Loading...
EAC Agenda 05/01/2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA May 1,2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W.Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of April 3,2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Discussion of Revised LDC 2.6.9.2...Essential uses...Municipal Wellfields V. Land Use Petitions A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat No. PSP 2000-10—AR 1902/ ST-99-3 "Little Palm Island" Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East B. Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2000-22 "Yahl Mulching and Recycling" Section 31,Township 49 South,Range 27 East C. Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2001-AR-1912 "Immokalee Road South Project" Sections 29,30,31, and 32, Township 48 South,Range 27 East D. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1331 "ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD" Section 10,Township 51 South,Range 26 East VI. Old Business A. Finalize the EAC's Annual Report to the BCC VII. New Business VIII. Growth Management Update IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 24, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition(403-2400). 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. April 3, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 3, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the 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, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro NOT PRESENT: William W. Hill Larry Stone ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Burgeson, EnvironmentalSpecialist, Development Services Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Page 1 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we call the April 3rd meeting or -- call the roll. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? COMMISSIONER GAL: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let the record show we have a ^ forum with seven members present. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Is there any additions, deletions, corrections to the agenda? MS. BURGESON: No. There are no changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No changes? Nothing from the -- from the council? MR. COE: I want some time to talk at the end. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, end of meeting talk. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. Mr. Sansbury -- I'm sorry -- we do want to add one item under old business, and we do want to talk about the annual report. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Annual report. Okay. Anything else? Okay. We do have the minutes from the March 6th meeting? What is the pleasure? .-� COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Move to approve. Page 2 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Move to approve. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. In favor? (Unanimous.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Passed unanimously. Okay. All right. Mr. Chrzanowski? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, council members. Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the Development Services Division. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I put the emphasis on the wrong syllable. I got it wrong. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's no correct pronunciation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. "Ski" works. Alphabet. I used to answer to that for years. Last month during the meeting we ^ had a Land Development Code amendment item come up where we were trying to get the requirement that wells get a conditional use deleted from the Land Development Code if those wells don't affect surface water or shallow potable wells. During that presentation, I believe it was Ms. Lynne asked the question of how the Water Management District does their permitting of wells in Collier County. And we have this month with us Terry Bengtsson from the Water Management District, who actually does well permitting, and Mr. -- he's the one in the middle. Mr. Lee Werst is the gentleman over there, and Kurt Harclerode -- I think you see him on TV quite a bit talking about water shortages -- is the other gentleman, in case any questions come up. And I also noticed Dan Jackson. He used to be on -- you all remember him. He used to be one of you a long time ago. COMMISSIONER COE: Now he isn't. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Now he isn't, yeah. Page 3 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: He was the smart one. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I guess I'll just let Terry start with his presentation, and if you have any questions you can ask him. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good, sir. MR. BENGTSSON: Good morning. What I thought I'd do is talk in general terms on the process of getting public supply wells permitted, because there are several steps along the way. The Water Management District has a couple of roles in that process, and so basically the Water Management District is responsible for water supply and water-use permitting throughout South Florida. It's the -- it's the largest district and the oldest in the state. There's five districts overall, and they have their legislative authority to do water-use permitting. Next slide, please. Myself and Lee Werst and Kurt Harclerode are from the Fort Myers Service Center, and our responsibility covers what's called the Lower West Coast Planning Area, and that's Lee and portions of Collier, Hendry, Glades and Charlotte counties. And as I said, I'd like to start in the general terms and then work on the specifics as far as the public supply wells. First of all, there is the water-use permit, and that is established in Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes. And it has many interesting parts. Florida's quite a bit different than other states in the nation, and it combines some of the eastern common-law ideas with western water laws. The principal things to remember is, in Florida, water's not attached to property rights. That water is a part of the state, and the state has the authority to administrator a permitting process. And what that permit is, is the right to use water for a set duration, which is another key component of a water-use permit. Go ahead. Let's go to the next. Who needs one? Well, basically all water use requires a water- use permit except for single-family homes and duplexes. Also, wells Page 4 April 3, 2002 that are drilled for fire protection. Reuse water, the use of reused, reclaimed water and sea water is exempt. There are some current rule revisions that sort of is looking at that as possible changes. There's two types: General permit and an individual permit. The individuals are the larger users. The distinction is made by the quantity of water being requested. Government -- governing board approval is required for the individual permits and general permits in this area, which happens to be in this RTA, which is reduced threshold areas. Any use less than 20,000 gallons a day can get a general permit; otherwise, they're into the individual category, which requires a bit more review, and it doesn't go to the governing board for approval so there's a lot more time associated with getting that permit. There's -- in a fundamental sense, how do you get a water-use permit? There's the basic three-prong tests where it needs to be reasonable and beneficial. It cannot interfere with the existing legal users, which is the concept that does come from the western side of the country where first-in, first-right, and then it has to be consistent with the public interest. While these are concepts, they're somewhat vague as to what's reasonable, what's in the public interest. And fortunately there are some definitions to try to explain what those -- what those concepts are. Again, there's some other terms that are used as far as efficient, economical, public interest. So, you know, there's still some things that are not overly clear in the -- in the rules, in the statutes. Written into the rules is this dynamic concept in that it's recognized that the needs change; possibly hydrology may change; technology certainly changes through time, and so there is this idea within the rules that allows what's reasonable and beneficial to change through time. And the change through time is one of the reasons why permits will have a Page 5 April 3, 2002 duration set where they have to be renewed and reevaluated. One of the primary things associated with the water-use permit is the prior appropriations concept where, if you're designated as a legal user, you have certain -- you have given authorization to use the water. And that legal use is either through a permit or exemption. And that - - in the case of the single-family home, that is the primary exemption, that the homeowner has the right to use the water, to have a well or to withdraw from a nearby canal or surface water body as long as they have access to it. However, the permittees do have this link toward duration of that right. The other item for this three-prong test is the consistency with the public interest. There are a number of things to describe within the laws and statutes guiding the natural resources, water resource and environmental attributes that need to be protected. The primary thing that's being used by the water management districts currently are as -- as far as public interests, are defined and identified in the regional water supply plans. There is a water supply plan that was finished in 2000, April of 2000, and was put together by committee as well as district staff to identify what are the needs, where are the sources, how do you meet the demands in the future. And 2020 was the horizon that was used. How do you get a permit? There's an application process. There's a number of forms and tables. There's an application fee. The primary thing with the application is the applicant must demonstrate that there's no harm to existing legal users to the environment, to water quality, and to the resource in general. And there's a criteria that's established in our rules to go about determining whether or not there is potential harm, what is an acceptable level of harm. And through the permitting process, there is a period of resolution if there are issues that have to be sorted out, and ultimately Page 6 April 3, 2002 there are some assurance standards that are placed within the permit, and they are identified in the limiting conditions of the permit. All water-use permits have conditions that speak towards the need for water conservation; what happens in the case of a water shortage where there's a drought that's been identified. It also calls the applicant to be aware of any -- of compliance to any other ordinances or permits that may be associated with that use of water. Primarily, the well-construction permits have to be obtained. If there are local ordinances associated with those wells or with the other restrictions concerning use, those will have to be adhered to. There are -- you know, there's three major categories. Irrigation is Y g g probably the largest category of water use. Then you have public supply, and then commercial and industrial. Go ahead and -- Basically, looking at the entire district, last year we're talking about what's under permit as being 7 billion gallons a day. And primarily agriculture, the most use -- if we look just on our coast, we're looking at some percentages a slightly bit different. Public water supply makes up a little bit larger portion of the pie, agriculture a little bit less. Golf course and landscape irrigation, a little bit higher on this coast than on the district as a whole. Okay. We're focusing in on public supply wells now, and the way we go about issuing a water-use permit for public supplies -- first we have to establish a need. And a need is geared towards the population primarily, whether that be seasonal or permanent, and we need to look at growth projections of that population over the duration of the permit. Then a key component to establishing that need is what is the per capita use of each individual within the service area if in fact we're talking about a utility. Now, a public water- supply permit can also include a mobile home park. Any -- any type Page 7 April 3, 2002 of establishment that is distributing water to the public will require a public water-supply permit. Along with establishing that per capita use, whether or not there are other types of users -- and this includes the large industrial-type uses that are hooked into the utility if in fact we're looking at a utility -- and then irrigation. You know, how much -- what is the potential use from irrigation. For a utility, typically half, or 60 percent of the water that goes through their system is going out onto residential lawns. Other things that we must consider is the efficiency of their system, how the water is being treated. If it is a utility that we're looking at, what are they doing with the waste water? Are they trying to recycle that water, get that water back out to potential users? Rather than using potable water, they can use highly treated effluent. There are newer technologies out there associated with aquifer storage and recovery wells with the reverse osmosis plants that require special consideration and is part of the water supply plans that recently came out last year or the year before that are trying to identify alternative sources. Collier County has certainly moved in that direction where they're looking at brackish water sources rather than high-quality freshwater from the shallow groundwater system. Another item that is considered in -- in issuance of a public water-supply permit is with the water conservation programs that are identified, looking at their system as to where are they potentially losing water. So that all enters into the picture as to what the need is for this permit. Then you have to identify a source. Where are they going to get that water to meet the need? Currently, just looking at the individual permits, there's a breakout of-- about a third of the permits get water from groundwater sources, a third from strictly surface-water sources, and then there's that other third that has both. Page 8 April 3, 2002 Let's look at a picture of the district. In Collier County, principally the source of choice is the surficial and intermediate aquifers. That's the water-table aquifer and the lower Tamiami aquifer. And there are some potential surface water available through the Big Cypress canal system, and now the lower Hawthorn or Floridan aquifer system is being identified as an alternative source, and the utilities are looking to meet their future demands by using the brackish water that's within the Floridan and Lower Hawthorn. So once we've identified the source, the water-use permit is going to tie that source to the permit so that the -- the permittee must use the identified source. Whether it be the lower Tamiami or whether it's the Caloosahatchee River or what have you, the permit has to be tied to that. If for some reason there is a -- the source is not available, then ^ the permit is no longer a valid permit. It has to be modified to reach some other source to meet the need. And some of the factors affecting availability of water in that particular source would be whether or not there's potential for saltwater intrusion, which is clearly something that's been identified in -- in the Collier County area. Wetland impacts. When you have shallow wells or withdraws from surface-water bodies that potentially will affect wetlands in the - - in the vicinity. Other items, of course, affect legal existing users, whether there's going to be impacts to them, and the effects of drought is also considered in that issuance of a water-use permit. Once you get the permit, what to you get? Well, you get the right to use the water and you get to use it as long as that duration is current and you have a certain level of certainty. And that level of certainty currently is permitted on a two- and ten-year basis. So when we do get into dry periods, water management districts has to call a water Page 9 April 3, 2002 shortage condition in effect and calls for restrictions to reduce the demand. And so that is factored into the permit so that -- just because you have a permit doesn't mean you can always use the permitted amount. You may have to be called on to reduce your use because there's no control of the rainfall, basically. And that level of certainty not only is a physical condition, there's also -- associated with the permit duration, and it may be tied to whether or not changes have occurred or problems have been identified that may call the permit back for review. There is a legal aspect that is tied to this, you know, impact to existing legal users. Okay. So once the permit -- the water-use permit is issued, then the permittee needs to get the well construction permits if in fact he's going to be using an aquifer. The water management district has the authority to carry out a program of well-construction permits, and they set minimum standards for construction of wells, for the abandonment of wells or the repair of wells. And that has been delegated to them from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Now, the district has, in turn, delegated the authority to Collier County to carry out the well-construction permits as long as they meet the minimum standards that district has. The county has the ability to -- to increase standards to some other higher level, but they must at least have the minimum standards that -- that the district has. Now, there is one caveat to the -- to the county's well- construction program in that they cannot permit themselves when they are going for a well-construction permit. In that case, where the water -- water department for the county needs to get a well- construction permit, they must come to the district not only for the water-use permit but for the well-construction permit within the -- those permits, the -- as long as the construction standards are met, Page 10 April 3, 2002 and there are conditions in there that require the licensed contractor to follow all other local ordinances. There is another level of inspection as far as public supply wells are concerned in that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, through the Department of Health, looks at the water quality aspects and ensures that all drinking water quality standards are met. So in order to get a public supply well permitted, you need to go through the water management district, through the Collier County well-construction permitting process, and also through the health department. If it is the Collier County Water Department, then they go through the district for both water use and well construction but then will be working with the health department as far as the final certification of a drinking well -- drinking-water well. So there's several steps that need to be followed, and then there ^ are apparently in Collier County other requirements that Stan may speak to next. But as far as the water-use permit and those conditions, if you have any questions, I'll try to address them or fall back to my cohort here in the front row. COMMISSIONER COE: You mentioned the permits are only for certain duration. Say, ten years. At the end of that ten years, do they have to redo them or reapply? MR. BENGTSSON: They reapply. And the way we look at a permit renewal is the same way we look at a proposed use, a new application. Granted, that if an existing facility is in place, the -- denying a particular permit may not necessarily occur, but there would be potentially changes to the operation of that facility or some modification, whether it be another source that's necessary or changes in practices of the use of that water to make sure that it's reasonable and beneficial to the public interest. And that's -- that potentially can be a moving target. What's happened in the last couple of years is Page 11 April 3, 2002 that, as far as the water utility in our area, they like to see that permit duration set at 20 years, and that helps them obtain bond money to build facilities that will be required for the -- to meet the future demands. And the district has been willing to grant those longer durations as long as certain targets are met within five-year increments, and usually those targets are tied to reuse, using reclaimed water to -- to meet the irrigation demands that are out there. Usually the alternative sources have to be used in order to get this 20-year duration. So we have seen several of the utilities now go to the deeper wells and use the brackish water to have the money to build the reverse osmosis plants that are necessary to treat -- treat the water and get the salt out of there. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So the way this works is, the -- the -- when you're trying to decide what the potential impact of the groundwater use would be to, say, an adjacent wetland or some other user, the applicant comes to you with the modelling and all the data to show that that's not going to happen, and you just kind of look at that and just verify it, or do you do your own modelling? MR. BENGTS SON: Technically we are only to review what the applicant submits, but in reality, we will be doing our own analysis in many cases. It depends on the level of the water use, and it also depends on the location. Some areas have more concern than others. Currently the primary concern that the district has is the competing-use issue and having too many users and maybe not necessarily enough water availability. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is anybody going back and looking at the permits and the data submitted by the applicant and doing monitoring to see how closely the actual response is in the groundwater to what was proposed in the application? Page 12 April 3, 2002 MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. Many of the permits do have monitoring conditions in regards to what they pump. Usually it's submitted on a quarterly basis, monthly totals. There are wells that may be required to monitor water levels or chloride content of the water. Those -- that data is -- is submitted to the district and primarily reviewed through the regional water supply planning effort where those things are done every five years. And we have technicians that will gather all that information together and look at it in a regional sense. From a local perspective, permit review will — or water-use review will occur when the permit is being renewed and the status of a particular area is — is evaluated with all available information. In some instances, that may not be a lot of data. In other instances, there's a lot. A lot of information. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So does your agency have enough staff to follow up on the monitoring? MR. BENGTSSON: We can always use more help, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Have you ever had a situation where unexpected things happen and the monitoring well showed a greater drawdown or impact and things had to be modified after the construction of the well? MR. BENGTSSON: There are instances of that. Currently I'm reviewing the City of Naples water-use permit in regard to their east Golden Gate well field. We are currently doing some investigations to establish what are the relationships between canal levels, water- table levels and lower Tamiami water levels and the cause-and-effect relationship between pumping and water levels. And it can get fairly involved, particularly when you go through several years that we've had in the past where exceptionally dry times have come upon us. And obviously, you know, rainfall plays a big part. In any kind of Page 13 April 3, 2002 analysis that you do, you know, it's clear that cause-and-effect relationship between rainfall and water levels -- you know, in part of the year we have plenty of water because it rains very hard, and other parts of the year it's dry. And that's what we're faced with right now. You know, there is the possibility that rainfall patterns are changing over the recent past. The last couple of decades, I think if you look at the rainfall patterns and distributions, there does seem to be a switch. How that enters into our evaluation will primarily be through these regional water supply plans where we will be looking into the future. Where do we need to be in 2020, or the next effort will be 2025. And, you know, the projections are based on best available information. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Does the district have a series of monitoring wells that are constructed and monitored just by the district for your own information to sort of check on the regional situation? MR. BENGTSSON: We do, yes. We have our own wells for particular projects, and then we have wells that the U.S. Geological Survey monitors. Many of those now are on realtime, so-called realtime, where the data is collected on a minute-by-minute interval, basically, and transmitted to a satellite, and you can actually call it up on your computer over the Internet and see what the water level is at various locations. And that has been a very instrumental program and -- for water-shortage conditions that the network is now quite a bit more extensive than it was just three, four years ago. So, you know, the technology keeps moving forward and gives us greater capabilities to -- to track what's going on and hopefully respond, you know, appropriately. Page 14 April 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is there an annual report produced on that with the locations of the wells and the U.S.G.S. wells and — MR. BENGTSSON: There is. There is something that is available at the U.S.G.S. website, and there is an annual monitoring report. There's a bunch of statistics that are offered for those monitoring stations to see what the trends are. You know, where the water levels -- are they going down or are they just fluctuating with seasonal variations or what have you. So there's quite a bit of information that can be obtained. Big Cypress Basin does a monthly report. They have monitoring sites principally on the canals but also a number of rainfall stations that keeps tab on the hydrologic conditions. I believe also they include the water use from the main utilities. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: The former, I guess, regional director of the U.S.G.S, Henry LaRose -- are you familiar with him? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: He's retired. MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COE: He's the only one I see out there sort of raising the flag, you know, that -- that there are problems with declines in the aquifers. Can you explain why he would seem to be more concerned than I'm hearing from other agencies? MR. BENGTSSON: He has a historical perspective on what the conditions were like in the early '70s versus what they are like today. It certainly helps to have that background knowledge. You know, one individual's opinion on what is a safe or sustainable level of use or conditions of an aquifer may differ from other interpretations of what's an acceptable level for a given aquifer, for example. It is true that there's a number of wells that show declining trends in water Page 15 April 3, 2002 levels, but that's not surprising. There's a large increase in water use. And one of the mandates for the water management district is to develop all available sources as well as protect the resource. So -- I mean, in one sense that sounds contradictory; in the other, it simply says that the state recognizes that there's growth and we need to provide for that growth. The conditions within the water-use permit sets up the -- the reasonable public interest. And it's a dynamic concept so that, you know, what is considered concerned reasonable is -- may change through time. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, this is -- you know, this is the primary concern of people like me who manage natural areas where the requirement for historic flows and levels never changes. We never want that to change. The wetlands systems we manage -- you know, developed under those p hi stork conditions and, you know, as water use increases and we get an -- we change the rules. We set the bar at a different level. We get this new reality. Now, those of us who don't want our present water levels to change, you know, are very concerned. And do you think after the statement you just made that, you know, the -- the overall conditions do change because there's more demand -- do you think that the land managers, you know, at the private, state and federal level can anticipate that we'll be able to continue what we're doing indefinitely and maintain historic water levels? MR. BENGTSSON: It's a finite resource. And at some point, you know, basically permits will be not allowed in certain areas. I mean, take, for example, Collier County. We have an area that is restricted for -- against irrigation wells in the lower Tamiami. We have concerns for the area in North Naples and on into South Lee, and we basically advise an applicant that you're not going to get a water-use permit if they're planning to use the lower Tamiami Page 16 April 3, 2002 aquifer. So that area is protected because there's enough users of that aquifer and there's potentials for saltwater intrusion. And so, you know, there -- there are areas that are already known to be potentially at risk, that there's enough users out there. And within our water-supply plans, you know, our -- our methods of reaching the demands of 2020 or 2025 is through alternative sources. So, I mean -- I think, you know, the concerns that you're mentioning are -- are voiced in the water-supply plan, and -- and certainly the district is aware, in order to meet -- meet the demands, we're going to be needing to look at how to make, you know, the pie bigger for everyone because there's just simply going to be more people that need a slice. And it's possible that that slice will be smaller for each one of those that has a portion of the pie. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So if I've never -- I'm finishing up. If I've never gotten a water-use permit because I'm relying on nature to manage the water, am I considered an existing legal user? MR. BENGTS SON: If you're referring to your home -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: A natural area. Any wetland preserve area. Would they be considered existing legal users? MR. BENGTSSON: That's a good question. They are part of the resource, and so they are given a level of protection that's tied to the criteria for a water-use permit. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Can I get a permit without consuming any water or just keep what I have? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good point. MR. BENGTSSON: Now, there are provisions that -- and glossed over in one of those slides -- that speaks towards assurances and that there is water set — set aside to make sure that various environments will persist. The thing that comes to mind, which is the Everglades restoration, there will be diversions or there are Page 17 April 3, 2002 diversions, and there will be more water stored to make sure that all the efforts going into that program will be successful, because obviously it's heavily dependant on hydrology. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? COMMISSIONER COE: Has anyone in your office or any of the offices of South Florida Water Management taken a look at how many permitted developments are on the books and yet haven't even begun to be constructed yet to determine based on what -- I mean, these are planned developments. And, you know, I've sat on the board for a long time, and we have approved thousands of homes. But is anyone from the planning staff for water or sewer taken a look at that? Because what we've experienced with this county just in the last year -- we've had sewage problems. Now we've got water problems. And we haven't even approached close to building what we know -- we as members of the EAC know has already been approved. So has anybody taken a look at that? MR. BENGTSSON: Well, it's a good question. You know, in the water supply plans, the -- the so-called stakeholders were part of the committee that developed the plan. It included, you know, the various utility, the various planning departments for the counties that are involved with the lower west coast. And so, I mean, presumably those people are the ones that have a pulse on, you know, what is happening or what will likely happen in the next 20 years. Of course, the district -- the district has its planners, and, you know, with developing that plan, they -- they looked at what is likely to occur as far as growth. I don't know if those plans considered the speed at which growth has occurred in the last five years, to be honest. So maybe Paul can better address that. Page 18 April 3, 2002 MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, director of Collier County Water Department. I stepped in from another meeting because I figured that this issue would come up, especially in light of what's happened over the last couple weeks in the short term and over the last about year and a half or year in the long term. Let -- let me set the record straight. This is not a -- a growth management issue; it's not a concurrency issue. We have 32 million gallons a day of water treatment plant capacity constructed. We have more than that as far as consumptive use permits that we've received from South Florida Water Management District in order to provide 32 million gallons of water a day of potable water, drinking water. The problem was a series of mechanical failures and not a water capacity issue as far as source is concerned. We have sufficient source. I just -- I just am unable to use part of that source right now, due to a series of mechanical failures. So I just want to make sure that everyone is clear on the fact that -- that we have a master plan in process. We are tracking by Mr. Mudd's checkbook that you've probably heard about. All of the developments, all of the things that are coming on line, and we are planning capacity to meet that demand. We currently have an 8- million-gallon-a-day water treatment plant using reverse osmosis. Using an alternative source actually will be our second water treatment plant using an alternative water supply, and that is brackish water from deep wells and utilizing reverse osmosis to treat water. So that -- that plant is under construction, and we expect that plant -- an additional 8 million gallons a day, which will bring us to 40 million gallons a day of water treatment capacity. I might add that our maximum day -- so far demand on the system has been 28.8 million gallons, with a 32-million-gallon system currently in place and a 40-million-gallon system in place by early next year. We Page 19 April 3, 2002 certainly should be able to meet the demand, provided we don't have a whole series of mechanical failures like we just recently experienced. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. I understand what you're saying about capacity and that there's resources there. How often is this plan updated? We -- we're approving thousands of new units each year. MR. MATTAUSCH: How often is the master plan updated? COMMISSIONER COE: Correct. MR. MATTAUSCH: It was just updated and approved by the Board of County Commission in, I believe, either October or November of 2001. So that master plan was updated, like, just about four months ago. COMMISSIONER COE: And how often will it be updated again? MR. MATTAUSCH: Annually. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. And then that's reflected -- annually, it reflects whatever we've approved, us and the Board of Community Commissioners. MR. MATTAUSCH: That is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER COE: I understand. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal? MR. GAL: Did you say the South Florida Water District is able to impose water rationing? MR. BENGTSSON: They have rules. MR. GAL: You have the authority to do that? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. There's rules. I think it's 54021 that requires the district to implement a plan, and it's spelled out in the various phases: Phase I, Phase II and -- Page 20 April 3, 2002 MR. GAL: Does the county also have the ability to do that, or is that your authority? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. The Board of County Commission can, and in fact did. Saturday afternoon we called a special meeting of the county commission. Because of the situation that we were in short term, the Board of County Commission acted on a request by the Public Utilities Department to going to mandatory water restrictions. And the board has that capability of doing that. We did that through Friday -- this Friday, April 5th at 6 p.m., because of the short-term nature of the mechanical failures and our projected ability to get some treatment capacity back on line. MR. GAL: If the district imposes water rationing, do they tell that to county officials and then they have to implement it? MR. MATTAUSCH: No. If South Florida Water Management District issues an emergency water shortage order, we defer the county. Because we have consumptive-use permits through South Florida Water Management District, they regulate those consumptive-use permits. And one of the conditions of the consumptive-use permit is that we defer to any emergency orders. So if they issue an order, we immediately go under that level of restriction. MR. GAL: I guess my question is, does there need to be an emergency? Why can't the district just impose -- you can only water your lawn twice a week all year long for -- MR. MATTAUSCH: Well, let me not answer for the district, but my understanding -- and we've had -- I know these guys very well. But -- but the current rules are written such that they have to -- they have to wait until we are approaching certain minimum flows and levels, and that's the way that it's built into the rules. And when we reach a certain minimum flow and level, that's when an Page 21 April 3, 2002 emergency water shortage is issued. And, Terry, you can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. GAL: Who changes the rules? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me just comment one thing. I think we're getting two things confused. And that is, the water shortage that we're talking about right now in Collier County is potable water. MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct. On potable water capacity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the irrigation restriction that's put in place are just for people that irrigate their lawns with potable water? MR. MATTAUSCH: That is absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And are there not — when restrictions come in from the district, are there not a hierarchy of restrictions; i.e., irrigation happens to be the first one that has to cut back, then possibly ag use, and then possibly, finally, domestic use. There's some level like that there, is there not? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes, sir. That's -- that's correct. I mean, there's various phases, depending on the level of concern and how dry it's been, how long the drought has been in place. An example is, last year we didn't have a decent raining season, so by the time we got into the dry season, we were already in a -- in a bad situation. And eventually some areas of the district had a Phase III, which is fairly strict conditions that all permitted users have to meet. In this area, we were under Phase II, which, you know, requires the two days a week and -- MR. GAL: The residential watering the lawns, isn't that -- did you say that was 50 percent of our water use? MR. BENGTSSON: Typically that's -- for public supply, that's what it works out to be. Page 22 April 3, 2002 MR. GAL: I imagine that's the largest user then, right? The largest use of water. MR. MATTAUSCH: Again, Paul Mattausch. Let me address our system directly, because they're fairly easy numbers to -- to calculate because we put in a certain number of million gallons a day into one end of the system, and what goes into our wastewater plants is another number, and the difference between those two numbers is usually mostly irrigation. Okay. There are some other uses that don't go directly to the wastewater plant, but -- but most of that is irrigation. This time of year, we find that -- that approximately 35 to 40 percent of our potable water supply is going to irrigation. Other times of the year, during the rainy season, it's significantly less. But that number hovers between 20 and 40 percent on a day-to-day basis for our system. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I'd like to restate what Mr. Gal said. I mean, I was kind of appalled. We got everybody educated to watering -- and I'm talking about residential, twice a week. Fine. Everybody -- even the snowbirds understand that. And then in the middle of the tourist season, we go to three days. I think what Mr. Gal is saying, why can't we just limit it to two days? We're conserving water; everybody's used to it; leave it that way except for an emergency where you have to stop watering altogether. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me address that, if I could, because it's a heck of a lot more complex than what we're talking about here. The first thing is enforcement of, say, what the city just did. Now, we send the enforcement people out and we see somebody's sprinklers on. How are they going to determine whether those sprinklers are coming from a well, coming from city potable water or coming from a master irrigation system? That gets Page 23 April 3, 2002 complicated. At the height of the season, when anybody that's on reuse water, the reuse utility wants you to use all the water you possibly can; or their alternative is, in the case of the City of Naples - - is to discharge into the Gordon River. So I agree with you that there are some areas where that should happen, but I think that whole irrigation thing is very, very complex as to what your source is, whether it happens to be reuse, whether it happens to be groundwater, or whether it happens to be potable. In all three of those cases, you have a different situation regarding irrigation. MR. MATTAUSCH: Again, Paul Mattausch for the record. The new City of Naples ordinance does limit irrigation to three days a week on an odd-even basis. The ordinance that will be before the Board of County Commissioners on April 9th for the county to enact is -- is paralleling the City of Naples ordinance so that it will make us -- make it easier for enforcement in the entire region, because we will be on the same schedule as the City of Naples. Part of the confusion arises from the fact that we have some overlap in parts of the system where the City of Naples provides water and sewer service in part of the district. The City of Naples provides water service, and the county provides sewer service in another part of the district, and we bill for the city water use. And then there's part -- the majority of the district is the county district where we provide both water and sewer service. So there's -- there's some confusion. So in order to try to eliminate confusion between irrigation ordinances, we are going to parallel right now what -- what restrictions the city implemented about a month ago. I think -- well, I know that the city ordinance and the county -- the proposed county ordinance both address the use of private wells Page 24 April 3, 2002 and surface-water supplies, and all other uses, other than reclaimed water and saltwater for irrigation. The -- the city ordinance and the county ordinance will regulate the use of wells and surface water in addition to the -- the two potable water-supply systems. MR. GAL: How did they arrive at the three-day figure as opposed to any other number of days you're able to water? MR. MATTAUSCH: There was a lot of discussion and -- and going back and forth. Currently -- currently, until some -- some proposed changes with South Florida Water Management District -- currently their Phase I restrictions are three days a week. And so what we did to be consistent with Phase I restrictions and implement Phase I restrictions mandatorily year-round was to go with the basic Phase I restrictions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I want to get back to what I think Mickey was getting at with his question earlier, which maybe I don't understand what you're trying to get to. But I think what he was asking was, we understand your present condition that, you know, there's enough capacity there; we just have a production problem. And we understand that. But his comments about only being halfway to buildout here -- are we doing the work we need to do to explore the amount of water that's available in the future so we don't run into some kind of crisis in the future that we know the capacities down there and where we can get water in the future -- MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- or are we going to slam into a wall, you know? MR. MATTAUSCH: Let me -- we have been an active participant in the Lower West Coast Water Supply plan that was done by the South Florida Water Management District and all of the Page 25 April 3, 2002 monthly basis to South Florida Water Management District. And we are also working cooperatively with U.S.G.S, and we're working cooperatively with the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And so all the data is showing no influence in the surficial from the drawdown in the deeper aquifers? MR. MATTAUSCH: I don't know if we can say that with great certainty. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, Stan said it the other day. MR. MATTAUSCH: I just -- I want to go back and say that -- that the wells in the Collier County public water supply system have been determined to be not under the direct influence, which would indicate that we are not going to -- we're not -- either not going to impact or not going to -- to significantly impact surface water supplies. All of us know that there is some recharge, okay, from the surficial aquifer to the -- the Tamiami aquifer. So is there some impact? Certainly there is some impact. Is it a negative impact? I don't think I could say that at this point. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Hmmm. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski. Again, I'm not sure if I followed what just happened. What I said was that the aquifer that's 700 feet down in the Mid-Hawthorn, I believe it is, is disconnected from the surficial in the Tamiami by aquicludes and aquitards and that there is no interaction between the two. But if I'm wrong about that, please tell me now. MR. BENGTSSON: No. There -- that's what -- I agree. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: All I was asking was, is the data from the monitoring wells verifying the kind of statement Stan ,.� made last month, that there is no influence on the surficial aquifer system from the deeper wells? Page 27 April 3, 2002 MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay. I misunderstood, and I didn't hear "from the deeper wells." No. There is sufficient aquitard between the surficial aquifer and the lower aquifer, and there is no influence. I mistook -- I thought you were talking about the surficial aquifer and surface waters. I apologize. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am? MS. LYNNE: Could I speak to the gentleman from South Florida Water Management? I'm sorry. I didn't remember your name. MR. BENGTSSON: Terry Bengtsson -- MS. LYNNE: Yeah. Thanks. MR. BENGTSSON: -- for the record. MS. LYNNE: How do you determine what the carrying capacity is for water for this -- for a given county or a given area? I .-. mean, in order to know whether there's enough water to issue a permit, you have to know what's possible. MR. BENGTSSON: In other words, what's the definition of availability? MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. MR. BENGTSSON: There is a technical definition to that, and then there's also, you know, a social-economic type answer, sustainability or availability, however you want to label it. In the water-use-permitting process and in the review of an application, the -- probably the greatest constraint on availability is the drawdowns in a wetland. If the withdrawal is from either the shallow water-table aquifer or possibly in the lower Tamiami aquifer -- and we protect wetlands, make sure that the hydrology is such that the wetlands systems will maintain themselves. There's not an exact science to what -- what is the needs of a viable wetland in terms of the hydrology. So there is a presumption that the water-use people use in Page 28 April 3, 2002 the review process, and that's being one foot of drawdown in the -- in water levels in the surficial aquifer where there are wetlands. And the presumption is that that one foot of decline is not going to adversely do harm -- do harm to that wetland system. If you have a large withdrawal that's in the water-table system and it's near a wetland, that will limit how much you can withdraw from that well simply because of that rule or that presumption. As you locate a well farther away from a wetland, the potential impacts are reduced. As you pump the well less, the impacts are reduced. The difficulty in reviewing permits is, once you start getting a number of permits in an area, then you start having to evaluate the accumulative impacts of withdraws on water levels. And this is something that we do have the capability with computer models, and that does -- those types of exercises are performed. The level of accuracy could always be improved, and so that is a process that the district will continually be working on. Big Cypress Basin has recently developed a -- the latest and greatest tool there is in trying to represent the surface water and groundwater systems within one computer model. And it essentially is physically based with all the information that we have available. So I think in the near future, that tool will have an effect on this next round of the water-supply plan in determining what is available and then potentially impacting where do you need to go to meet the demand. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Where -- and is there any public input into your permitting process? MR. BENGTSSON: Oh, yes. I mean, once an application comes in, a concerned citizen or an adjacent legal user, what have you, may voice his concerns, his objections. That can be done during Page 29 April 3, 2002 the permittingprocess. It can be done at the governingboard when there is an official approval. Most of the applications that go to the governing board, the legal review time is -- is actually 21 days after the board date. It's before final agency action is confirmed. So there is that 21-day window if someone, you know, discovers that there is this application that's going to be approved, or the governing board actually has approved it and he has an objection, he can file an objection within the time frame, that he has a legal basis just to voice his objection, and then there is a process that must resolve whatever those issues are. MS. LYNNE: And there's a procedure for notifying adjacent property owners? MR. BENGTSSON: Yes. There's legal notice that's required for all permits. �-• MS. LYNNE: And that includes for doing a new well? MR. BENGTSSON: Well, that's -- be careful now. When a new well -- I mean, a single family resident can get a new well by simply going to the county and getting a well construction permit. And generally that's done through a well-construction contractor. In that case, he does not need a water-use permit, so the Water Management District would not be involved. If it's a commercial activity, then, yes, he has to get a water-use permit first and then get a well-construction permit. Both of those have, I think, a legal required notification. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Mr. Gal asked an interesting question about -- when he was referring to why can't we just have two days of watering, or somebody over there said who makes that -- who makes that rule? You know, we have to use the three days because that's the current rule. How do we change that rule? Page 30 April 3, 2002 MR. BENGTSSON: Actually, the Water Management District is in the process of updating a number of rules pertaining to water use and water shortage. There was a large committee process over the last year that the Department of Environmental Protection sponsored with all the districts in the state, and one of the consistent notes was that the irrigation restrictions should be a two-day-a-week standard. So currently the proposed rules for water shortage has two days a week in all four phases of restriction. MS. LYNNE: Meaning there would be a standard two-day-a- week year-round restriction? MR. BENGTSSON: Not year-round; when there's a water shortage declaration made. The Water Management District will only call a water shortage when there is an emergency for the resource. When there's a concern for the water resource that there is potential harm to the -- either to the environment or to the -- to the water quality or just to the resource itself, declaration is made and is held in place and rescinded once there's a -- recovery that's been seen. MS. LYNNE: So are you saying that it makes no sense for people to conserve water in times when there's no water restrictions? MR. BENGTSSON: Absolutely not. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying these are what have been proposed as rule changes to our current water shortage rules. The ordinance that the county apparently is preparing to present to the commissioners and in the ordinance that the city has passed meets the standards that the district has in place currently for water shortage. They chose to do that. But, I mean, that is a water conservation step that can be looked at as a -- as a minimum. That -- I mean, there's no reason why everybody has to do three days a week. You certainly can do two days a week or one day a week. So, I mean, it's -- it's standard, but it's certainly not a -- it's a minimum standard. Page 31 April 3, 2002 MS. LYNNE: Okay. My last question is, how is public interest served -- and there may be somebody else that can answer this -- by having the water costs double in time? Most, you know, middle- income and working-class people are not going to be able to take the doubling of their water resources, so isn't the public interest served better by conserving and limiting development than it is my increasing -- doubling our water costs? I don't see how it's in the public interest to double our water cost. MR. BENGTSSON: Well, that's getting into that socio- economic realm of water resources and water use and stuff, and I'm certainly not the person to be answering those questions. But I think there's plenty of data that indicates how an inverted rate structure with the potable water does -- is an effective means to limit the amount of water that's being used. It does have a conserving effect. Whether it is fair, I mean, I -- I can't really answer that. I mean, that might be a question for Paul Mattausch or -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I just want to make a point and ask one more question before you sit down. And that's -- you were talking about the allowable impacts to wetlands and that being a one- foot drawdown. And I just want everybody to understand that a one- foot drawdown of surface water in a wetland would be an absolute disaster. It would be a disastrous impact when -- you know, an inch or millimeters of standing water make a difference in habitats. And so that's really a groundwater issue. That's really a groundwater standard that in your -- when you're in a period of 120 days of drought with no water recharge, that your groundwater monitoring shows that the -- the largest -- the greatest allowable impact is one foot or less. That's my understanding of-- and I hope I'm correct. MR. BENGTSSON: That's correct. Page 32 April 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. Great. MR. BENGTSSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And that, in my opinion, is too much because it influences fire behavior and increases the flammability of organic soils that dry out when the water goes down another foot. But anyway, some day maybe we'll change that. MR. BENGTSSON: No. I think there is plenty of information that suggests exactly what you're saying is true. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Any of you guys from the district -- I'm one of the people who's a concerned citizen and an interested party, and I'm on all your mailing lists for permit applications. Water use -- surface-water use and -- surface-water and groundwater use, and somehow I completely missed that well field that went in on Immokalee Road. And I'm wondering if just I was on vacation and missed the notice. Anybody who's familiar with that project, it's, like, six wells east of 951 immediately adjacent to the Immokalee Road canal on the north side of the road. MR. BENGTS SON: The -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is there -- and my point is -- maybe I did miss it, but I don't think I did. Is there an alternate route for getting a permit? MR. BENGTSSON: No. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: No? Okay. MR. BENGTSSON: There are permits that are evaluated in the Fort Myers Service Center, but I'm the evaluator. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Nothing can get done in West Palm Beach independently? MR. BENGTSSON: There are permits evaluated in West Palm. The staff is larger over there. They can do applications on this coast as well as the east coast. Page 33 April 3 2002 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So could an applicant here just go directly to West Palm and get it done and circumvent you? MR. BENGTSSON: It's -- it's more of a staffing issue as to who does an application, whether it's done -- primarily, we want to have the applications done on this coast for projects that are on this coast, and likewise, on the east coast and in Orlando. But, you know, depending on workloads and stuff, an application may be sent to one office or another, depending on availability. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: And would that affect the public notification coming out of your office, then? Would I -- MR. BENGTSSON: It shouldn't. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- have not been noticed? MR. BENGTSSON: No. Your name should be on the .-. computer system as one that wants to have a copy of staff reports. You know, why you may have been missed, I'm not certain of that, because I do know that I have you on my list. And my understanding is, once it's on that list, it's in the computer system, and you know how that works. Once your name gets stuck on a computer, it seems to never get off. So -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? Just quick question on -- from the standpoint of modelling, irrigationwise, is there any credit or whatever it might be on irrigation water -- all I want is just -- from aquifer recharge? I mean, is that in the formula at all? I mean, is there any effect on aquifer recharge from irrigation? MR. BENGTSSON: Depending on the type of irrigation system -- when you have a flood, a traditional flood irrigation system, we evaluate where 35 percent -- essentially, of what's been pumped out of the source, whether it be a well or a pond or what have you, 35 percent of what's been pumped will get back into the shallow aquifer Page 34 April 3, 2002 system. And that's based on some, you know, infiltration tests and the like. So there is a consideration of that. A lot of agricultural, preliminarily citrus, have gone to a more efficient drip system or microspray, and the efficiency rating is much higher on that, and the amount of loss is -- is basically to the atmosphere and not back into the ground. So in those instances, there's no recharge. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Hearing none, thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Could I ask one of Stan? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yep. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Stan, I had a question. I was not at the meeting, but you had discussed not having conditional permits for the deep wells. Do you always go to the southwest -- do you still have to permit it through the Water Management District? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: And they in turn would inform people anyways? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Their permitting proceeding is totally separate from ours. MS. SANTORO: You're saying that they would still notify the effected parties is what you're saying, so they would still be -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I can't talk for them, but yes, I imagine they would. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. We have no land-use petitions. Old business. Annual report. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources director. Last week -- last meeting we talked about the development of the annual report. Working somewhat backwards, the annual report is due to the county commission in May. What I'd Page 35 April 3, 2002 suggest is that we schedule the last meeting in May, which is May 28th, to the Board of County Commissioners to present your annual report where you would have -- you would have either your chair or your vice-chair present to present the annual report to the board. Staff will take your annual report, put it in the executive summary to the board's package and facilitate that all to the county commission. Therefore, your May 1st meeting is when you'd want to finalize the report. Last -- in the past, you have taken a draft report, which Barbara just handed out to you that was drafted by Bill Hill -- unfortunately Bill couldn't be here today -- for you to add to, subtract from, modify, however you wish. And at your meeting in May 1st, then we would then take your direction, turn it into the final report, then present to the county commission. So today, with -- in Bill's absence, he did take a shot at it. He gave it to me in the middle of last week, so you can then take that back with you and then be prepared for your May 1st meeting to go through it and then finalize it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? Hearing none. We'll be back to talk about it, and it will be agenda'd for May 1. Okay. No other new business. We have none. Growth management update. Do we have anything? MS. BURGESON: Before Bill gets on -- into the discussion on the growth management update, I just wanted to let you know that the packages that I handed out at the beginning of the meeting include information on the Sunshine Law workshops, which will be held May 1st and May 6th. They are expected to be an hour and a half long, and if anyone is interested in attending -- and they're recommending that everyone try to attend one of those two meetings -- they need an RSVP by April 19th. You can either contact me or you can contact Page 36 April 3, 2002 Bill, or if you want to contact directly to the county attorney's office, you can let them know, because that's -- we'll need to get back to Nancy Bradley on that. MS. SANTORO: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I wish sometimes they would make allowances for working people and have them at night. I cannot attend either during a day. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I can ask them if they can do that. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I have a question about the transmittal of amendments for the rural fringe, and that would be that -- did the DCA in -- receive our recommendations, the recommendations from the EAC that we worked so hard and long on as a stand-alone document? MR. LORENZ: The -- for the record again, Bill Lorenz. The -- this is the transmittal package. Unfortunately, I've just handed out the -- just the transmittal letter, but we do have a summary of the EAC's recommendations and the BCC recommendations, and we did -- and that was transmitted to DCA. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is it -- is it all -- the complete list of all the motions we made and -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So it's not really a summary. It's -- MR. LORENZ: It's your motions, correct. I believe the EAC had what? Twenty motions. I think we reflected 20 motions. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: What I'd like to do for you today is, number one, go through the schedule for you for not only the rural fringe but Page 37 April 3, 2002 the rural lands. And also, I did hand out the letter that was transmitted to DCA. As you can see, the transmittal packages is quite extensive. And as Ed Carlson asked the question, they did -- they did receive the -- the CCPC's and the EAC's recommendations as well. Let me -- let me cover the schedule first. Again, the -- the process for growth management plans is the transmittal hearing that the board conducted on February 27th and March 4th. Eventually staff then transmitted that language to DCA on March 13th. DCA will now have -- the official date is May 23rd to provide the county with its Objections, Recommendations and Comment report. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Repeat that, please. MR. LORENZ: May 23rd is the date -- the official date the DCA must give the Objections, Recommendations and Comments report, or the ORC report, back to the county. The county is trying to work with DCA to try to get an earlier ORC report back to us simply because the Board of County Commission adoption hearing is scheduled for June 18th. So that's less than a month between the 23rd and the adoption hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. The planning commission meeting is scheduled tentatively for June 13th, and that -- that still may be up in the air, which means that if-- if we don't get the report from DCA until the 23rd, then we have between the 23rd and the -- and the 13th, if you will, between the planning commission hearing to get some feedback from the EAC. Now, let me talk a little bit about the nature of the feedback from the EAC. When staff gets the ORC report from DCA, let's say that DCA says we have some comment and some recommendations, but everything is fine. We will -- if you adopt it the way it currently stands, we will find you in compliance. Page 38 April 3, 2002 At that particular point, very likely staff would not be making any recommendations for changes to go to the -- go to the county commission. So at that point, we would simply have a -- there have been no -- no changes to be made, and we would then present that to the county commission. On the other hand, the DCA may find certain things that say you have to fix this or this will be found in noncompliance. At that point, staff has got to develop some alternatives or options or certainly make a recommendation as to what the fix will be. So the -- the nature of the response back to the county commission for the adoption hearing is going to be really explicitly focused in on what the ORC report is going to require the county to -- to make some changes. Point of it is, is that -- is that it's going to be less extensive of a review procedure than what we had prior -- for transmittal because we cover the whole -- the whole concept, if you will. Right now we'll be just covering the -- the objections to go back to the county commission, which is -- which is good, and hopefully there's not going to be that many objections because our time line is -- is obviously very contracted here. That brings up the question, then, of course, is when do we bring to the -- to the EAC staffs recommendations in response to the ORC? Obviously if it's going to be -- the window here -- the tightest window is somewhere between May 23rd -- and actually, it's got to be a little later than May 23rd, because if we just get the report we have to have at last a week to respond to it. So you're looking at the - - the end of May, early June, first week of June, to try to have some meeting with EAC to then have your recommendation to go to the -- to the county commission. Page 39 April 3, 2002 Now, in the past, there's no requirement for the EAC to provide comments to the county commission for the -- for the adoption, but certainly we're going to try to facilitate it to the degree that logistically in scheduling that we can do it. So this is -- this is the window that you're looking at for the -- for the transmittal for the fringe. We'll be a little bit smarter, I think, come to your May meeting. We may be able to have some -- some formal comments or semiformal comments from DCA, or at least we'll have the schedule perhaps a little bit better firmed up. So in terms of scheduling a time for this -- the -- the ORC report comments, if you can -- if you can -- all can kind of set aside some time or look at your schedules between the last week of May and the first week of June, it looks like that's the window, and maybe we can ^ finalize that as your -- your May meeting. That's the schedule for the -- for the rural fringe. The one thing I did pass out to you is the -- is just simply the letter that we transmitted, the amendments to DCA. The context of this letter was, to some degree, some of the comments that DCA had made on some preliminary -- preliminary draft that we sent up to them in January time frame, but you can, at your leisure, just go through it and review some of the -- some of the points that DCA had made earlier of their concerns and how they were addressed. The one -- the one item that I would -- I think is the -- is -- is going to be the -- perhaps the more controversial item is how staff is going to address it or how even DCA may respond to the transmittal is that the county commission, in their transmittal, directed staff to apply the amendments simply to the rural fringe area and not to the urban area. So in our transmittal, per the direction of the board, we -- we modified the language such that -- for instance, the wetland Page 40 April 3, 2002 policies only apply to the rural fringe. That was the direction of the board. The -- the urban area, therefore, remains with the old, if you will -- the existing comp-plan language. Obviously we're going to be -- be getting the ORC report from DCA to determine whether that's going to be sufficient or not. So that's going to be -- that's an issue as to how that's -- that's going to be addressed. And obviously there are -- there are several options that exist. If DCA finds that to be in compliance, then of course the -- we bring that back to the county commission. There's not an exception there. The question, therefore, let's say for the EAC, would be to say, well, do you want to go further in the urban area than what we currently have. DCA could, of course, say that it's -- that their existing language applied to the urban area is -- is not -- is not in compliance, and then we'll have to fix it. So then the question then comes as to how do we fix it? There are of course a couple of alternatives. One alternative is to fix it just the way we have it written for the fringe where we have something different than the fringe. So I want to bring -- bring that out as being -- being an issue that I see that will be emerging that we're going to have to address and -- at least in terms of what may -- what types of courses of actions we could recommend. That's kind of the alternatives that kind of at least present themselves in my mind at the moment. But that will be -- that's going to be, for me, a major issue to have to deal with as we move -- move to the adoption hearing on June 18th with the board. The -- the second issue or the second tract that's going on is the - - the eastern lands, which is out in the Immokalee area. That has gone through a separate tract with another advisory committee. That advisory committee has wound -- has completed their work with what they're calling "scenarios." They developed three scenarios of how to Page 41 April 3, 2002 address protection and land-use conversion in the eastern lands. And basically, it's -- it's -- everything that they've developed to date has been incentive based, incentive driven through a stewardship credit- type of program. It's somewhat of a complicated calculation to value natural resource values for a particular parcel of land and to translate to what degree certain uses can -- can occur on that land and then trade off these credits. That's the basis for the -- really the basis for their proposal so far in concept. They have not developed policy language yet. The next step is to develop the goals, objectives and policies that would basically implement that system on a -- in the growth management plan. We haven't seen that language, but that's the next step. We should be getting that language in the next two to three weeks, I believe. That brings up the question, then -- we will then have a transmittal hearing for the rural lands, which is scheduled June 12th. The May 23rd transmittal hearing is scheduled for the planning commission, and we would also need to have a meeting with the Environmental Advisory Council, with you all, sometime before the planning commission for the eastern lands amendments. The week -- let's say the week of-- what's May 23rd? It's a Thursday. We -- at the moment, if we could establish -- I'm sure the language is not going to be available for us May 1st. That would be your -- your regular meeting, and we would suggest to have a special meeting some -- sometime thereafter. The week of the 20th, if-- if you were to meet before the planning commission, we could at least then carry your recommendations to the planning commission if it was earlier -- early in that week. And then the week of May 13th may be another opportunity for a special meeting for the -- for the eastern lands. Page 42 April 3, 2002 Prior to that meeting, I was talking earlier with Allie concerning the growth management plan -- growth management subcommittee meeting earlier and having a presentation on the -- the concept as a -- as it comes today. At least those subcommittee members can be involved with some more detail concerning the -- the proposal. But what we need today is to try to establish a special meeting for your eastern lands transmittal recommendations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure schedulewise? Anybody has any -- COMMISSIONER COE: Well, I'd like to know, one, when is Memorial weekend? Because that may affect when we meet. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: It's the week of the 27th, and I'm gone for the whole week. COMMISSIONER COE: All week? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: All week. COMMISSIONER COE: So that starts -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Memorial Day is the 27th, so it's -- okay. COMMISSIONER COE: So basically you're going to be gone the 25th to the 1st of June, right? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. So that's out. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'll be gone the 23rd and the 24th. COMMISSIONER COE: Anybody else going to be effected? I may be gone over that same period, too. I just haven't looked that far. So basically from the 23rd on, we're going to be hurting for people because there's two people gone. And my recommendation, if we did it, would be, you know, 20th, 21st, something like that but not have a special meeting; just have a regular meeting. Page 43 April 3, 2002 MR. LORENZ: When I say "a special meeting," I'm saying g Y g outside of your regular meeting first Wednesday of the month. COMMISSIONER COE: Well, why not do it just during a regular meeting, only don't have the regular meeting on the first or second Wednesday; have it on the 20th or something like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 22nd. COMMISSIONER COE: Say, the 22nd. Any reason we can't do that? MS. BURGESON: There's a potential that we may have a large agenda with land-use petitions at the May 1st meeting. If we were to schedule -- COMMISSIONER COE: Why? MS. BURGESON: Because we have not had land-use petitions on this month or last month, and it's because -- it's not because we don't have them in house; it's because they haven't been sufficient and completed. So we do have a lot that -- we probably will have -- my guess is four or five on that May 1st agenda. If we try to combine that with one of these discussions, I'm afraid it's -- may not get it done in a day. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we try doing it the normal on the 1st and this on the 22nd? How does that sound to everybody? COMMISSIONER COE: Fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The May 22nd would be your transmittal -- would be your transmittal review for the rural lands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. MR. LORENZ: And for the -- at the moment, we're not going to be able to schedule a meeting for the -- for the rural fringe, simply because the -- we don't have -- we don't know when the ORC report Page 44 April 3, 2002 is going to come in. So that's going to have to be sometime after the 23rd. I mean, I can't -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, should it happen to come in prior to that time, would it be possible to do them both the 22nd? MR. LORENZ: I mean -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: If not, we'd be into June. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: We would need to get that material ahead of the 22nd so we can -- we can review it. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. That's -- right. That's -- the problem is - - I mean, if we can do it, then we'll shoot for it. If we can't, we just know -- we need to know that, and you're going to have to then set up -- have another meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. 5/22 -- '� MR. LORENZ: And the other thing is, the county commission wanted to have the next set of meetings in the evening. Would that present any problem for the -- for this particular special meeting, then, for you? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Meet in the evening? MR. LORENZ: Start at 5:00 I think is what they're looking at. MS. SANTORO: It's easier for me. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay with everyone? Okay. COMMISSIONER COE: So the 22nd would be an evening meeting? MR. LORENZ: Yes. We'll shoot for an evening meeting. We'll get back with you as to where the location will be. We'll try to do it here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I believe that's it. Margorie, was there anything else that -- Page 45 April 3, 2002 MS. STUDENT: No. MR. LORENZ: -- we need to cover? MS. STUDENT: I have nothing to add. MS. BURGESON: We have public comment both on this item on the rural fringe and also just a regular -- a straight public-comment issue. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We do also have -- Mr. Coe has requested a council comment. Do you want to wait until after the public comment, Mr. Coe? COMMISSIONER COE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. MS. RYAN: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I guess my first question was answered in that, does DCA know that what was transmitted is different in some aspects from what the EAC had recommended? And I guess that they do. I hope that it isn't lost in the tremendous shuffle of paperwork that was transmitted up there. I don't know if a special letter could be sent or if it will be appropriate to be sent from the EAC, but there are some of the recommendations to the TDR program that really dramatically differs from what was discussed at the EAC rural fringe public hearing. One of the aspects which the conservancy is the most concerned about deals with the issue of, once a willing participant transfers their development rights from a sending area, there are no restrictions placed on their land use on that sending area of land. And, as I recall, the EAC, the planning commission and county staff, up until that March 4th transmittal meeting, had all agreed -- and I believe outside counsel, the county's outside counsel had also agreed that if someone willingly participates and receives financial or -- transfer credits from transferring their development rights, then it Page 46 April 3, 2002 the next day, an article came out, and as you see from in front of you, my e-mails were allegedly under scrutiny for possible Sunshine Law violations. Well, over the last 30 days, I haven't said anything. Come to find out, evidently there was no inquiry whatsoever, other than the fact that Eric had called to Mr. Manalich from the assistant county attorney, and asked him if this would be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Like any good attorney, he said, well, I haven't seen anything so I can't really comment on it. I don't know, Eric. Were those e-mails provided to the assistant county attorney so he could look at those? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Address the public. Make your comments. If Mr. Staats wants to say something, he may. COMMISSIONER COE: Well, as a result of that, a couple days later, on the 10th -- because I was trying to figure out why would anybody write an article about something that really was a non-news item. On the 10th, the editor came out with another article. This was on the Sunshine Law. He had gone to an editor's meeting for all the editors in the State of Florida, and they had decided that March 10th was going to be the Sunshine Law day to write an article about the Sunshine Law, which of course he wrote about. But I still wonder in the back of my mind whether the article that was written a couple days earlier was also the Sunshine Law article that the editors of the state wanted. Last but not least, finally yesterday, after waiting a month, I sent an electronic mail to Mr. Manalich. And I'm going to read this so everybody can hear it. Those of you that have a copy can read it. I said, "Can you give me the results of the investigation that you conducted as reported in the Naples Daily News by Eric Staats on the 7th of March for my alleged violation of the Sunshine Amendment? Page 51 April 3, 2002 Has any inquiry been made, and by whom? And was the complaint filed with the State Ethics Committee? Because it's my understanding that they are the only ones that rule on the Sunshine Amendment. He sent me a reply back: "Good afternoon, Mr. Coe. I've not been able to speak with your committee staff liaison about this matter at this time. I also intend to speak with you about this subject. This matter came to my attention when it was mentioned to me by Eric Staats. "My office will follow up only for the purpose of offering constructive comments regarding the Sunshine Law to any effected county commission member. My office does not investigate whether a violation exists, nor does it adjudicate such matters. I have not been made aware of any ethics commission complaints regarding your situation. "I look forward to speaking with you in the near future," and he signed his name. Now, the reason I wanted to make sure that this was clear in a public forum, because of course I know this is televised, but most importantly I wanted to clear my name, so to speak. Because I will tell you this, that after 58 years on this earth and almost 30 years of working, I have never, ever had my -- my integrity questioned like this. So I just want to make it clear to all the other members of the board, I had no other thing on my agenda other than to bring something into the sunshine to this board so that we could take a look at it, period. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Coe. Any other comments from the council? Hearing none, we stand adjourned. ***** Page 52 April 3, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:47 p.m. ENVIRONME TAL AP. VISOR fr I MMISSION /l. , 0 • S W. SANSBURY CHAIRN. AN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHA OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY LINDA SULLIVAN, RPR Page 53 2.6.9.1. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be deemed permitted uses in any zoning district: water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, telephone lines, telephone switching stations, cable television, electrical transmission and distribution lines, substations, emergency power structures, sewage lift stations, water pumping stations, also every well and/or every related or loaically associated water supply storage. injection, acquisition. withdrawal. and/or extraction equipment and/or facility (or facilities) permitted by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or both. prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance, including but not limited to every such State Agency permitted monitoring well, test well, injection well and/or aquifer storage and recovery well, and including each related or logically associated facilities heretofore or hereafter permitted by either such State Agency. or both, shall be deemed to be permitted by the County and, therefore, shall not require any further or additional use permit(s) from the County: Moreover, as to each such State Agency. each such thing permitted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, this subsection 2.6.9.1. shall apply retroactively to the date that each such thing was permitted by such State Agency. However,to the extent, if any, that any such facility permitted subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance, is then subject to payment of any Collier County right-of-way or other permit and/or impact fee(s), this provision does not exempt any such thing from any such then applicable Collier County right-of-way fees, other permit fees, or impact fee(s). and all such other fees shall be due and payable before the respective well or facility is put into operation: also in every a fling district, individual private wells and septic tanks, and similar public or private ips1allati ns wells and/or facilities necessary for the performance of these services, or to the extent the respective well, facility and/or service is then mandated by law, rule or regulation. Other Governmental facilities, as defined by this Code, shall be permitted uses in commercial and industrial zoned districts. Furthermore, the following governmental facilities shall be permitted uses in the agricultural and estate zoned districts: nonresidential not-for- profit childcare, nonresidential education facilities, libraries, museums, park and recreational service facilities, and neighborhood parks. The following governmental facilities shall be permitted uses in residentially zoned districts:neighborhood parks. 2.6. 9.2. Conditional uses. The following uses shall be deemed conditional uses in any zoning district: electric or gas generating plants, effluent tanks, major re-pump stations, sewage treatment plants including percolation ponds, hospitals, hospices, water aeration or treatment plants,governmental facilities(including regional parks,community parks and branch libraries) m egi . , yard sta zoned districts except asotherwise specified by section public water supply acsrti 2.6.9.1 \ , � withdrawal,or a�tzn facilities also each and every public water supply well and/or all related or logically associated water Appl storage. injection, acquisition. withdrawal. and/or extraction equipment and/or related or logically associated facility (or facilities) listed above in subsection 2.6.9.1.. that has not then been permitted by either the South Florida Water Management District or l y the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. or by either such Agency; safety service facilities, and other similar facilities. Item. V.A ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 1,2002 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Preliminary Subdivision Plat PSP 2000- 10—AR 1902/ST-99-3 Petition Name: Little Palm Island Applicant/Developer: Keystone Custom Homes Engineering Consultant: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella&Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located between Colliers Reserve PUD and the Palm River Country Club subdivision; within Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The subject property is completely surrounded by residential/golf course communities. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - RSF/GC—Imperial Golf Estates Residential and Golf Course Community S - RSF-3/GC—Palm River Single Family E - RSF-3/GC—Palm River Single Family W - PUD—Collier Tract 22 Residential and Golf Course Community EAC Meeting ...May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Preliminary Subdivision Plat(PSP) and Special Treatment (ST)Development Permit approval in order to construct a residential subdivision under the subdivision regulations. The Land Development Code authorizes the Planning Services Director to administratively approve PSPs. However, since this proposed development contains land with an"ST"zoning overlay, and an Environmental Impact Statement was required,the EAC is required to hear the petitions. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners will also hear the ST petition. If the PSP and ST permit are approved, the petitioner will subsequently submit a Final Plat and construction plans to the Engineering Services Department. The Final Plat will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. The petitioner previously submitted an application for a PSP and ST permit for this parcel with a gopher tortoise preserve smaller than the one in the current submittal. The BCC directed the petitioner to return with the PSP, ST and Final Plat at one meeting. Through a public petition, the petitioner requested that the BCC permit the presentation of the PSP and ST without the Final Plat(the Final Plat contains detailed engineering which would be expensive to revise if the BCC directed changes). The Board agreed to allow the petitioner to present the PSP and ST permit to the EAC, CCPC and BCC prior to submittal of the Final Plat. The petition currently before the Council is the ST permit,with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat presented to give the Council the scope of the entire development. The proposed development consists of 109 home sites on 86.67 acres for a density of 1.25 units per acre, less than the maximum density of 3 units per acre permitted in the RSF-3 zoning district. The project retains the required 60% open space. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject parcel is designated as Urban—Mixed Use on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban—Mixed Use Land Use Designation is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non- residential land uses. Therefore, if the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and a Special Treatment Development Permit are approved, the petitions shall be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 2 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals,rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation,wildlife issues and wetland issues, the following Goals, Objectives and Policies apply: Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in Objective 6.3". This project accomplishes that with minimal impacts to wetlands. Objective 6.4 requires the appropriate portion of native vegetation be preserved, by providing for on site preservation of 25%of the existing native vegetation. It states, "A portion of each viable,naturally functioning non-wetland native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate". This project very successfully protects both the wetlands and xeric scrub habitat on site. Goal 6 of the GMP,protects the gopher tortoise population by providing the appropriate habitat on site and off site to try to ensure the survival of the on site tortoise population. It states, "The County shall identify,protect, conserve and appropriately use its native vegetation communities and wildlife habitat". The site plan identifies a large gopher tortoise preserve in the highest quality habitat on site. 3 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The existing site consists of mostly undeveloped lands with some existing development on the eastern fringe. The existing developed portion consists of two lakes adjacent to the Palm River community and golf course tracts. An existing 40-foot wide canal runs along the northern boundary. The canal functions as an outfall for the northern portion of the Palm River community. The two existing lakes and canal will not be incorporated into the proposed development's water management system. The completed project will consist of 141 residential lots. The front portion of the lots will runoff to the road via sheet flow, which drains directly to the lake system using a catch basin and pipe network. The rear portion of the lakefront lots will drain directly to the lakes. The rear portion of all other lots will drain into a rear yard swale and catch basin network conveying runoff into the lake system. The lake system will be controlled at elevation 7.0' NGVD and will discharge to the existing canal near the northern boundary. Environmental: Site Description: The project area covers 86.67 acres, and includes 68.77acres of uplands, 10 acres of wetlands and 7.9 acres of previously created surface waters. The southwestern one half of the site is mostly uplands and consists of a combination of habitat types, which include pine flatwoods, scrub oak, scrubby flatwoods and previously disturbed lands. The uplands, particularly the oak scrub/ scrubby flatwoods on site are high quality gopher tortoise habitat as evidenced by the large number of burrows surveyed by the consultant. A total of 165 active and inactive burrows were located within these areas. See the gopher tortoise survey in the EIS for a map showing the locations and classifications of all identified burrows. The listed plant species noted during the field visits, was wild pine, also identified within the oak scrub/scrubby flatwoods area. 4 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 n Wetlands: The subject property has a Special Treatment(ST) overlay identified on the zoning maps as ST Parcel 23A, covering 20.21 acres. The following language is directly from the Purpose and Intent section for ST overlays, in the Land Development Code. "Within Collier County there are certain areas,which because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna,their aesthetic appeal, their historical or archaeological significance, rarity in Collier County, or their contribution to their own and adjacent ecosystems,make them worthy of special regulations. Such regulations are directed toward the conservation,protection, and preservation of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of Collier County. Such areas include,but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and freshwater swamps,barrier islands, hardwood hammocks,xeric scrubs, coastal beaches, estuaries, cypress domes,natural drainage ways, aquifer recharge areas and lands and structures of historical and archaeological significance. The purpose of this overlay district regulation is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships within the systems and at the same time permit those types of development which will hold changes to levels determined acceptable by the Board of County Commissioners after public hearing." Exceptions may be granted for ST permit request where the proposed site alteration will not require any modification,with the exception of exotic vegetation removal, of the topography, drainage, flora or fauna on site. The application does not qualify for that administrative review and therefore must be presented to all three County Boards for review and approvals. The boundary of the ST parcel on this proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plat application covers 20.21 acres. Typically the consultant redefines the wetland boundary that is identified as jurisdictional to Collier County and Staff recommends removing all development impacts from that area. The consultant and South Florida Water Management District modified the wetland line and the current jurisdictional boundary encompasses approximately 10 acres, instead of the originally identified 20 acres. A complete description of the wetland area is available in the wetland section of the EIS. Staff's recommendation is to remove or minimize impacts to the ST wetland. The petitioner proposes minimal impacts to the ST area,which are necessary for access to the upland portion of the site. Staff supports the owner's efforts to mitigate for the minimal impacts to the fringe 5 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 wetlands and recommends that the developer be permitted impacts to build the road. The petitioner has proposed compensation for the anticipated allowable impacts to the wetlands with enhancement to the remaining 9.1 acres. Preservation Requirements: Sixty-nine and a half(69.5) acres of existing native vegetation exist on site. As required by Collier County environmental ordinances, this project is required to retain a minimum of 25%or 17.4 acres of native vegetation or mitigate for that same area per Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the LDC. The plan shows 30.8 acres of native vegetation being preserved in wetland preserves, gopher tortoise preserves and upland native vegetation. The EIS describes 9 acres of wetland preserves and 21 acres of upland preserves. On site preserves will preserve approximately 35% of the site. Listed Species: Two listed species were observed on site. They are gopher tortoise and common wild pine. There were 165 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows located and flagged within the scrub oak/scrubby flatwoods communities on site. Based on density calculations, it is expected that approximately 61 tortoises occupy this site. The petitioner proposes to obtain an Incidental Take permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to provide funds to the State agency for the loss of gopher tortoise habitat and to relocate those tortoises that cannot be accommodated on site. Collier County must protect the species in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code and Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. The petitioner provided a Relocation/Management plan for the tortoises they are proposing to relocate or keep in place. A gopher tortoise preserve has been identified on site which, covers 14.5 acres within the highest quality scrub habitat and is contiguous to the adjacent offsite preserve at Collier's Reserve. The tortoises that reside on site within the footprint of the proposed preserve will be kept on site,with the balance being relocated, in accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,to an approved off site preserve. It is their proposal to enhance these areas with appropriate herbacious plant species to serve as additional food sources for the relocated gopher tortoise. The remaining tortoises will 6 EAC Meeting ...May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat PSP-2000-10/Special Treatment No. 99-3, "Little Palm Island"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. Water Management concerns will be reviewed at time of Site Development Plan Submittal. This project will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District. 2. If applicable, existing or proposed easements for Collier County Stormwater facilities shall be maintained free of landscaping,berms or any other kind of obstacles that would impede adequate access to maintenance crews and equipment. 3. The existing canal, and existing lake on north side of site shall be dedicated as a drainage easement to Collier County Stormwater Management Department to access and do maintenance. n Environmental: 1. This Subdivision shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approvals. 2. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Environmental Staff. 3. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the state of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Environmental Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be the sole mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. 4. Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. Where protected species are observed on site, a 7 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 5. Prior to Final Subdivision Plat approval, all gopher tortoise preserves shall be identified on the plat with protective covenants. 6. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with 3.2.8.4.7.3 CCLDC. That prohibits any buildings from being constructed within 25 feet of all upland and wetland preserves, and in no case shall any impacts including grading, filling or clearing be allowed within 10 feet for construction of accessory structures. 7. A Gopher tortoise relocation/management plan was submitted for review and approval. Prior to final Plan/Construction Plan submittal, the following modifications shall be made to that language: A. The 80-foot wide access easement(1 acre in total size) located at the north end of the gopher tortoise preserve, shall be restored with native scrub vegetation and supplemental planting material for the tortoises. B. Label the 14.5-acre upland preserve as"gopher tortoise preserve"on all site plans. C. Add language regarding exotic vegetation removal within the gopher tortoise preserve to require it be done by hand clearing methods. 8. An exotic vegetation removal,monitoring, and maintenance(exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic removal within all preservation areas shall be submitted with the above-mentioned plan. 9. Historic Old Tamiami Trail has historic significance along with a possible archaeological site. The petitioner shall place an historic marker on site. The petitioner will submit an application for historic designation prior to plat approval. The petitioner will submit an application for historic designation prior to plat approval. The petitioner shall place a plaque within the preserve tract explaining the historic nature of the roadway of Old US- 41 at the time of first certificate of occupancy of first unit. f 8 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 PREPARED BY: log STAN CHRZANOW'' , P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER 4/45-/D Z 41'4. i ARMES MINOR. P.E. DATE ENGINEER, SENIOR `f3a e- . 0?-002 BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST REVIEWED BY: �';r L (7/. /R • 001 FRE►7.r SCHL, AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER /4CWlt'--) (fra-t,4„4_,41 11-10? -0 SUSAN, MURRAY, AICP, INTERIM ( DATE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR . s9/,terY)//a4 5 oz THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR 9 EAC Meeting May 1,2002 ST-99-3/PSP-2000-10 APPROVED BY: / ./2_ JO:EPH K. SC tM T TE C aMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES •MINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN bsb/gdh/c: StaffReport 10 Item V.B ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 1.2002 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2000-22 Petition Name: Yahl Mulching and Recycling, Inc. Applicant/Developer: Yahl Mulching and Recycling, Inc. Bill Rousseau, Richard Yahl, Jean Yahl &Teresa Yahl-Fillmore Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Michael R. Ramsey II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Washburn Avenue, east of the Collier County landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The site is also due north of Interstate I-75 and about 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped with single-family residences on the north and east. The Collier County landfill is located immediately west of the subject property. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Single-Family Homes S - R.O.W. Interstate I-75 E - Agricultural Single-Family Homes W - Agricultural Communication Tower Agricultural Collier County Landfill EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 IV. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is proposing conditional use 2 of the "A" Agricultural District to allow for the expansion of an existing mulching and recycling facility. The initial conditional use was for 5.19 acres and was approved on January 27, 1998. A second conditional use was approved in 1999 for an additional 5.19 acres. The petitioner is now requesting a conditional use to expand to 27.9 acres. The conditional use conceptual site plan limits the recycling area to the northwest corner of the project area. A 12.7-acre conservation area is located southeast of the recycling area. In addition, the proposed business is consistent with the Future land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan. Lastly, the subject site is accessed from a paved public road. s.. pu - _ i 3 Existing mulching facility. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistirct permits sawmills and related uses. This site is within the area of the County subject to Final Order No. AC-99-002, issued June 22, 1999, by the Administration Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). However, the Final Order does not prohibit the conditional use of sawmills. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves the determination of compatibility to Current Planning staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. Based upon the above analysis, n staff concludes the proposed use for the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in Objective 6.3". Policy 6.2.10 states, "Any development activity within a viable naturally functioning fresh-water wetland not part of a contiguous flow way shall be mitigated in accordance with current SFWMD mitigation rules. Mitigation may also include restoration of previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public preservation of similar habitat". Policy 6.2.13 states, "Proposed development on parcels containing viable naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cluster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the pre- development hydroperiod". Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and approved by the County". EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 n Objective 6.4 states, " A portion of each viable, naturally functioning non-wetland native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate". Policy 6.4.6 states, "All new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the Coastal Area and greater than 20 acres in the Coastal Urban Area shall retain 25% of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site, including both the understory and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. When several different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible. Areas of landscaping and open space which are planted with native plant species shall be included in the 25% requirement considering both understory and groundcover. Where a project has included open space, recreational amenities, or preserved wetlands that meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of Collier County, this policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of open space set aside to meet the 25% native vegetation policy. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed activity". Policy 6.4.7 states, "All other types of new development shall be required to preserve an appropriate portion of the native vegetation on the site as determined through the County development review process. Preservation of different contiguous habitats is to be encouraged. When several different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible. However this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels which can not reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and the proposed activity". This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in that it provides for 15% on-site native vegetation preservation pursuant to Policy 6.4.7. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The site is located within the Henderson Creek Basin. There are no County stormwater maintenance facilities in the vicinity of the project. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 n Environmental: Site Description: Native habitats on the subject property consist of cypress (FLUCFCS code 621), pine/cypress/cabbage palm (FLUCFCS code 624) and hardwood/conifer mix (FLUCFCS code 434). The site also has approximately 11.6 acres of disturbed/cleared area. The general topography of the area according to USGS Quadrangle Maps is a slope of approximately .5 to 1 foot per mile to the south, toward the I-75 canal. Site-specific elevations of the property and surrounding areas are provided in Figure 8 of the EIS. The overall elevation of the north part of the property is 11.8 feet NGVD and drops to a natural low point of 11.2 feet NGVD in the cypress wetland to the south. The lowest point on the property is 10.4 feet NGVD, in the existing borrow pit. The natural hydroperiod of the site has been disrupted by the construction of roads around the project and drainage related to the borrow pit on-site and I-75 canals. Construction of roads in the area, have diverted nearly all surface flow around the ,-r site. Vegetative species and associations indicate, in all habitat types, that they are transitioning to dryer type situations. In the northern most cypress area (parcel #4 on the FLUCFCS map) there is evidence that the area has not been inundated with water in a long time. In the cypress area adjacent to the I-75 canal (parcel #11) hydrological evidence indicate a seasonal high water level of 1.5 feet above the ground. In the 624 areas (cypress/pine/cabbage palm communities) seasonal high water approximates ground level elevation. Wetlands: Wetlands on-site consist of cypress (FLUCFCS code 621) and pine/cypress/cabbage palm (FLUCFCS code 624), and total approximately 20.8 acres in size. The project as proposed will impact approximately 5.2 acres of the pine/cypress/cabbage palm designation. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 FLUCFCS 624, immediately south of the existing mulching facility. Impacts to wetlands will be compensated for through enhancement of wetlands on-site. The existing 3.3 acre borrow pit (parcel #10) and 0.5 acre disturbed area (parcel #6) on the property will be filled and planted with wetland vegetation. Exotic vegetation will be removed from the site and the hydrology of the preserve areas enhanced through design of the water management system. Preservation Requirements: As proposed, approximately 46% (12.7 acres) of the project site will be left in a natural state and designated as preserve area. Additional wetland vegetation will also be planted in the existing lake on-site. This exceeds the 15% native vegetation preservation requirement pursuant to the Land Development Code. Listed Species: Information concerning the locations, densities and status of listed species from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were reviewed along with other related publications. On-site surveys were preformed during early morning and late afternoon from October 14 through December 30, 2000. No listed species or indications of listed species were observed on the subject property. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 /'1 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2000-22 "Yahl Mulching and Recycling, Inc." with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Any required SFWMD Permits must be obtained prior to site plan approval Environmental: 1. Permits from the South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be presented prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 2. Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species on-site. A habitat management plan for protected species shall be submitted to Planning Services Department staff prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: -J 12 602 D z TAN CHRZANOWS 11P.E. DATE ENGINEER SENIOR '` , ' - 9, .5 D2 Ji -. ' a A' ES MINOR, P.E. DATE ENGINEER SENIOR /•-• , //V4' 60241CCO STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST (2i/L 7 IVOZ- RAY OND BELLOWS DA E CHIEF PLANNER REVIEWED BY: '' SiGil/ett4 C°, la 41//.5/D Z_ THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 9/43/7 SUS MURRAY, AICP DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: .e..._.,.._ ./A 3-/-b-7___., f• EPH K. CHMITT DATE •••MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMINISTRATOR n ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR COUNCIL .ii T 'OM A rS W. SANSBURY, C /AIRMAN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport i n Item V.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 1, 2002 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use CU-2001-AR-1912 Petition Name: Immokalee Road South Project Applicant/Developer: Bonita Bay Group, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Wilson Miller, Inc Environmental Consultant: Wilson Miller,Inc. II. LOCATION: The petitioner is requestinga Conditional use for a stand alonegolf course on the south side of Immokalee Road immediately south of the Twin Eagle Golf Course. The project is located in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The subject property is surrounded by golf course communities and single-family homes on estates or agriculturally zoned lands. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A-MHO Immokalee Rd./Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club S - E Single family homes/ Vacant land E - A-MHO Single-family homes/ Vacant land W- A-MHO and GC Single family homes/ Olde Florida Golf Club EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 2 n IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is proposing conditional use 17 of the "A" Agricultural District to allow for two 18-hole golf courses on 552.1 acres. The conditional use conceptual site plan also indicates that project will have a clubhouse and a maintenance facility. No residential dwelling units are proposed with this conditional use petition. Lastly, the subject site is accessed from Immokalee Road, which is an arterial public road. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural-Mixed Use District) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permitted non- residential uses, including conditional uses and recreational facilities such as golf courses and/or driving ranges,prior to Final Order No. Ac-99-002, issued June 22, 1999, by the Administration Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). However, this project is part of the Twin Eagles development and was approved and also in litigation prior to the June 22, 1999, the date on which the Final Order was entered. The petitioner has provided written documentation from the County Attorney's Office and the Department of Community Affairs that all property included in the project (Twin Eagles) is deemed vested from the restrictions of the Final Order and therefore this petition will be reviewed as such. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 3 With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland and wildlife issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in Objective 6.3". This project accomplishes that with no anticipate impacts to wetlands. Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and approved by the County". Objective 6.4 requires the appropriate portion of native vegetation be preserved, by providing for on site preservation of 25% of the existing native vegetation. It states, "A portion of each viable, naturally functioning non-wetland native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate". This will be accomplished by retaining uplands adjacent to the flow-way and incorporating the hardwood hammocks into the golf course design. Goal 6 of the GMP, states, "The County shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use its native vegetation communities and wildlife habitat". The EIS identifies gopher tortoise on site and states that the presence of Florida black bear, Florida panther and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel is probably on this site. A preserve in the highest quality habitat will be provided for the tortoises on site. Wildlife management plans will be required for the other species. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The site will be developed according to South Florida Water Management District and Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) criteria for the design of Surface Water Management Systems. The natural drainage patterns will be incorporated into the project's surface water management system where possible. A conceptual surface water management plan is provided in the Conceptual Surface Water Management Report submitted as part of the Conditional Use Application. The project will meet Collier County LDC and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) requirements for water quality. Water quality treatment will be provided by the surface water management system prior to discharging to wetlands or other outfalls. EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 4 The site design includes a flow-way through the central region of the property. This flow-way extends approximately 12,300 feet from the north to the south boundary of the site. Existing native vegetation will be retained along the outer fringes of the flow-way and a portion of the interior will be planted with littoral zone vegetation, thus providing additional water quality treatment over and above that required by the SFWMD. The proposed potable water will provide service to the 2 golf course clubhouses as principal the use. Potable water service will be obtained from the Orangetree Utilities water supply facility. The existing plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, which will produce approximately 9,600 gallons per day of potable demands. The project will produce a nominal amount of demand compared to the capacity of the Orangetree facility. The average daily withdrawal amount for irrigation purposes is estimated to be 1.2 MGD based on the anticipated amount of irrigated acreage for 36 holes of golf. Water sources may be on-site wells, reclaimed water and/or other non-potable sources. Irrigation water source permitting shall be coordinated with the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property consists of 552 acres, with only 27 acres of that being identified as wetlands. Uplands comprise 525.4 acres (95±%) of the project site. The various upland habitat descriptions are provided in Appendix B of the Habitat and Listed Species Survey Report in Exhibit F. The FLUCCS types are identified in the table in Exhibit B. Uplands of the project site are comprised primarily of cabbage palm and cabbage palm with cypress. Most of the upland areas on the site contain less than 10%infestation by Brazilian pepper. Wetlands: Of the 552-acre site, 26.7 acres (5±%) are jurisdictional to the SFWMD and Collier County. Wetlands on the property consist primarily of cypress systems and freshwater marsh areas with scattered pop ash. Many of these wetland areas contain various amounts of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) around their perimeters. Exhibit E, of the EIS, provides a map and table defining the extent and acreage of wetlands on the property. Descriptions of the various wetland habitats on the site are provided in Appendix B of the Habitat and Listed Species Survey Report in Exhibit F. The project will not involve filling or excavating any jurisdictional wetlands on site. The site design includes a flow-way through the center of the property, EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 5 which extends approximately 12,300 feet from the north to the south boundary of the site. The flow-way will help restore historical flow regimes in the project area and will also serve to rehydrate site wetlands and increase foraging habitat for wading birds. The flow-way concept also incorporates adjacent forested buffers that will serve to provide a wildlife corridor through the site. Wetland preserves, which have been affected by past hydrologic alterations in the project area, will be hydrologically enhanced and stabilized by incorporation into the surface water management system. The water management system will be designed using hydrobiological indicators to evaluate and set appropriate control elevations to enhance and maintain healthy, viable wetland systems. Preservation Requirements: A maximum of 454 acres (86%) of the site uplands have the potential to be impacted by the construction of golf course areas and the surface water management system. A minimum of 53.6 acres (10%) of site uplands will be preserved within golf course roughs, other natural areas of the golf course, buffers to wetlands and other common area open spaces. An additional 26.7 acres of wetlands will be preserved to compliment upland preservation areas. The minimum 15% of native vegetation required by Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code will be achieved. The site plan identifies the 26 acres of wetland preserves. The balance will be required at the time of SDP submittal. Listed Species: The results of the listed species survey indicated that gopher tortoises occur on site. The locations where this species or signs thereof were observed are provided on Figure 3 of the Habitat and Listed Species Survey Report in Exhibit F. The Eastern indigo snake and the gopher frog, although not observed on site, are possible inhabitants as commensal species to the gopher tortoise. Please refer to the Habitat and Listed Species Survey Report in Exhibit F, for the detailed information on the wildlife survey. Any gopher tortoises occupying areas slated for development will be relocated to a suitable on-site preserves to be identified at the time of SDP submittal. All on- site relocation of gopher tortoises will be conducted in accordance with FWC requirements and with the proper FWC permit. Listed commensals (i.e., Eastern indigo snake, gopher frog) captured during gopher tortoise relocation will also be relocated. EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 6 The EIS stated that the Florida black bear was observed on site by a consultant who said a female and one cub were observed in the west central section of the site, on August 29, 2001. The adult was climbing a cabbage palm to eat berries. Florida panther have been documented within one mile of the project site. There were no observations,made by their consultants, that they were utilizing this site. BIG cypress Fox Squirrel are also anticipated to be on site, however there were none were observed by the consultant. The EIS states that movement of wildlife between the project site and Twin Eagles to the north will be facilitated by a wildlife crossing/underpass under Immokalee Road that is currently being designed by Bonita Bay Group and FDOT. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Immokalee Road South Project, CU-2001 AR-1912 with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. There are existing drainage problems in the area of the proposed project. When designing the drainage system for the project, applicant shall evaluate off-site flows and how they should be incorporated in the design in order to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Features like perimeter swales or direct conveyance through the water management system to catch off-site flows are recommended. These issues shall be addressed at the time of SDP review. Environmental: 1. For this CU, a minimum of 80.3 acres of wetland and upland preserve/enhancement area shall be placed under a conservation easement, as required, to fulfill the native vegetation retention requirement. These areas shall be identified at the time of SDP submittal. 2. This Conditional Use shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. 3. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site shall be submitted to Planning Services staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. All exotic, as defined by the LDC, shall be removed prior to preliminary acceptance of the golf course or the first certificate of occupancy whichever comes first. EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 7 4. The petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species. A habitat management plan for those species shall be submitted to Planning Services Section staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/ construction plan approval. Plans will be required for gopher tortoises, Florida black bear, Florida panther and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel. Upon submittal of the SDP petition, copies will be sent to the USFWS and FFWCC for their review and comment. They will be allowed 30 days to submit their letters of technical assistance to staff. Staff will use applicable stipulations from these agencies, in their review and approval of the Site Development Plan for this project. 5. Setback requirements for preserves shall be in accordance with Section 3.2.8.4.7.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended. Any lot abutting a protected/preserve area (regardless if it is an upland or a wetland) shall have a minimum 25-foot setback from the boundary of such protected/ preserve area in which no principal structure may be constructed. Further, the plat shall require that no alteration, including accessory structures, fill placement grading plant alteration or removal or similar activity shall be permitted within such setback without the prior written consent of the development services director provided. In no event shall these activities be permitted within ten feet of the preserve boundary. 6. The layout for the golf course shall be field adjusted to avoid or greatly minimize impacts to the hardwood hammocks on site. This will be reviewed in greater detail when the SDP is submitted. These areas shall be superimposed on the site plan and submitted to Planning Services Section staff for review and approval, in order to accomplish protection of these rare habitat types. EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 8 PREPARED BY:OfL 11/. -AL _ - /61 TAN CHRZANOW:KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEER, SENI S�' . ADARMES MINOR. P.E. DATE ENGINEER, SENIOR `664-1Data ,� , 'eac`5) -IS-oZ BARBARA S. BURGESON d, DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST REVIEWED BY: � � L 10 Z- RAY YELLOW, AIFP DATE CHIEF PLANNER 4 /a/oz THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR \-1-1‘..,G(A/ti r//s-AD, ST SAN MURRAY, AICP / DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting May 1,2002 Page 9 APPROVED BY: 11,./6.-...._ ‘4.r ,,A,.._eJ• 'PH K. SC ► ITT DATE •. TY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES :.0 MINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN BSB/gdh/c: Immolakee Rd. South staff Report I'""•\ Item V.I ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 1,2002 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1331 Petition Name: ASGM Business Center of Naples Applicant/Developer: Martin Adler Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 40.88 acre parcel located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1Y2 mile south of U.S.41, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The site is located immediately south of the Prime Outlet Center. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped parcels. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - C-4 Developed RMF-16(8) Undeveloped S - PUD (Silver Lakes) Partially developed E - Estates Undeveloped W- R.O.W. Collier Blvd. IV. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is proposing a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to allow for a proposed business park development consisting of 40.88-acres. The PUD Master plan limits the development area to a 26.3-acre ' J EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 tract that surrounds a conservation area. The required open space will comprise approximately 12.2-acres or 30 percent of the project. In addition, the proposed business and industrial uses are consistent with the Future land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project. Lastly, the subject site is accessed from Collier Boulevard. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-district that is intended to provide locations for residential development. This district also permits non-residential uses and Business Park uses subject to the location and development criteria for business parks as found in the Business Park Sub-district of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). A consistency analysis with applicable elements of the GMP is as follows: FLUE and Density: The FLUE permits business park uses such as those units proposed for ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD. The project is consistent with the criteria that require building coverage not exceed 25 to 40 percent and where landscaped areas provide buffering and rest areas. The PUD document and Master Plan indicate that the project is consistent with the Business Park Criteria of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected lakes and/or wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 Policy 6.4.7 states, "All other types of new development shall be required to preserve an appropriate portion of the native vegetation on the site as determined through the County development review process. Preservation of different contiguous habitats is to be encouraged. When several different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible. However this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels which can not reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and the proposed activity". This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in that it provides for 15%native vegetation preservation on-site. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The site consists of one(1) drainage basin containing a detention(wetland) area in the middle of the site. The detention area will be created by raising the rest of the site and leaving the detention are undisturbed. The detention area will discharge through a control structure and the discharge will flow west into the 951 canal. The site is located within the Miscellaneous Coastal Basins. There are no County stormwater maintenance facilities in the vicinity of the project. Project will require F.D.O.T. drainage connection permit to authorize stormwater discharge into Collier Boulevard Right-of-way. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is the site of an abandoned agricultural field that was cleared and ditched prior to 1977. A copy of a 1975 Collier County aerial is attached as exhibit E in the environmental impact statement (EIS). These agricultural activities extended to the north and south of the subject property and can be seen on the above referenced aerial. Approximately a 100 foot wide strip of land on the east side of the project site is the only area that does not appear to have been severely impacted by the agricultural operation. According to the Collier County Soils Map, two soil types are found on the property, Oldsmar Fine Sand (Unit 16) and Holopaw Fine Sand (Unit 27). EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 n Holopaw Fine Sand (Unit 27) is listed as a hydric soil by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and is situated on the west-central portion of the site. Descriptions of soils on-site are included in Exhibit G in the EIS. On June 6, 2001, several nails were set in trees, marking biological indicators of wetland water levels. The nail elevations were subsequently surveyed by Q. Grady Minor & Associates. Average ground elevations taken in the wetland were approximately 3.7 feet NGVD. Average seasonal high water level indicators were approximately 4.3 feet NGVD. Based on these survey elevations, recent seasonal high water levels appear to be approximately 0.6 feet above ground surface. Biological indicators of historic water levels were not observed on the subject property. Wetlands: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands total approximately 20.21 acres. Wetlands on-site include hydric pine flatwoods (0.24 acres), Brazilian pepper(4.72 acres), Melaleuca (1.07 acres), wax myrtle/willow (9.78 acres), and mixed wetland hardwoods (4.40 acres). The limits of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and "other surface waters" ,.� were reviewed and approved in the field on February 14, 2001 by the SFWMD. SFWMD jurisdictional"other surface waters"identified on the project site include excavated areas and upland soils that were previously cleared and farmed, and have re-vegetated with a mixture of wetland and upland vegetation. "Other surface waters" identified on the project site include hydric pine flatwoods (0.47 acres), Brazilian pepper (3.39 acres), hardwood-conifer mix (14.57 acres), drainage canal (0.27 acres), and borrow area(0.03 acres). A total of 13.54 acres of impacts to SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands are proposed. Project related impacts will be compensated for by enhancing and preserving 7.93 acres of on-site wetlands and "other surface waters", and by purchasing an estimated 6 wetland mitigation credits at Panther Island Mitigation Bank. Details of the mitigation plan have not been finalized, and will be reviewed as part of the SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resource Permit for the project. In February 2001, proposed impacts to wetland areas were reviewed in a pre- application meeting with SFWMD staff at the Fort Myers office. Wetland impact areas were considered to be of low quality resulting from historic disturbances to hydrology and vegetative composition. At the time, the SFWMD felt it would be appropriate to mitigate off-site for wetland impacts. Off-site mitigation at Panther Island Mitigation Bank was considered appropriate for this project because of the degraded functions, location within a disturbed landscape, and limited potential EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 n for long-term viability of on-site wetlands. Wetlands selected for enhancement and preservation on-site exhibit greater potential for long-term viability based on existing wetland hydroperiod and connection with off-site wetlands. Preservation Requirements: As stated in the EIS, 7.93 acres of wetlands will be retained on-site. This exceeds the 15% (6.1 acres)native vegetation preservation requirement in section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Listed Species: A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on June 6, 2001 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state or federal listed species. Incidental observations for listed species were conducted while performing FLUCFCS mapping on June 8, 2000 and wetland flagging on January 27, 2001. No listed species were observed during any of these times. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR- 1331 "ASGM Business Center of Naples"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Any required SFWMD Permits must be obtained prior to site plan approval. Environmental: 1. Amend section 4.6(B) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language. A minimum of 15 percent (6.1 acres) of the site's viable naturally functioning native vegetation shall be retained or replanted in accordance with section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. However, this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved. For this site a minimum of 7.93 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on-site. 2. The minimum acreage of the wetland identified for preservation in the environmental impact statement is 7.93 acres. Include this acreage on the PUD master plan. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: /s Ape OL STAN CHRZA, WSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEER, SENIOR )6.41)-ee/14, V1/1/1/I ko 0Z_ JERRY K ` URTZ DA E ENGINEER - `7 4s4az. STEPHEN ENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST /SOZ RA (OND BELLOWS DATE CHIEF PLANNER REVIEWED BY: sQ14-#),etd, x /5 /2 THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 ?/// SAN MURRAY, AICP DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: agiff LatiaiiI"CogialiatiraW 4110.2-- J•SEPH K. S MITT DA I •OMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENT• , • ORY COUN TH Or AS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRM SL/gdh/c:EAC StaffReport ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS 1 MAY,'2001 Z4002- I. INTRODUCTION / The Environmental Advisory Council(EAC) completed its sd year of deliberations, following the combination of the original EPTAB and EAB Boards. The Council membership is enclosed as Exhibit A. This report is submitted to the County Commission in compliance with provisions of the enabling legislation included as Exhibit B. The report includes activities of the Council in / -2000-as well as environmental concerns of the membership, and considerations for future activities. II. PURPOSE The EAC, as evident in Exhibit B, acts in an advisory capacity to the Commission in both broad and specific areas, and is seen by the Council to be both re-active and pro-active in its . deliberations. A. Matters dealing with the regulation, control,management use of exploitation of any or all natural resources within the County; B. The review and evaluation of specific zoning and development petitions and their impact on these resources,providing approval or disapproval recommendations to the Commission. M. COUNCIL ACTIVITIES,2000 A. Land Use Petitions See attached Staff Summary(Exhi.,it C). B. Growth Management Plan 1. Growth Management S •committee (a)monitored activiti of: Rural Lands Ov ight Committee Eastern Lan• Oversight Committee (b) sought to d, • e a role in the"assessment process"reflected in the Final Order rrr�rv4)s 2. Review- , several GMP amendments. C. Land De elopment Code 1. Reviewed numerous proposed amendments with staff; 1 III. COUNCIL ACTIVITIES, 2000 A. Land Use petitions Petitions before the Council were significantly lower than 2001 due to the application deadline under the Final Order. The Summary of petitions is included as Exhibit C. B. Growth Management Plan 1- Growth management Subcommittee (a) monitored activities of: Rural Lands Oversight Committee Eastern Lands Oversight Committee (b) met following Rural Lands meetings for summary report to Council. (c) this sideline posture seemed to be the only role for the Council in the "assessment" process until an opportunity for recommendations arose. 2- Reviewed numerous GMP amendments. C. Land Development Code 1- Reviewed numerous amendments. 2- Passed on a list of seventeen recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. (See Exhibit D) 3- Continued the study of problems and corrective actions, particularly regarding: (a) wetland impacts (b) wetland mitigation procedures (c) listed specie protection D. Scheduled several Workshops; 1- Wetland 2- County Sewer System 3- Panther habits and possible protection measures 4- Sea turtle protection measures E. Procured a position on the Hearing Examiner Search Committee. IV. COUNCIL CONCERNS AND FUTURE PLANS A. A continued major concern is the significant loss of viable functioning wetlands. The Council continues to be frustrated with the magnitude of projects approved that significantly invade the natural processes and habitats. Simple mitigation is not the answer, and a more meaningful balance needs to be struck between property rights and problems in the accelerated growth rate. The Council felt that the period of study under the Final Order was going to remedy many of the concerns. This does not seem to be the case, although some progress has has been made. B. With the event of appointment of a "Hearing Examiner", it is hoped that the Council can assume a more Policy oriented position and address the mounting Natural Resource problems facing the County. This would allow the Council to take on a more pro-active position. v-� r s THE CONSERVANCY Of Southwest Florida 1450 Merrihue Drive•Naples,Florida 34102 941.262.0304• Fax 941 202.0672 WWW.CofServa nc .(Og March 27, 2002 GA-c. !+'tz-tn s Mr. Tom Sansbury Chairman, Collier County Environmental Advisory Council Dear Mr. Sansbury: On behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida I would like to share our concerns regarding the beach raking activities currently taking place in Collier County. We believe regulations need to be in place in order to better preserve the natural resources of the delicate beach ecosystem. Collier County currently has no requirements or regulations concerning frequency or time of raking. Due to this, beach raking occurs on a daily basis for no reason other than the County has the equipment to be able to do so. After attending meetings of the Coastal Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Council, and the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee, The Conservancy believes there is consensus among these groups that regulations need to be put in place concerning beach raking practices. The Conservancy asks that the following issues be considered in any policymaking process regarding beach raking. ➢ The negative ecological impacts of constant and excessive beach raking cannot be stressed enough. The dunes system, and continued dune formation is critical in preventing erosion. When the beach is raked the natural vegetation, seeds, and root mat below the sand's surface are removed and destroyed. This destruction prevents further growth of new natural vegetation that helps to trap sand. Natural vegetation aids in dune formation and prevents beach erosion. Vegetation plays a vital role in the beach ecosystem and it is very important that the natural growth process be protected. So much time and money has been spent in beach restoration projects it seems contradictory to allow beach raking to occur on such a frequent basis knowing it enhances erosion. ➢ Beach raking should be done on an as needed basis. This includes after a storm event, during a red tide, after large events which may produce excessive amounts of litter(i.e.: Spring break, Fourth of July etc.), or for issues related to health and safety purposes that could affect the public. Leading the challenge to protect and sustain Southwest Florida's natural environment. ➢ The amount of sand and shells that are taken off the beach through the beach raking process are much greater compared to the amount of litter and trash that is picked up. All that beach raking is accomplishing is ridding the beach of sand and shells that many beach goers enjoy. The amount of litter and trash is minimal and usually does not require large heavy machines to pick it up. ➢ It would be beneficial to look at effective methods used in other counties as a means of keeping Collier County beaches clean. In Broward and Lee Counties, litter, rocks, excessive seaweed, etc. are picked up by hand. This would be a much more environmentally friendly way of cleaning the beach in an effective manner. Also, looking into clean up efforts from the community through volunteer programs, such as Keep Collier Beautiful's"Adopt-A-Shore-Program," would aid the beach cleaning process. ➢ Sea turtle nesting needs to be looked at carefully when considering beach raking policies. Beach raking is very detrimental to sea turtle nests and to the hatchlings themselves. Beach raking machines compact the sand, making it difficult for hatchlings to emerge from the nest and reach the water. Ruts made by the machines can also trap the hatchlings, thus preventing them from reaching the water. The nesting rate of turtles on natural beaches is significantly higher than those nesting on raked beaches. A lot of time and hard work goes into protecting sea turtles; again, it seems contradictory to go against that effort by excessive, unregulated beach raking. ➢ A definition of necessity needs to be established stating specific and definite n requirements for when beach raking should occur. For example, Sarasota County's Beach Cleaning Policy states that raking should occur: "When accumulations of dead and dying sealife or other debris remains concentrated on the wrackline of the beach for a minimum of two tidal changes following a storm or outbreak of red tide. Accumulations must be of estimated volume as it should fill one 5 yard truck per two mile continuous section of beach that is accessible to motorized beach cleaning equipment." Sarasota County's Beach Cleaning Policy also defines the area to be cleaned as the wrackline or highest point at which debris is deposited at high tide. No clean up activity will take place on the wet sand area or on private property that is landward of the wrackline. Sarasota County also utilizes policies on record-keeping pertaining to labor, materials, and equipment, and keeps a record on beach clean up costs broken down into cost per hour by equipment and labor. ➢ Public education concerning beach raking and the importance of a litter-free beach would also be an effective tool in keeping raking to a minimum. More visible trash receptacles, along with recycle bins at beach areas are likely to promote less litter being left on the beach. Signs posted near the beach entrances asking to keep our beaches clean by using the trash and recycle containers could also be helpful. A decrease in the amount of litter could mean a decrease of excessive beach raking. The Conservancy believes that following a set beach raking schedule is not aesthetically n or economically beneficial, and is detrimental to the protection of our natural resources. Small amounts of litter, rocks, dead fish, and rotting seaweed could easily be picked up by hand in lieu of mechanical raking. We recognize that at certain times raking the beaches is necessary, specifically when the health and safety of the public is involved. We are not proposing that raking be stopped altogether. However, we do want to see regulations incorporating the previously listed suggestions be put in place. Such policies would help to ensure beach raking be done at a minimum, where necessity occurs, and to where the delicate beach ecosystem can be protected to its fullest extent. With the support of our 5,800 family members and over 700 volunteers, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is celebrating its 38th year leading the challenge to protect and sustain Southwest Florida's natural environment. The Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, environmental organization. The Conservancy works to ensure the continued protection and viability of the ecologically valuable and unique areas of Southwest Florida for the present and future generations. Sincerely, 1:-;" - Ka by Prof 'CEO cc: Environmental Advisory Council Coastal Advisory Committee Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee Barbara Burgeson Ron Hovell Nancy Richie