EAC Minutes 05/05/2004 R
May 5, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Board Meeting Room E, 3 rd Floor
Administration Building
3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112
9:00 A.M. - May 5, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory
Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this
date at 9:00 A.M., in REGULAR SESSION in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, 3301 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Alfred Gal
Vice Chairman: William Hughes
Ken Humiston
Erica Lynne
Ed Carlson
Mike Bauer (new member)
Mike Sorrell
Judith Hushon (new member)
Joe Gammons
Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; Bill Lorenz,
Environmental Services Director; Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
May 5,2004
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 7, 2004 Meeting Minutes
IV.
Land Use Petitions
V.
Old Business
VI.
New Business
A. GMP glitch amendment cycle presentation
B. EarthMark-own Mitigation Banks presentation
C. Panther Island Mitigation Bank presentation
VII.
Council Member Comments
VIII. Public Comments
IX.
Adjournment
********************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services DeDartment Administrative
Assistant no later than 5:00 D.m. on April 30, 2004 if you cannot attend this meetina or
if vou have a conflict and will abstain from votin9 on a Detition (403-2424).
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of
the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to
be based.
....--.-...--..- ---
May 5, 2004
The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council meeting was called to order
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.
I.
Roll Call.
Roll is called and a quorum was established. The following members were present: Ken
Humiston, Erica Lynne, Ed Carlson, Mike Bauer, Alfred Gal, William Hughes, Mike
Sorrell, Judith Hushon, and Joe Gammons.
Judith Hushon: I have degrees in Biology, Biochemistry, and Information and Decision
Systems, a Ph.D. I worked for 37 years in the environmental field. I have probably
worked on 25 to 30 Superfund sites. I've done a lot of work on acquisitions, sales and
acquisitions of properties. I am basically an environmental chemist and a toxicologist.
I've been working on a project on southwest Florida water quality and pesticides for the
last two years and have come up with some interesting data there, too.
Mike Bauer: I'm with the South Florida Water Management District. I am the lead
project manager for any number of watershed restoration projects with local governments
and outside the Everglades Restoration along the coastal areas. I've practiced law for a
couple years, as an Environmental Law Attorney. I have a Ph.D. in Environmental
Policy Plans.
II.
Approval of Agenda.
The agenda was approved with a unanimous vote.
III.
Approval of April 7, 2004 Meeting Minutes.
April 7, 2004 minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV.
Land Use Petitions.
There are no Land Use Petitions.
V.
Old Business.
There was no old business to be addressed.
VI.
New Business.
Page 2
....-
May 5, 2004
Alfred Gal was appointed Chair with a unanimous vote.
William Hughes was appointed Vice Chair with a unanimous vote.
A.
GMP Glitch Amendment Cycle Presentation.
Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director distributed a packet of information that he
explained with an overview. In June of 1999, the Governor and Cabinet issued the
County a final order to amend its growth management plan. The County has gone
through a three-year planning process, proposed and adopted amendments both in June of
2002 and October of 2002.
The result of the adoption of those amendments and beginning to implement those
amendments, they have found that there are number of places in the plan, and that there
are either inconsistencies or areas of awkward phraseology, or wording, or in some cases
some indication of some policies concerns with regard to exactly how being language be
worked out.
This is the area in which I will cover in a little more detail. The result of this effort was
to prepare what is being called the glitch amendments. Carlton Fields, our legal counsel,
is the keeper of the documents. They have worked with staff, as well as with a voting
group, through distribution list that they maintain. They have had several meetings on
these glitch amendments with various parties. Drafts of these amendments have been e-
mailed to a variety of people and have taken comments throughout the last six months.
You are viewing the amendments today. The planning commission is scheduled to view
the amendments May 20. These amendments will go before the Board of County
Commissioners on June 8. It is a transmittal process. Once the County Commission
adopts these transmittals on June 8, the Department of Community Affairs will then
review these amendments, provide the County with objective recommendations and
comments. Upon those recommendations and comments, the staff will then prepare any
modifications to the transmittal amendments, and come through the same process again,
ultimately leading to the Board of County Commissioners hearing the final adoption of
these amendments. I believe at the moment this is scheduled for September 28. There
will have to be a Planning Commission meeting and, of course, an EAC meeting on those
amendments. The majority of these amendments are in the Future Land Use Element,
and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
In the Future Land Use Element, on page 16 of the packet, in the section that talks about
neutral land: This is in the North Belle Meade overlay. This requirement was put into
place in the future land use element, because during the adoption process of the future
Page 3
May 5, 2004
land use element, there was some concern about the available data that the County uses
for RCW study for section 24. There was a recommendation that we needed to do a
study and evaluate the potential habitat, and determine whether our standards were
correct or not. The study actually has been done. We consulted with a biological
consultant. We have the actual study report. I have begun to work with the stakeholders
group, to look at the planning of the North Belle Meade area at the information from that
study. A working group will not only address the RCW issue, but also the flow ways,
corridors and wildlife crossings. A Transportation study will also be done, in regards to
roadway alignments, either Wilson Boulevard extending north and south and some other
corridor to extend East-West and connect with County Road 951.
Mike Bauer: Who was in your consultant that performed the study?
Bill Lorenz: Gaiza Zavosta. His study is posted on environmental services web site.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element: On page 22 of the packet, in policy
1.1.9, which is a new policy, relates to oil extraction and really a processes and uses in
Collier County. This is a major issue that has emerged. The federal and state permitting
requirements, reviews and oversights, that as agencies have on this type of activity is
quite extensive. Therefore rather than have the County habits on regulatory authority
over the uses, we have crafted various policies, not only for the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, you'll see those policy in the future land development as well.
That essentially will allow those processes and to move forward as long as the federal
and state permitting requirements are accepted. The nature of that activity, and again is
such that there is a tremendous amount of oversight in the federal and state agencies. It
seems to me that the language set forth in these policies is acceptable. So far, I have not
heard any negative comments.
William Hughes: in other words, we are going to waive our rights to review oil
development in Collier County?
Bill Lorenz: Yes, as long as they furnish the federal and state permits.
William Hughes: first of all I'm nervous for a couple of reasons. And the reason is that
this is in our home. Not that I'm against oil drilling. I know that we sit on a major United
States resource here in south Florida, in it is a critical resource for national security as
well as our national welfare. However, it is in our home. And as a result of it being in
our home, I think it would behoove the citizens of Collier County at least have the
presented in front of the citizenry of Collier County.
Page 4
May 5, 2004
Judith Hushon: is in concurrence with William Hughes. I have read this in this is
actually a section that I have read lined, because I think it goes too far. Also a lot of the
controls that one might want oil and gas expiration in processing are not here. There are
no limits and without limits and he would not want to just give it away. You have to
choices: you can laminate and say we won't do this. Or you can only do it with all of the
alternatives listed. Or you give it away. This is an attempt to give it away, and I'm not
sure that's a good thing for Collier County.
Bill Lorenz: with regards to the limits, there are many limiting restrictions through the
federal and state permitting process.
Judith Hushon: there are, but not as strict as you might like if you were go to southern
Louisiana, which has a similar high water table, a similar environment to work with.
Bill Lorenz: I know there is a representative here for addressing that issue. As we get
into the speakers, you may be able to ask you more specific questions.
Erica Lynne: so why was this put in? It is a major change. This is a glitch amendment
cycle. So why was this changed? Why was this put in year, it was said this was a major
change, if this is just for the glitches.
Bill Lorenz: I think there were some references the old language that dealt with oil and
the exploration processes, therefore there needed to be some changes within that
language to make certain consistencies. As we were working through that old language,
with the inconsistencies, it emerged into this kind of recommendation. It became easier
to deal with, with regards to adopting or allowing the federal and state permitting
requirements to adopt.
Erica Lynne: This was done basically because it's easier to make the language work?
Bill Lorenz: there were inconsistencies with how the staff would evaluate the
information with regard to an EIS. Would we be looking at preservation requirements or
the whole site, which you can't really identify? Dealing with a variety of different
locations, drilling paths, and again the representative for the companies are here to
discuss some of those details. It became very in difficult to try to craft, those specific
rules and regulations to address what we had already in the plans. Then what would be
the County's role? It was reviewed and then felt that, with regards to this particular type
of activity that federal and state permitting requirements would be acceptable.
Page 5
May 5, 2004
William Hughes: Again, our position is to make government transparent to the people, so
that no one feels there are any delusions or devious behavior going on behind-the-scenes.
One of the steps of that is to bring these issues before this board, as well as the Board of
the County Commissioners for the citizenry of Collier County to see what's going on in
their home.
Bill Lorenz: at the end of the day, the council has the ability to make some
recommendations to the County Commissioners.
William Hughes: I am not against the extraction of oil, just bringing out in the open.
Judith Hushon: I feel this board is probably qualified to help you review the EIS, should
they come out. I think that would be a positive support to you, if you're feeling that your
staff is not able to handle those duties. Some of us here are capable of doing that, and
providing comment back to you so that you would be able to make reasonable comments
back and playa role should you have to. You may not have to.
Bill Lorenz: Within the table on page 24, we just had our equal to and less than located
in the wrong section, so this is just fixing the table. In (4), with regards to the on-site
wetlands, the strike through and some of the other material that you see here, is that when
we were trying to balance the vegetation section, in terms of preservation requirements;
that's a priority, with regards to the local species priorities and then you have the local
wetlands. Obviously, we would like to preserve everything, from a purely environmental
perspective. When he began to try to look at a site, and what would be the priority types
of habitats, we had to set up some priorities up in the initial plans. There were some
inconsistencies or some conflicts that were set up in the language. This language that we
have created here is attempting to reduce those conflicts, so that when staff does review a
project, we have somewhat of a pecking order that we can go to and minimize some of
the conflicts. The changes within policy 6.1.2, in the 80% figure, and you'll see that also
in the 900/0 figure for the total site area; that language has been problematic. We're really
looking in preservation of the vegetation on site and not putting a barren site into a
preserve status, which would be the case if you had said 80% of the total site area. Within
the flue there are certain density blending provisions, which allows the ability to move
densities from out of the urban area into the rural area if there are certain circumstances
that exist.
In policy 6.2.5, the reference to a wrap score, the WRAP, which South Florida Water
Management District wetland rapids assessment procedure for determining functionality
Page 6
May 5, 2004
of wetlands, has been superseded now by the state Uniform Wetlands Mitigation's
Assessment Method. When we were developing the plan, back in the 1999 time frame for
word, the Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment Method was not adopted by the
state. So what we have done with it in this is simply recognize that a .65 wrap score is
equivalent to a .7 Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score. Therefore we
would identify that equivalency within our policies, if an applicant is coming to the
County with a wrap method and has been approved by the state, we'll accept it.
In policy 7.1.2 (3) there are aimed consistencies within the first and second sentences.
The inconsistency deals with basically when we can determine that the technical
assistance is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The way the policy is
currently set up, is that the second sentence says that it is recognized in that the agency
recommendations is on a case-by-case basis and maintains the requirements contained
within the protection policies and any changes deemed consistent with the plan, which is
fine, except that a conflicts with the first sentence phrase. We have set ourselves up for a
conflicts and it is difficult for staff to actually administer that language. We have
presented two options to the Board, this was the option of the Board did give his
recommendation on. The Board gave us direction to come back them with the language
in which case, the net effect of this language is that the County will consider and utilize
the recommendation from the federal and state agencies. We will review those
recommendations, to ensure the recommendations are consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. That review is a consistency review. It is not a scientific and technical
review. We will not be second-guessing the agencies recommendations, in regard to their
scientific findings. We will just simply make sure that they're recommendations are
consistent with other policies in the Growth Management Plan. This fix or glitch will
still have to be evaluated by staff on a case-by-case basis. We recognize that not every
potential habitat will actually contain listed species. However, we don't want to destroy
potential habitats for listed species. We also want to be able to strain the term potential so
that it's not a low probability that a listed species may occupy that particular habitat.
Judith Hushon: You have that language, which is actually the EP A language in (2) and I
would think that you would need that language in (3), that same language that you have
underlined in (2). It doesn't make sense to say that you would have had to have found it
there for us to even consider it. I recommend that you take that language in (2) and move
it to (3) as well.
Bill Lorenz: That is a good thought. We will have to think about it. At the moment, this
language is the language that the Board has directed staff to come back with. This
Page 7
.._-
May 5, 2004
language is also comparable language in the Future Land Use Element that deals with the
rural lands stewardship area.
William Hughes: We already use the Fish and Wildlife and people in areas where
species are listed. We hear their recommendations. So we're extending then to areas of
potential habitats?
Bill Lorenz: That was one of the thoughts that I had when you made that
recommendation, is that obviously when there is wildlife listed species issues that we
know of onsite, we're requesting technical assistance. If there is a listed species concern
that is not on the property itself, but right over the property boundaries, we will solicit
recommendations of technical assistance. In this language here, if we view it from a
habitat prospective and look at it in the language that is prepared above that can be
anticipated to be occupied by the species. At that point, that could expand the number of
incidents when we actually request the technical assistance.
Barbara Burgeson: In the past, we have asked for technical assistance on properties
where in certain cases where we have not had evidence that listed species were utilizing
the property, but there is strong evidence that it is likely that they might be. And the
reason that we requested the technical assistance in some of those cases is because in
discussing some of these properties, you can find that the agency's staff are aware of
listed species on those properties and maybe the consultant has missed it, so the potential
to miss a species if you don't include that is there, it may be small, but its still there. We
have not asked in all cases, only in those cases where we have had some historic
knowledge of the area. We have a strong reason to believe that it may be appropriate to
ask for assistance. Another time that we ask for assistance is Habitat protection as
opposed to listed species protection.
William Hughes: So essentially, we're expanding our resources to guide us.
Barbara Burgeson: In those circumstances we were, yes.
Alfred Gal: How did we get bypassed on the Ave Maria Project?
Bill Lorenz: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) is set up so that there are 2
components of the stewardship sending area program, one is generation of stewardship
credits within the generation of stewardship credits the policy simply requires that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt that resolution establishing those credits, so that
on the generation of credits side, there is no envisioning of any time of that coming to the
Page 8
.._--
May 5, 2004
EAC. On the utilization and of those credits within and SRA (stewardship receiving area)
which Ave Maria has been identified, the only time the EAC gets involved in a review is
if that SRA is contiguous with a conservation land. At that point, the EAC would review
that Project. That is written in the policies of the Growth Management Plan.
William Hughes: to me that the flaw because of the scale of that site, even in spite of
what you have just said, there is an impact overall to the County resources. That is an
area that I think should be corrected in this cycle.
Ken Humiston: agrees with Mr. Hughes comment.
William Hughes: Simply put, if you put that big of a facility in there, there is an effect.
Bill Lorenz: again, this can be a point for recommendation.
Erica Lynne: It is my understanding is that we worked hard on the eastern lands, the
sending and receiving lands, and at that time there were no known plans for that huge
eastern lands area. In factor was discussion on this board about whether this would ever
even happen. Shortly after it was passed, the Ave Maria Project was announced.
Barbara Burgeson: if I could add to that just briefly, I think as I recall, through the
discussions as to why the EAC was excluded from reviewing projects that have less than
the 1.2 ratio or the assessment factor in that the reason that this was not required to go
back in front of the EAC was for listed species type of environmental issues, for wetlands
opposed to water management. For natural resource reasons, the discussions can about
that it might not be necessary to go to the EAC but as far as water management issues,
which have different effect on the overall area, I'm not sure that would be discussed in
general.
Bill Lorenz: the establishment or the basis or the conceptual framework of the eastern
lands was to identify the environmentally sensitive land. That would be all of the
descending lands, flow ways, stewardship areas, habitats, and the water resource areas
which have environmental benefits that were being utilized or permitted for storm water
management activities for the agricultural operations. Those areas were identified in a
broad mapping effort and had high resource values.
William Hughes: I think some of that is an assumption. I have personally requested any
aquifer maps that are here and they don't exist.
Page 9
May 5, 2004
Alfred Gal: On page three and four, under the density planning provisions, yet he is the
term straddle. Do you mean adjacent or is that something different?
Bill Lorenz: It means that part of the property is in the receiving lands and in part of it is
also on neutral lands.
Alfred Gal: Is that term to find anywhere else?
Bill Lorenz: I'm not aware that it is.
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney: I don't believe it is. Straddle is a common
term. If you look into the dictionary, as you would with statutory construction, it has a
coming meaning that if there is a line, something is on both sides of the line. So I don't
know that it would need to be.
Alfred Gal: Is that different then adjacent?
Marjorie Student: yes, it would be different from adjacent, because adjacent would be
next to, this would be next to a line, but straddle would mean existing on both sides of
that line.
Mike Bauer: I have a couple clarifications that I would like addressed. In policy 1.1.9,
when we talk about the Big Cypress watershed, what are the boundaries, we are talking
about?
Bill Lorenz: I believe that is established in the state statute.
Brian McKenzie, Collier resources Company: in the regulatory reference to Big Cypress
watershed, it's essentially all of Collier County, with the exception of one sliver to the
north of Immokalee. One of the concessions, we made in this language was to call in the
Big Cypress Swamp Advisory committee for areas outside Big Cypress. The only part of
Collier County that is not involved is that little sliver north of Immokalee.
Mike Sorrell: on page 22 where it's talking about the oil extraction, on the related
processing and allowable use.... What percentage of the County is oil extraction
allowed?
Brian McKenzie: It's allowed in rural agriculture in, conservation land use designations,
the RFMUD, eastern lands, and the RSLA, essentially. In and in I understand there is
Page 10
May 5, 2004
over 2000 mi.2 of Collier County. Right now, a back of the envelope estimate is that we
have about 75 acres in active production. At the height of the industry here, which
started in 1943, it was less than 300 and, I think about 258 acres, at the biggest time that
we have ever had. Right now it is about 75 acres.
Mike Sorrell: Another question, has Collier resources given up the right to drill oil there?
Brian McKenzie: speaking generally, that is tied up in usual legalities, or the federal
government agrees to something and then doesn't. They have a deal to concede all of the
oil and gas minerals in the Big Cypress Preserve, in exchange for a value. So far that
value is not forthcoming.
William Hughes: How far can you drill?
Brian McKenzie: It always depends on the angle of the direction, but at most probably
about 2500 feet, at least 1500 feet; it's a relatively small area.
William Hughes: How deep is the resource itself?
Brian McKenzie: about 11,000 feet.
Judith Hushon: questioned whether casing was put down the entire depth.
Brian McKenzie: the concerns and Florida is not necessarily the leakage downward, it's a
leakage upward. The deeper you go, the brinier it gets. The casing programs here, the
main casings ran to about 3000 feet, and that's three concentric cases, the smallest one
being about 71/4, it's about halfway between that and 30 inches. Mr. McKenzie did not
want to commit to any numbers. Those are about a quarter inch steel, and between that
you put the pumps down, and you pump concrete up to the top, so that at the end of it
when you get to the rubble zone, a free-flowing river very deep 1000 feet deep, you have
about 28 inches of steel and concrete on the outside of the shaft and the annulus of the
well. It is very well protected. Those rules have been effect since the early seventies.
We haven't had any problems with the new wells.
William Hughes: any high-pressure gas pockets?
Brian McKenzie: none have been discovered. The oil here is about 130 million years
old. That by oil standards is very, very young. We have never discovered downward
pressure.
Page II
May 5, 2004
Public Speaker, Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society: prepared a proposal for
the EAC and distributed it. We very strongly support the BCC directed changes on
CCME policy 7.1.2 subparagraph three. Mr. Cornell would also like to support Ms.
Hushon's suggestion on the additional language. The distributed proposal is a suggestion
for a glitch amendment in the Future Land Use Element, on page 69. Mr. Cornell went
on to describe the proposal. This proposal is attached to the end of the minutes. This
proposal has been forwarded to additional staff, was discussed at length. It was suggested
that if Mr. Cornell would like this considered by the county staff, with this already
forwarded to the staff, there is a May 20,2004 meeting scheduled for the Planning
Commission, the staff would then have some degree of ability to evaluate this analysis
before the Planning Commission meeting.
Public Speaker, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida: We are very pleased
that the Board of County Commissioners has directed staff to move forward in the way
that they have done. We believe that the modifications to 7.1.2 (3) will really go a long
way in clarifying that the County does have the ability to look at the letters of technical
assistance and recommendations from the agencies and to see if those are consistent with
the growth plan and then go from there. We believe that this is a necessary glitch
clarification, but it's also just a first step. Weare very hopeful that the stakeholders
group, which has started to meet and will be meeting from now until the December 3
workshop, is going to come up with some ways at the county can become more involved
in protecting are listed species. So this is a good first step, and we do support it. Also,
what Brad had mentioned, and in Collier Audubon's proposal for trying to get rural
villages to potentially work better or to actually happen, I think that his idea has some
merit, that it needs to be explored some more. Potentially reducing some of the open-
space requirements might be a good way to do this. What we want to make sure of it is
that smart growth is used in the rural fringe areas, and we need villages out there. We
don't need additional urban sprawl. If we can find a way to do that without harming any
other resource values out there, we are deftly supportive of that. The Conservancy has
not gone as far as to support the bonus TDR's. We are not onboard with that. We do
want to work with the community and everyone to try to make sure that the fringe
programs work.
Public Speaker, Douglas Fee, North Bay Civic Association: I would like to echo Nicole
Ryan's comments. I think she put it very well. The North Bay Civic has been very
involved in this process. It's probably been going on for at least a year or a couple years.
We support the change that has been proposed by staff, eliminating the second sentence
in the 7.1.2 (3). There is a stakeholders group that has been meeting. I believe there is
Page 12
May 5, 2004
been three or four meetings, and I believe there are three more. That has involved a great
deal of effort on the part of staff, as well as those that are participating. I think it is a
broadly based group of individuals, respecting each others' opinions. There was a white
paper that was produced, and I just want to read real quick two points. It says here,
Hcompletely expand the county's role to where the county would consider all technical
assistance recommendations, public input on that and its own staffs expertise, to
formulate recommendations that would implement the broader stated purpose of the
listed species policies. This may require the county to develop and adopt specific
standards, for most or all listed species that may be encountered, and evaluating
development proposals." The second bullet points states, "modify the county's current
role, except the recommendations, only a certain criteria are met, for example, the county
could adopt criteria to allow the county to reject agency recommendation. If the
recommendation result in a take every species or habitat, or the county could adopt
criteria that would identify when it would be appropriate to relocate specific individual
animals or mitigate destroyed habitats." I think that's important, as Nicole said, this is one
step, were going to try to change the Growth Management Plan. Weare going to have a
stakeholders group. We have been committed to this process, and hopefully this will go
on for quite some time, because we can develop these policies for the individual species.
Public Speaker, Bruce Anderson, representing private property owners: I would like to
say that I share the County Audubon Society's and Conservancy's concerns about making
the TDR program a success, and rural villages a success. Right now, I think things are
stalled, and I don't mean to throw cold water on the County Audubon Society's proposal
about the 700/0 open-space greenbelt, but I agree with that as well. One of the changes
that you have before you, and the copy that I have is on page 11, deals with changing
some of the language. In regards to the TDR bank that is a possibility in the plan. The
TDR registered at the county maintains, so far has only 25 TDR's listed by property
owners being offered for sale to the program. So it is obviously somewhat stalled. The
TDR bank would allow someone for instance, who wants to purchase 100 TDR's to go to
the county and pay $25,000 a TDR for a total of 2 1/2-million dollars, which the county
can then use that money to supplement Conservation Collier (Land Advisory Committee)
and use that money to buy sending lands that are designated for purchase under the
Conservation Collier program, and make that program even more of a success. I would
ask you to recommend that the county establish a TDR bank to help make the
preservation of sending lands through the TDR program and success. I'm trying to
display a page now, that I believe has formatting errors that has to do with golf courses
on receiving lands, and the requirement to acquire TDR's for those. My proposal there is
to make sure that that the same standard applies to all golf courses in receiving lands. I
think we can do away with paragraph A and renumber B or re-letter B, by striking out
Page 13
May 5, 2004
that phrase. This is on my page 8. The last thing that I wanted to talk to you about was
about policies 7.1.2, the projected habitats, this policies specifically excludes lands that
are in the rural land stewardship area in recognition of the fact that this area has its own
wildlife habitat protection measures, so does the rural fringe area have its own wildlife
habitat protection measures, by designating lands as receiving lands, where development
is encouraged, sending lands, where development is discouraged, and neutral lands,
where development is also discouraged but to a lesser extent than if they were designated
sending lands. I would like to read to you what the Growth Management Plan states
about receiving lands and rural fringe.
Mr. Anderson and went on to read the information listed above, and asked the EAC to
consider excluding receiving lands within the rural fringe from the operation of that extra
layer of county regulation, and just leave them subject to state and federal regulations
which mayor may not come into play, if there is any habitat left on the receiving lands.
Receiving lands now already required to preserve 250/0 of existing native vegetation on
site not to exceed 250/0 of the total site.
Public Speaker, Brian McKenzie, Collier Resources: wanted to go back to the gas and oil
amendments in the CCME, just to clarify a few things into answer some questions they
may have. Primarily, this appears to make the Growth Management Plan consistent with
the Land Development Code. This language that you see is identical to what you see and
be Land Development Code, and adopted as a result of the last couple of processes, with
Land Development Code revisions. The end result of all of this is maintenance of the
status quo. The county is not giving up anything here. As far as land use goes, we still
have the conditional use review procedure. In the reason for trying to memorialize this
status quo is that from since the inception of the Growth Management Plan, every
revision it seems like we go through a rules revision. Oil and gas is left out simply
because most people went over there and secondarily, it's a very different kind of
operation than classic surfaced development is. That is the purpose of this, everything
else stays the same. It simply maintains the status quo, and makes it consistent with the
Land Development Code. As far as transnational oil and gas regulations, I am certainly
an expert on Louisiana or Texas or Oklahoma or California, but I do look at them
periodically in acting to you that historically Florida is one heck of a hard place to get in
oil and gas permit compared to Louisiana, Texas or any of the others. Those other states
are moving their regulations more towards what Florida has; it's getting more stringent
every where.
Williams Hughes: motion to delete policy 1.1.9
Page 14
May 5, 2004
Judith Hushon: seconds the motion.
Marjorie Student: would like a clarification on what the motion is.
It was moved to delete policy 1.1.9.
Williams Hughes: motion to approve document with the deletion of policy 1.1.9.
Judith Hushon: asked Williams Hughes to include in his motion the addition of this
statement, "including the species that can be anticipated to be occupying existing listed
lands. "
Williams Hughes: agrees with the addition, and will include that addition in his motion,
and after further discussion, again amended his motion to also include the language
stated, including the second part and as far as 1.1.9, the EAC would have involvement in
review of oil applications.
Judith Hushon: agrees with the amendments and intense seconds this amended motion
Barbara Burgeson: further clarified if the motion. The way that this language is in place
right now, it would say that in the future a conditional use would come through, there
would be no environmental review attached that. It would be all other related site
development plan review. The way that we review them right now, we do include
environmental reviews, but this would exclude that. I believe that with the Mission at
land, this would keep the process the same as what it is now, but I would have to take a
look at the current code. I don't know if deleting all of this language is appropriate,
because I'm not sure if there is Citations in here for state and federal permitting that we
might not want to keep.
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney: I have a suggestion on rather than try to
craft a specific language to direct a concept to staff so that they can look at it and then
craft some language that expresses your desires.
Williams Hughes: withdraws his motion
Judith Hushon: concurs
Williams Hughes: motion that policy 1.1.9 includes reviews by the EAC, as well as
include the language requested by Judith Hushon. Judith Hushon went on to clarify the
language desired. In policies 7.1.2 to incorporate the new language in section 3 that was
Page 15
........-
May 5, 2004
in section 2, following the word orders. The new line being "is capable of supporting
wildlife that can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species." Mr. Hughes explained
that this would state, "With the EAC's ability to add recommendations."
Barbara Burgeson: asked a clarifying question about the motion at hand. With the above
listed suggestions, would Collier County staff also have their environmental review?
Judith Hushon and Williams Hughes both agreed to this.
Judith Hushon seconds the motion
The motion passed unanimously.
At 11: 10 a.m. in five-minute break was taken. The meeting was called back to order and
11:20 a.m.
B.
Earth Mark Mitigation Bank's presentation.
Matt Fisher, Earth Mark Companies, provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached to
meeting minutes) and discussed the company at great length. Specific properties were
identified and discussed in great detail. This conversation was not available on the
audiotape.
C.
Panther Island Mitigation Bank presentation.
Tim Durrem, Panther Island mitigation Bank, provided a PowerPoint presentation and
discussed the company at great length. Specific properties were identified and discussed
in great detail. This conversation was not available on the audiotape.
VII. Council Members Comments.
There were no items to address at this time.
VIII. Public Comments.
There were no further public comments at this time.
IX.
Adjournment
Page 16
May 5, 2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County of Collier, the
meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:03 p.m.
Environmental Advisory Council
Alfred Gal, Chairman
Page 1 7
.....-....-