDENT-STIRLING DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: io//4/r4 •SEPH K. SC ITT DATE •MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ,.� Item VII. . ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2006-AR-10030 Petition Name: Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD Applicant/Developer: Sembler Family Partnership#42,LTD. Engineering Consultant: RWA, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties on the east side of Collier Boulevard are mostly undeveloped. West of the site is Naples Lakes Country Club PUD (aka Naples Forest Country Club) and south of that site is Sierra Meadows PUD, which is adjacent to the Lely Resort DRUPUD and Edison Village PUD. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Undeveloped S - R.O.W. Rattlesnake Hammock Road Agricultural Undeveloped E - Agricultural Undeveloped W - R.O.W. Collier Boulevard Naples Lakes Country Club PUD Developed EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD will include a mixture of land uses for retail commercial and office land uses. The CPUD intends to establish guidelines and standards to ensure a high level of quality for features and facilities. Uniform guidelines will be created for features such as landscaping, signage, lighting, roadway treatments, fences and buffers. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's gross area shall be devoted to open space which shall be applied to the entire development area. All buildings and visible infrastructures shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified with similar use of materials and colors on all buildings. Within the PUD a maximum of one hundred sixty thousand (160,000) square feet of retail and office uses are allowed. The PUD document indicates up to fifty thousand(50,000) square feet of office space may be converted from the total one hundred sixty thousand square feet of retail space. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the designation allows the full array of commercial uses. The existing PUD, comprising+/- 20.23 acres, was approved in 2000 for retail and office uses and amended to correct a scrivener's error in 2004. There have been no amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) since that time that would affect the uses or intensities approved in this PUD. The Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD land uses approved pursuant to Ordinance 00-79 and remain compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area. No changes to the GMP have been adopted that would make the previously approved PUD inconsistent to the density and intensity requirements. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states: "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality �''� standards. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system." This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention areas, and a wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharge into the Henderson Creek canal system which flows into the Rookery Bay estuary system. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1, selection of preservation areas represents the largest most contiguous area possible, given the site constraints. ,-� Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species will be required at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. A preliminary management plan for Big Cypress fox squirrels is included in the EIS. Big Cypress fox squirrels are known to inhabit the surrounding area. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Hammock Park Commerce Center received Environmental Resource Permit 11- 02130-P from the South Florida Water Management District on 08-Jun-2005 for 35.13 acres of commercial and residential development. The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are exempt from review by the EAC. That having been noted, the following is a summary of the proposed workings of the stormwater management system. This entire project is within the Henderson Creek Basin. The maximum allowable discharge rate for the basin according to Collier County Ordinance 2001-27 is 0.15 cfs per acre. Everything within the Henderson Creek Basin drains into Henderson Creek, which flows south past the Marco Island raw water supply lakes and over the weir just north of US route 41, under route 41, past a succession of mobile home parks and out into Rookery Bay near the Marine Research Facility on Shell Island Road. The petitioner proposes to grade the site to drain to the dry detention areas via swales and piping. Water quality detention will be provided in the dry detention areas prior to discharge into the wetland preserves. Offsite discharge for water quantity attenuation will be controlled by a structure at the northwest corner of the site that outfalls into the Henderson Creek Canal. Environmental: Site Description: The majority of the site consists of undeveloped forested lands. Native habitats on-site include hydric pine flatwoods, pine/cypress, pine flatwoods, palmetto prairie, and freshwater marsh. Also on-site are approximately 6.48 acres of near Melaleuca monoculture and approximately 1.27 acres of cleared land for an existing electrical transmission line. Most of the wetland habitats on-site are heavily impacted with exotics. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Wetlands: The project site contains 14.83 acres of SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands, 13.48 acres of which will be directly impacted for development of the site. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands includes on-site preservation and enhancement of 1.35 acres of wetlands and 0.29 acre of uplands. Enhancement will include hand removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation, and supplemental planting with native species. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit (ERP No. 11-02130- P) identified 11.07 forested freshwater credits to be purchased at Big Cypress Mitigation Bank for development. This SFWMD permit will have to be modified prior to Site Development Plan approval, to account for the new development plan. Mitigation credits were not purchased under the original permit, since development did not occur. Preservation Requirements: Pursuant to Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, fifteen (15%) of the native vegetation must be retained on-site. Approximately 10.92 acres of native vegetation exist on the subject property, of which 1.6 acres (.15 x 10.92 acres) are required to be retained. The proposed project design incorporates 1.35 acres of wetlands and 0.29 acre of uplands as preserve in the development plan. Listed Species: Listed species surveys were conducted on July 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26 and 28, 1999 by Turrell and Associates, Inc. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) non-nesting season foraging surveys were conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. from October 29, 2003 through October 31, 2003 and from November 3, 2003 through November 11, 2003. Nesting season foraging surveys were conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. from May 4, 2004 through May 17, 2004. The 1999, 2003 and 2004 wildlife surveys were all for larger parcels containing the subject property. An updated listed species survey was conducted on September 19, 2006. Three listed wildlife species were observed on the project site utilizing hydric disturbed land: little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and white ibis (Endocumis albus). Each of these species is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). None of these species are listed by the U.S. Fish and /�' Wildlife Service (USFWS). EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2006-AR-10030 "Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD" with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: No additional stipulations. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: /4), rittAA-LAL OCT-06 STAN CHRZANOW , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT / oda/2006 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT V001.) ie7 g-erZ) MELISSA ZONE D• T PRINCIPAL PLAN '‘-` 7111 DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: `6614.y CZ /,1 a 6L-- -tt BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 1/ A „e5L A Aa' RD . / I- 0c A� IAM D. LO'.�NZ, Jr., P E., DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT av0-ei---cet-e-- -iatt -4-bit /0 -r a -oc MAR=-DENT-STIRLING DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: n / z..,,,..... .. /0.13/4 e,r PH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, JO ITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION t X - 1p '- air = p x VI hail 14 ;1110 \. \ I 411, . 0 mt „t-, a . . mi,... k ,..., kir kw., . 3 „_}- - I A* ' " . r 4,7_ ounnu __.. , , ,,,..Titirila,04„:„ ,,,,H. . , : 11111►te � , \ --- -4,,,--. ii ,...,. . ., , ...,', , . . , -.•.:- . .. ,,„. - - -...---..: ,..... .. . • - 1. ' '._ ''''.• _ . ..... , ., -- --2L--------------- - - - -- - - GAT311109E 23 ------- ... ?.....\ --- 7-----------i--- '' , ‘ .. •_„ ...- .. .. _ --.. .„.....,.,- .-..... _ , 1111oor,..-7,111111: ,„ ,.,__ .. ........ *