EAC Agenda 03/03/1993 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD
CONTINUED STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH 3 , 1993
NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No. : Final Site Development Plan No.
SDP-90-74A (Construction of Docking
Facilities)
Petition Name: "Capri Cove Docking Facilities"
Applicant/Developer: Debbie Orshefsky, Esquire
R & L Development of Marco, Inc.
Engineering Consultant: Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Final Site Development Plan No.
SDP-90-74A with the following stipulations:
1. Approval of Preliminary SDP-90-74A applies to only Phase I.
Any proposed site alteration or development within Phase II
shall be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Board during
the site plan submittal and review process.
2 . Sufficient and adequate turbidity screening shall be provided
prior to and during construction, with proposed locations of
silt screen placement clearly indicated on the final site
development plan, in order to prevent increased turbidity in
the waters of the State.
3 . At the time of dock use commencement, the applicant shall
install and maintain channel markers in and out of the area.
In the event that the applicant cannot receive permission from
the applicable agencies to install and maintain channel
markers he/she must submit documentation that he/she applied
for permits and/or exemptions and he/she must install and
maintain navigational signage on the upland adjacent to the
boat dock facility.
4 . At the time of dock use commencement, pursuant to Goal 2 , and
associated objectives and policies of the Coastal and
Conservation Management element - Growth Management Plan, the
applicant shall be subject to a water quality monitoring
program and sediment analysis plan approved by Project Plan
Review Environmental Staff. Water quality shall be evaluated
using state water quality standards (403 . 061 (10) F.S. and
F.A. C. 17-302 . 550) .
5. At the time of dock use commencement, a Manatee Information
Bulletin Board shall be constructed and maintained in a
conspicuous location on site. Manatee Area signs shall be
prominently posted in dock areas.
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
SDP-90-74A
Page 2
PREPARED BY:
- / ' -,P. - 02,/a ///7 5
Kimberly J/713 en Date
Environmen a Specialist II
REVIEWED BY:
4i -g,ra- o2/-Z.2-/99 3
Barbara N. ki Date
CI\ie f Environmental Specialist
1(i/t Li-- -- ' , ZaLt9(4. z z
Jo n F. Madajewski, P E. Date
Pr ject Plan Review M nager
XI
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH 3 , 1993
I . NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No. : PSP-92-16
Petition Name: "Immokalee Airport Industrial Park"
Applicant/Developer: Collier County Board of County
Commissioners
Engineering Consultant: Collier County Transportation Services
Environmental Consultant: Day and Zimmermann, Inc. , Sarasota,
Florida
Collier County Natural Resources
Department
II. LOCATION:
Sections 2 and 3 , Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 34
and 35, Township 46 South, Range 29 East; bounded on the north and
west by the Immokalee airport, on the south by Immokalee Road and
on the east by agricultural land.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The petitioner proposes to subdivide a 45 . 81 acre industrial zoned
piece of land into eleven (11) lots for aviation related/light
industrial development. The land use will consist of 5. 65 acres
of right-of-way, 7 acres of general aviation use lots, 10. 32 acres
of light industrial use lots, 19 . 27 acres of drainage and water
management and 3 . 57 acres of wetlands.
Plan of Record:
Water Management:
"Immokalee airport Industrial Park, Master Utilities and Water
Management Plan" prepared by Board of County Commissioners,
Collier County, Transportation Services Division, Roads
Construction Department, dated January 20, 1993 , one revision.
Environmental:
"Summary Report of Environmentally Related Impacts" Day and
Zimmermann, Inc. , August 1991
Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Immokalee Airport Industrial Park
(Collier County Project #60052) dated October 21, 1992
IV. STAFF COMMENTS:
Water Management:
The proposed subdivision is to be developed in three (3) phases.
each phase will be able to stand on its own in terms of water
EAB Meeting March 3 , 1993
PSP-92-16
Page 3
Staff has reviewed the vegetative inventory and map provided by
the petitioner and the Environmental Impact Statement submitted.
During the site visit it became evident that these items are
inadequate or incomplete. These will need to be revised prior to
the review of the final plat.
Collier County Transportation Department Staff proposes to proceed
with the portions of Phase I that are not utilized by Florida
scrub jays. As discussed during our staff meeting of February 16,
1993 , an updated wildlife survey will be conducted to determine
the extent of Phase I being used by the scrub jays. That area
will then be removed form Phase I pending further reviews.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat Petition
PSP-92-16 "Immokalee Airport Industrial Park" with the following
stipulations:
Water Management:
1. Slopes on ponds, swales and berms shall not be steeper than
4 : 1, unless specific, separate approval is obtained from
Project Plan Review.
2 . Existing ditches where discharge is being contemplated, as
well as the ditch along the north portion of C. R. 86 shall be
analyzed to show the ditch has the capacity to handle the
project's discharge. Any improvements deemed necessary shall
be done by the owner, prior to any subdivision acceptance by
the County.
3 . An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed
detention areas in accordance with Division 3 . 5 of Collier
County Ordinance No. 92-73 and South Florida Water Management
District rules.
4 . Landscaping shall not be placed within the water management
areas unless specifically approved by Project Plan Review.
5. In accordance with the stormwater design and South Florida
Water Management District permit each individual lot exceeding
eighty percent (80%) of impervious area will require
additional dry-pretreatment on site. At the time of
development permitting for each individual lot, confirmation
that this requirement has been met shall be provided.
6. The final construction documents for this swale system must
hydraulically document that the proposed water quality storage
from the right-of-way only, will not affect the roadway
sub-base. If the sub-base is found to be affected, no water
quality storage can occur within the proposed right-of-way.
EAB Meeting March 3 , 1993
PSP-92-16
Page 2
management and other necessary infrastructure. This petition is
only for Phase I . The existing drainage of the area consists of
interconnected shallow ditches that outfall easterly into the
canal at the east side and southerly into the existing ditch along
the north side of County Road 846 . Off-site flows into the
proposed site do not appear to occur at the present time, as the
topographic map depicts.
The proposed water management system will consist of detention
areas which will receive and treat the stormwater runoff through a
system of shallow ditches, swales and culvert. After storage in
the detention area, discharge will be directed to the existing
drainage canal east of the site, at a control rate of no more than
0. 15 cfs/acre.
The stormwater management system for the roadway is designed to
treat the first one inch (1") (water quality storage) of runoff
from the right-of-way. Stormwater will be collected in a swale
system on both sides of the roadway before discharging into the
detention areas.
The petitioner has obtained a surface water South Florida Water
Management District permit for Phase I . This project meets South
Florida Water Management District rules for water quality and
water quantity. Each individual lot will be required to obtain a
South Florida Water Management district modification permit prior
to any development occurring on that lot. The water management
system has been designed for a maximum eighty percent (80%) of
impervious areas within individual lots. Additional
dry-pretreatment may be required if the impervious area surpasses
eighty percent (80%) .
Environmental:
Staff visited the site on February 11, 1993 accompanied by Ms.
Kimberly Dryden, Biological Scientist IV, with Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission. During that visit we examined the
habitats on Phase I and noted the presence of two burrowing owls
(Athene cunicularia) a Species of Special Concern and four Florida
scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) a threatened species. The
burrowing owls were observed in a burrow in the center of Phase I
and the scrub jays were observed in slash pines near the
northeasternmost portion of Phase I .
The majority of the site is unimproved pastures heavily utilized
by armadillos. A small area of scrub habitat was located at the
southeastern corner of Phase I. A wetland system (proposed for
preservation) is located at the northwestern corner and slash pine
and palmetto cover the northeasternmost lot.
EAB Meeting March 3 , 1993
PSP-92-16
Page 4
Environmental:
1. As a part of the submission package for the final plat and
construction plans, the petitioner shall provide updated
detailed wildlife surveys, with specific attention directed
towards burrowing owls, Florida scrub jays and gopher
tortoises. These surveys shall be conducted according to
guidelines set forth by FGFWFC, and shall include information
requested by Ms. Kimberly Dryden in her letter to Barbara
Burgeson dated February 9 , 1993 .
2 . As a part of the submission package for the final plat and
construction plans, the petitioner shall provide a revised
vegetative inventory and map and an updated EIS to include the
revisions to the wildlife and vegetation sections (3 . 8 . 5.4 . 1
Subsection 5) , as well as address the impacts in the General
Section (3 . 8 . 6) .
3 . A wildlife management and habitat management plan shall be
provided with the submission package for final plat and
construction plans. This plan shall be reviewed and approved
by FGFWFC and Collier County Project Plan Review Staff.
PREPARED BY:
2//8//r2JuW Adarmes Date
Senior Engineer
f
Barbara S. Burgeson Date
Environmental Specialist II
REVIEWED BY:
2
„ ...sh0 .3
Barbara N. Pryn ki Date
Chief Environmental Specialist
G (..) 164 '
(p
Jo n F. Madajewski, g. E. Date
Pr ject Plan Review ' anager
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH 3 , 1993
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No. : CU-92-16
Petition Name: "Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Applicant/Developer: Mitchell D. & Teresa E. House
II . LOCATION:
Approximately one (1) mile northwest of the U. S. 41 (Tamiami
Trail) and S.R. 29 intersection on the south side of U.S. 41;
Sections 26 and 27 , Township 52 South, Range 29 East; Collier
County, Florida.
III . PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is zoned Rural Agricultural District with an
Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment Overlay
(A-ACSC/ST) . The applicants propose to make private airboat tours
available to the public.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS:
On January 6, 1993 the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) heard
Petition ST-92-2 which included a Site Development Plan with site
alterations associated with the proposed private airboat tour
operations. EAB decided to approve Petition ST-92-22 with the
following stipulations:
1. Permits or letters of exemption from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and
the South Florida Water Management District shall be
presented prior to the issuance of a final site development
plan approval.
2 . Prior to final site development plan approval the applicant
shall submit to Project Plan Review Environmental Staff for
review and approval a Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement
Plan. This plan shall include compensatory measures to
offset the wetland impacts on at least an equal area basis
(Collier County Growth Management Plan - Conservation and
Coastal Management Element Policy 6 . 2 . 7) .
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 2
3 . Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy all exotic vegetation as
defined by the County Land Development Code shall be removed
at a minimum of fifty (50) foot buffer from the approved
final site development plan development footprint. The fifty
(50) foot buffer area and all developed areas shall be
maintained exotics free (Collier County Land Development Code
Section 2 . 2 . 24 . 7 . 4 . 18) .
4 . Upon issuance, the building permit is subject to a forty-five
(45) day appeal period by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
5. The petitioner shall assist and work with the applicable
agencies (i . e. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, etc. ) to prepare base line
environmental studies.
6. The proposed conditional use petition (CU-92-16) regarding
the airboat operations shall be heard by the Environmental
Advisory Board prior to the Collier County Planning
Commission public hearing.
On January 8 , 1993 Staff sent letters requesting technical
assistance from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ,
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) , according
to stipulation #5 of Petition ST-92-22 .
Staff made several telephone calls to the various agencies, which
had been sent letters, in an attempt to locate or to create
on-site base line environmental studies. The following is a
compilation of general information regarding environmental impacts
to airboats.
Impacts to Soil and Vegetation
The studies by Duever et al . (1981, 1986) demonstrated that
airboats impact both soil and vegetation, but that these impacts
were usually reversible.
Effects of off-road vehicles (ORV' s) to soils are potentially of
greatest impact to the ecosystem because of related changes in
hydrology, vegetation and visual aesthetics which can result from
disturbance to intact soil strata (DUEVER et al. , 1986) . Impacts
of airboats to peat substrata were greater than those to either
sand or marl. During most operations using airboats, soils
completely recovered. Only on peat substrata did the potential
for cumulative impacts (over more than one season) seem possible.
Potential impacts of repeated airboat passes were greatest when
low water levels allowed contact with soil. Otherwise, airboats
had less impact on soil than any other vehicle type used in the
experiments of Duever et al. , 1986. One airboat-related impact to
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 3
soil resulted from the tendency of other ORV' s (i. e. , wheeled and
tracked) to use old airboat trails when water levels permitted.
Since it is primarily these other types of ORV's that impact the
soil, the synergism among airboats and other types of ORV's should
be a serious concern.
Most impacts to vegetation recovered (regenerated) from airboat
impact in less than a year, some in only five months (Duever et
al. , 1981; Schemnitz and Schortemeyer, 1972) . Since such use is
generally seasonal, this means that airboat impacts often
completely recover prior to renewed impact from the ensuing
season: cumulative impacts are avoided. One exception was that
plant species diversity in old airboat trails was less than in
areas without airboat impact, although other parameters, such as
height of vegetation, had recovered. One possible impact of well
worn, incompletely recovered airboat (and other ORV) trails is to
impede the spread of natural or prescribed fire, which is
fundamental to structure of many natural communities (Duever et
al. , 1986) .
Impacts to Animal Life
Based on the technical studies reviewed, no quantitative studies
comparable to those for soil and vegetation have addressed airboat
impacts upon animals. Therefore, demonstration of effects of
airboats on animals based upon experimentation or systematic
empirical observation is lacking. Discussions among knowledgeable
biologists are equivocal . It is generally agreed among biologists
that airboats, because they are the loudest and fastest ORV's
traversing wetlands, can adversely affect animal life. An airboat
can destroy any nest it collides with. Airboats probably can
prevent nesting by interfering with sensitive, pre-nesting
behaviors.
It is also generally agreed that if care is taken to avoid
sensitive habitats, and minimize accidental airboat-animal
interactions, then impacts of airboats on non-game animal
populations would probably be negligible. It should be said that
most such opinions are offered by biologists who must employ
airboats to access study areas which are the subject of their
expertise. One phenomenon indicating the complexity of
airboat-animal interactions is that some wildlife species are
believed to occur at greater densities along airboat trails,
presumably because of attractiveness of the open water-vegetation
interface. Whatever survival advantage might be offered by such
habitat edge must to some extent be countered by the frequent
collisions between airboats and such edge-seeking species
(Frederick et al . , 1990) .
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 4
Fragmented mention of airboat impacts on animals permeates the
literature and other studies . During surveys by airboat of the
least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) population in Everglades
National Park Water Conservation Area 3A, 2 . 8% of the specimens
observed were struck by the airboat, despite cautious speeds and
avoidance maneuvers. Most of the struck bitterns are believed to
have survived (Frederick et al. , 1990) . Airboats were found to
have serious negative effects on incubating trumpeter swans
(Cygnus buccinator) in Montana (Shea, 1979 as cited in Henson and
Grant, 1991) . The review by Brandt and Brown (1988) relates the
common observation that airboats flush nesting birds, disturb
other animal life and can have certain, other severe types of
impacts, such as blowing young birds out of their nests if the
airboat propeller is accelerated within a distance of 50 feet from
a rookery. However, this is countered by the common observation
that birds can become habituated to high noise levels, and other
sources of disturbance to the extent that they show little overt
response (Brandt and Brown, 1988) . The Revised Recovery Plan for
the Florida snail kite (Rhostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus)
recommends that control of airboats, other ORV's and study of
their effects on snail kites be implemented as part of the
recovery objective. Writings such as these, in combination with
observations by resource managers and users of airboats, lead
Staff to conclude that airboats adversely impact animals.
Benefits of Airboats
Airboats provide benefits for use and management of wetland
resources. Among these benefits, gleaned from literature and
Staff' s discussions with users, are as follows:
1. Airboats cause much less disturbance to soil and vegetation
than any other vehicle type which traverses wetlands, and
thus provide a less impactive, alternative means for
vehicular access.
2 . Airboats provide easiest surface access through wetlands of
any ORV, and hence provide recreational, research, management
and enforcement avenues which might otherwise by unavailable.
3 . By providing for public access to certain types of vast,
otherwise poorly accessible to wetland areas, airboats
recruit public support for conservation and management of
wetland resources.
4 . Airboats provide economic benefits because of the cost of
purchase, operation and by serving as the basic source of
income for certain businesses.
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 5
Disadvantages of Airboats
Airboats have adverse impacts on environmental resources and come
into conflict with other land and recreational uses. These
conflicts and adverse impacts are as follows:
1. Repeated airboat uses cuts trails through wetland vegetation
which have visual impacts, and provide for access by other
vehicles which may make such a trail relatively permanent.
2 . Airboats can disturb and destroy animal life.
3 . Airboats can trail at dangerous speeds unattainable by other
surface vehicles traversing wetlands.
4 . Airboats generate noise levels which are higher and penetrate
greater distances then any comparable ORV.
5 . Airboats are incompatible with certain types of outdoor
recreation, especially those emphasizing wilderness values
which are sensitive to noise.
6. Airboats can disturb human populations.
Airboats, Public Lands and Public Programs
Airboats are commonly used by staff of governmental agencies in
their implementation of resource management programs. Airboats
are regarded by many governmental staff as essential to serve
functions related to resource management and law enforcement.
Private use of airboats on public lands is prohibited or
restricted in some areas, but is supported in others. (See
Attachment A. ) Whether private use of airboats is permitted
depends upon agency policy and resource management and protection
goals for the management area. Because of disturbance to
residential populations resulting from speed and noise, local
governmental ordinances restrict or prohibit airboat use in some
areas.
Airboats may be peculiar in that their regulation comes under laws
and programs relating both to navigable water and to non-navigable
wetlands. The Big Cypress National Preserve, for example, both
allows and restricts airboat use coincidental with other OVR use,
under which airboats are classified. Certain national wildlife
refuges may wish to restrict airboat use on state sovereign
submerged lands within refuge boundaries, so that airboat impacts
can be eliminated as is done for federally-owned wetlands and
submerged lands in those same areas. However, these federal
agencies currently lack such authority.
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 6
Data provided by the Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Vessel
Titling and Registration, give clear indication that the number
of airboats active in Florida is steadily increasing (Attachment
B) . Airboats must pay an annual vessel registration fee to the
Department, which is deposited in the Motorboat Revolving Trust
Fund (327 . 25-327 . 28 , F. S. ) .
The General Case
The resources indicate, it is inappropriate to encourage airboat
use unless such use: (1) can be monitored; (2) can be controlled
(regulated) ; and (3) takes into consideration particular
sensitivity of animal life, land use and other recreational uses
in the area. This assumes that resource conservation and
protection is primary, and that recreational use is secondary.
This issue is fundamentally no different from other decisions
relating to compatible resource-based recreational uses, which the
government makes in its management areas. For most such cases,
certain fundamental assumptions are made by government staff to
ensure that the government's responsibilities are met. These
assumptions generally include the following:
1. It is important that the public appreciate, enjoy, understand
or use environmental resources .
2 . A certain level of impact of the environment must be accepted
and tolerated by management.
3 . Important environmental resources should be conserved,
preserved, restored and protected.
This suggests that the government should not only promote
compatible public recreation, but also that the government should
be able to regulate and ascertain impacts of recreational
activities in order to optimize compatibility with environmental
resources. Therefore, the government should be responsible for
ensuring that monitoring and regulating (controlling) recreational
activities which it promotes be done, if such recreational
activities are likely to produce adverse environmental impacts.
The government has done this successfully in many areas for many
different types of recreational activities . The same should apply
to airboats. The increasing use of airboats underscores the
future need for better knowledge, policies, interagency
coordination and enforcement in order to meet the demands of this
issue.
Attachment A
Use of Airboats on Some Public Lands in Florida*
Agency/managed areas Private Use of Airboats
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Aquatic Preserves Allowed despite staff concerns
because of general rights of
navigability.
State Park System Allowed or prohibited on a
case-by-case basis, decided by
division management based upon
compatibility with resource
values and other recreational
uses.
Research Reserves and Allowed despite staff concerns
Sanctuaries because of general rights of
navigability.
FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER
FISH COMMISSION Encouraged or prohibited in
wildlife management areas,
depending upon management goals
and compatibility with resources
or uses on a case-by-case basis.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Big Cypress National
Preserve Allowed, except for two
restricted areas; treated in the
same manner as other ORV's.
Everglades National Park Private use prohibited; official
use limited to designated
airboat trails.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Flying Eagle Ranch Prohibited because of
incompatibility with sensitive
resources and other recreational
uses.
Attachment A
(continued)
U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chassahowitzka NWR Private use prohibited on
non-navigable and federally
owned navigable lands;
restricted to permit-holders on
designated trails on state-owned
submerged lands within refuge
boundaries.
Loxahatchee NWR Prohibited except for
concession-operated tours and
official use, both which are
restricted to designated trails
and permissible water levels.
St. Marks NWR Allowed on state-owned submerged
lands within refuge boundaries
despite staff concerns due to
general rights of navigability;
prohibited on all federally
owned lands.
* Local governments have in some cases prohibited airboats from
operating within areas of local (especially county) jurisdiction
within government-managed conservation areas. The usual basis for
such action is incompatibility with other uses, especially
residential populations. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission is presently considering a rule which, if approved would
require flagging with international orange all airboats operating in
certain areas, in order to make them more visible. The rule would
take effect in July, 1992 .
Attachment B
Airboats Registered for Operation in Florida*
Fiscal Year Number % Increase % Based on 1984-1985
1984-1985 1, 815
1985-1986 2 , 460 36 36
1986-1987 3 , 048 24 68
1987-1988 3 , 668 20 102
1988-1989 4 , 188 14 131
1989-1990 4 , 330 3 139
1990-1991 4 , 799 10 164
* Source: Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of
Vessel Titling and Registration
Attachment C
Literature Cited
Brandt, K. and Brown, M. T. , 1988 . Noise impacts on wildlife and
recreation: literature review and management recommendations.
Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville,
Florida. 25 pp.
Duever, M. J. , Carlson, J. E. and Riopelle, L. A. , 1981. Off-road
vehicles and their impacts in the Big Cypress National
Preserve. Report T-614 , Contract No. CX 428983962 , National
Park Services, South Florida Research Center, Everglades
National Park, Homestead, Florida. 213 pp.
Duever, J. J. , Riopelle, L. A. and McCollom, J. M. , 1986 . Long term
recovery from experimental and old trail off-road vehicle
impacts in the Big Cypress National Preserve.
Contract No. CX 5280-5-2106 , National Park Service. 47 pp.
Frederick, P. C. , Dwyer, N. , Fitzgerald, S. and Bennetts, R. E. ,
1990. Relative abundance and habitat preferences of least
bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis) in the Everglades. Florida Field
Nat. , 18 : 1-20
Henson, P. and Grant, T. A. , 1991 . The effects of human disturbance
on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. Wildl. Soc. Bull . ,
19 : 248-257 .
Schemnitz , S . D. and Schortemeyer, J. L. , 1972 . The influence of
vehicles on Florida Everglades vegetation. A preliminary
report. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Contract No. 14-16-0004-308 , Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 74 pp.
Williams, L. E. , Sprunt, A. , IV, Martin, T. and Sykes, P. W. , Jr. ,
1986. Florida snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
Ridgeway) . Revised recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species Field Station, Jacksonville,
Florida. 48 pp.
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 7
On January 15, 1993 , Staff received a letter from Michael J.
Duever regarding our request for technical assistance. He said he
was not in a position to be able to assist Staff at this time.
(See Exhibit 1) .
On January 20, 1993 , Staff received a copy of a memorandum to the
Superintendent of Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) , Wally
Hubbard, from a Resource Management Specialist of BCNP regarding a
moratorium on airboat special use permits. The memorandum
recommends consideration of a moratorium on new commercial use
licenses in the area north and west of New River and the
possibility there may also be other management actions to consider
that have the effect of diminishing the environmental impacts.
(See Exhibit 2) .
On January 26 , 1993 , Staff concluded that the applicant should
prepare base line environmental studies, more specifically a bird
species survey since there is little to no on-site data available
from the applicable agencies. (See Exhibit 3) .
On January 29 , 1993 , Staff received a letter addressed to George
Hermanson, Chairman of the EAB, written by John Douglas, President
of Collier County Audubon Society, recommending denial of Petition
CU-92-16 based on probable impacts to wildlife and vegetation on-
and off-site. (See Exhibit 4) .
On February 2 , 1993 , Staff received a letter from Bradley J.
Hartman, Director of the Office of Environmental Services for the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. He stated the
following recommendations: (See Exhibit 5)
1. Airboats should not access nearby public lands unless
expressly permitted by state and federal agencies.
2 . If there are existing airboat trails on the leased property,
these should be utilized to the greatest extent possible to
minimize wetland disturbance.
On February 10, 1993 , Staff received a Bird Survey conducted for
review by the EAB, prepared by Mitchell D. House. The Bird Survey
was created from local knowledge of the area over many years. It
includes types of species and their locations on and off-site and
additional supplemental information in order to ensure that the
proposed use will not alter or remove flora and/or fauna features
to the extent as to preclude their reasonable regeneration or
useful ecological purposes. (See Exhibit 6) .
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 8
On February 19 , 1993 , Staff received a letter written by Theodore
H. Below, Warden/Biologist of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary,
National Audubon Society, recommending denial of Petition CU-92-16
based on the potential destruction or degradation of
environmentally sensitive lands, especially wetlands. (See
Exhibit 7) .
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The entire area the applicant proposes to operate private airboat
tours is environmentally sensitive. Due to this fact, Staff
recommends approval of Petition CU-92-16 subject to the following
stipulations in order to ensure consistency with Goal 6 and Goal 7
and their applicable objectives and policies of the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan.
1. The petitioner shall submit to Project Plan Review
Environmental Staff for review and approval, a monitoring
program to assess possible impacts to the natural resources of
the area within the conditional use boundaries, specifically
impacts to avian species. The monitoring program must include
at a minimum, avian species utilization data collected
bi-annually, once during the wet season and once during the
dry season, over a five year period, beginning after private
airboat tour operation commencement. If Staff determines that
the data indicates negative impacts on avian species
populations utilizing the site, the petitioner shall be
required to return to the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB)
or its successor for possible private airboat tour operation
revisions (e.g. existing trails, etc. ) .
2 . At the time of private airboat tour operation commencement,
the petitioner shall install and maintain no trespassing
signage along the entire property line every 300± yards. The
entire property shall be utilized specifically for
conservation/ecological tours. There shall be no other
permitted uses associated with this conditional use.
3 . The applicant shall utilize existing airboat trails in a round
trip method according to the proposed existing trails
identified on the aerial submitted on February 10, 1993 .
EAB Meeting 3/3/1993
"Everglades Private Airboat Tours"
Page 9
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly J. PolDate
Environmental specialist II
REVIEWED BY:
71.L
arbara N. Pry ki Date
Chief Environmental Specialist
ul
%t.G fill
J hn F. Madajews i, P. E. Date
P oject Plan Review Manager
KJP/gs
Chr /stine D . Straton
1441 Gulf Coast Drive Naples , Florida 33963
813 597 - 8849
February 11 , 1993
Mn. Neil Dorrzll
County Manager
Collier County Government Center
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples , Florida 33962
Dear Neil ,
RE : Environmental Advisory Board (LAB )
Based on the February 9 , 1993 Board of County Commiss1oners
meeting , there are many questions about EAB . Therefore , I
would to answer the quest /ons raised from my perspective
as a new member of EAB .
DUPLICATION OF EFFORT
While it is true that EAB and Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) may /`eview the same projects , e .g ' , White
lake Industrial Park , EAB reviews the environmental and water
management portions of the project while the CCPC addresses
other issues . Additionally , EAB hears many items which do
not go before the CCPC (e. g . , cabanas at the Registry
Resort ) , while C[PC hears many items which do not go before
EAB (e. g . , boat doci extensions ) . Therefore , I do not see a
duplication of effort .
"RUBBER STAMPING" STAFF ' S RECOMMENDATIONS
Of the 14 items brought before EAB since October 1992,
EAB has added value to seven petitions as follows :
1 . One Staff recommendation overturned .
2 . Additional or modified stipulations on four
petitions .
3. Two petitions brought hack to EAB for further
review .
Of the seven remaining petitions where EAB accepted
Staff ' s recommendations , three were consent agenda items .
COST OF EAB
It is my understanding that there is no advertised
public hearing expense to notice EAB meetings , only brief
minutes are prepared by Staff to reflect the final
stipulations and the vote, and an audio tape is provided to
the Clerk ' s office . Assuming Staff ' s environmental and water
• management stipulations still need to be reviewed by some
advisory board , there is no additional staff Lost .
Therefore , I conilude the cost of EAR Is negligible .
Since the presently Lonstit ed dates back to 1991 and
the enabling ordinance (91-68 ) cal | s for review of EAB
commenczng 1995 , l was surprised that zt was being revieweg
in 1992 , Howpver , regardless , 7 hope that my personal
uhservations will be helpful in Clearing up any confusion .
S� n ly your s ,
Chris Straton
CC : EAB Members
John Mada /ewski
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
PROJECT PLAN REVIEW SECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: EAB Members
FROM: Fred Reischl /*(?' 'v
Environmental Project Manager
DATE: February 9, 1993
RE: Proposed project "Pelican Marsh" , PUD-93-1
Sections 27 , 34 & 35, Township 48 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, Florida
The petitioner for the referenced project has requested time
before the EAB for an informational presentation prior to a
formal petition at a future date.
The proposed project is large, complex, and includes a
mitigation bank proposal that is previously untried in
Collier County. For these reasons, Staff supports this
request.
It should be noted that Staff is continuing its review, and
therefore a Staff Report is not included.
FR/ew/doc: 5830
cc: John F. Madajewski, Project Plan Review Manager
EAB Binder
PUD-93-1 File
Chrono File
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
PROJECT PLAN REVIEW SECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: EAB Members /
FROM: Fred Reischl 4>v
Environmental Project Manager
DATE: February 9, 1993
RE: Proposed project "Pelican Marsh" , PUD-93-1
Sections 27, 34 & 35, Township 48 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, Florida
The petitioner for the referenced project has requested time
before the EAB for an informational presentation prior to a
formal petition at a future date.
The proposed project is large, complex, and includes a
mitigation bank proposal that is previously untried in
Collier County. For these reasons, Staff supports this
request.
It should be noted that Staff is continuing its review, and
therefore a Staff Report is not included.
FR/ew/doc: 5830
cc: John F. Madajewski, Project Plan Review Manager
EAB Binder
PUD-93-1 File
Chrono File