Loading...
Policies/Meetings/General Correspondence - Volume 7 PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN Collier County Natural Resources Department May 27 , 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Setting 1 1.2 Purpose 2 1. 3 Objectives 2 2 . 0 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 2 2 . 1 Manatee - Human Interaction 2 2 . 1. 1 Collier County Boating Study and Facility Inventory 2 2 . 1. 2 Boating Use Areas of Collier County 3 2 . 1. 2 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area 3 2 . 1. 2 . 2 Clam Pass Area 5 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Doctors Pass Area 5 2 . 1. 2 . 4 Gordon Pass Area 6 2 . 1. 2 . 5 Hurricane/Little Marco Pass Area7 2 . 1 . 2 . 6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Area 7 2 . 1 . 2 . 7 Caxambas Pass Area 8 2 . 1 . 2 . 8 Ten Thousand Islands 9 2 . 1 . 3 Manatee Protection Programs 10 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 International Protection 10 2 . 1 . 3 . 2 Federal Protection 10 2 . 1 . 3 . 3 State Protection 11 2 . 1. 3 . 4 State Mandated Objectives for County Protection Plans 12 2 . 1. 3 . 5 County Protection 13 2 . 1. 4 Manatee Distribution 14 2 . 1 . 4 . 1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Aerial Sighting Data for Collier County 15 2 . 1. 4 . 2 "Manatee Alert" 16 2 . 1. 4 . 3 Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Sighting Data17 2 . 1 . 4 . 4 Other Sources of Manatee Sighting Information 18 2 . 1. 5 Manatee Mortality and Injury 19 2 . 1. 5. 1 Manatee Mortality in Florida 19 2 . 1 . 5. 2 Known Manatee Mortalities in Collier County 20 2 . 1. 5. 3 Conclusions Based on Mortality Data 22 2 .2 Land Development 22 2 . 2 . 1 Marina and Boat Facility Siting 22 2 . 2 . 1 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area 23 2 . 2 . 1 . 2 Clam Pass Area 24 2 . 2 . 1. 3 Doctors Pass Area 25 2 . 2 . 1. 4 Gordon Pass Area 26 2 . 2 . 1. 5 Hurricane/Little Marco Pass Area28 2 . 2 . 1. 6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Area 29 2 . 2 . 1. 7 Caxambas Pass Area 31 2 . 2 . 1. 8 Ten Thousand Islands 32 2 . 2 . 2 Analysis of Existing Marina Usage 34 -i- 2. 3 Water Quality and Aquatic Vegetation 34 2 . 3 . 1 Water Quality Concerns 34 2 . 3 . 2 Freshwater Sources 35 2 . 3 . 3 Aquatic Plant Control Activities 35 2. 4 Habitat Protection 36 2 . 4 . 1 General Considerations 36 2 . 4 . 2 Collier County Land Development Code 37 3. 0 MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN 38 3. 1 Boating Considerations 38 3 . 1. 1 Site Specific Recommendations 38 3 . 1. 1. 1 Wiggins Pass Area 39 3 . 1. 1.2 The Clam Bays 39 3 . 1. 1. 3 Inland Waterway 47 3 . 1 . 1. 4 Marco River 48 3 . 1 . 1. 5 Port of the Islands/Faka-Union Canal 48 3 . 1. 1. 6 Chokoloskee Bay/Barron River 49 3.2 Marina Siting 50 3 . 2 . 1 Collier County Land Development Code 50 3 . 2 . 1. 1 Recommended Additions to the Land Development Code 50 3 . 2 . 2 Site Specific Recommendations 52 3 . 2 . 2 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area 52 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 The Clam Bays 52 3 . 2 . 2 . 3 Collier Bay 52 3 . 2 . 2 . 4 Port of the Islands 53 3 . 2 . 3 Marina Siting Criteria 53 3 . 2 . 3 . 1 Ranking Criteria 59 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 Implementation 60 3. 3 Education, Research, and Awareness 62 3 . 3 . 1 Education 62 3 . 3 . 2 Public Awareness 62 3 . 3 . 3 Research 63 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 63 4. 1 Boat Speed Regulation 63 4 .2 Habitat Protection 63 4 . 3 Shoreline Development 64 4 . 4 Education and Public Awareness 65 4 . 5 Research 65 4 . 6 Port of the Islands 66 REFERENCES 66 TABLES ii FIGURES iii TABLES Table 2-1 Manatee Mortality in Collier County 20 Table 2-2 Wiggins Pass Boating Facilities 23 Table 2-3 Clam Pass Boating Facilities 25 Table 2-4 Doctors Pass Boating Facilities 26 Table 2-5 Gordon Pass Boating Facilities 27 -ii- Table 2-6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Boating Facilities 30 Table 2-7 Caxambas Pass Boating Facilities 31 Table 2-8 Ten Thousand Islands Boating Facilities 32 Table 3-1 Marina Siting Criteria & Allowable Wet Slip Densities 59 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Collier County Marine Resources Location Map4 Figure 3-1 Speed Zones - Wiggins Pass Area 40 Figure 3-2 Speed Zones - The Clam Bays 41 Figure 3-3 Speed Zones - Inland Waterway 42 Figure 3-4 Speed Zones - Capri Pass & Marco River 43 Figure 3-5 Speed Zones - Caxambas Bay & Goodland Bay 44 Figure 3-6 Speed Zones - Faka-Union Canal & Port of the Islands 45 Figure 3-7 Speed Zones - Barron River & Chokoloskee Bay46 Figure 3-8 State and Federal Parks and Preserves 51 Figure 3-9 Marina Siting Criteria - Wiggins Pass Area 54 Figure 3-10 Marina Siting Criteria - Clam Pass & Doctors Pass 55 Figure 3-11 Marina Siting Criteria - Gordon Pass Area 56 Figure 3-12 Marina Siting Criteria - Marco Island & Goodland 57 Figure 3-13 Marina Siting Criteria - Everglades City & Chokoloskee Island58 Figure 3-14 Marina Siting Criteria - Composite 61 -iii- 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Setting The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is one of four living species of large herbivorous aquatic mammals of the Order Sirenia. The animals are characterized by having thick skin, sparse body hair, paddle-shaped forelimbs, horizontally flattened tails, and no hindlimbs. The average adult is nine to eleven and a half feet long. Manatees are slow moving, but capable of swimming rapidly over short distances. The southeastern U.S. population, known as the Florida manatee, is a distinct subspecies, latirostris, which may be reproductively, as well as geographically, isolated from the remainder of the species range (USFWS, 1989) . Due to severe overexploitation and lack of sufficient regulation, the manatee is extinct over much of its historic range. The reproductive potential of the species is relatively low. Cows usually copulate with several bulls during a brief receptivity period. Gestation lasts for 365 to 400 days, and three to five years is the normal calving interval. There is usually one calf per birth, but instances of twins and foster parenthood have been recorded. Calving may occur throughout the year. Newborns are approximately one meter in length, and weigh about 30 kg. Nursing may continue for 1-2 years, but grazing may begin within a few weeks after birth. Females do not reach sexual maturity until they are 7-8 years of age; for males, the age is typically 9-10 years (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989) . The West Indian manatee is listed as an endangered species by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) . The historic range of the species is from northern Brazil, up to Mexico and the southeastern U. S. (Florida and Georgia) , and through the Caribbean, in shallow coastal and inland waterbodies. The U. S. population, the Florida manatee, centered along Florida's coastline, is among the last viable population of this species in the world. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, with regard to population. It has been shown that as population increases in this county, there is a proportional increase in boat registrations. A ratio of one registered boat per eleven people exists in the county. Boating related accidents are a major cause of manatee mortality. Furthermore, much of the resultant development from the increasing population is occurring in the coastal zone, which may affect manatee habitat. -1- Shoreline develoj,..,znt brings with it a concu—ent increase in boat traffic to the area. According to the Marine Mammal Commission's 1988 report, "the principal threat to manatee habitat. . . is increasing levels of boat traffic in essential travel corridors and at feeding areas, resting areas, warm-water refuges, and fresh water sources. Increased levels of boating traffic are a threat to manatee habitat because they increase the probability that manatees will be killed or injured by collisions with boats and because they disrupt normal behavior patterns. While this is not a threat in the usual sense, if so altering an area that it no longer meets a species' needs, the hazards created by high speed boat traffic in areas preferred by manatees clearly reduce its suitability for the species. " 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this plan is to provide County-wide protection for the West Indian manatee. To effectively provide manatee protection, this plan contains criteria for marina and boat facility siting, shoreline and submerged land development, manatee - human interaction, habitat protection, educational programs, law enforcement, and intergovernment coordination. 1. 3 Objectives Mandated objectives for county manatee protection plans by the FDEP include reducing the number of boat-related manatee mortalities, achieving an optimal sustainable manatee population, protecting manatee habitat, promoting boating safety, and increasing public awareness of the need to protect manatees and their environment (State of Florida DNR, 1989c) . 2 . 0 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 2 . 1 Manatee - Human Interaction 2 . 1 . 1 Collier Count Boatin. Stud and Facility Inventory The Collier County Natural Resources Department completed a year long boating survey which included a boat facility inventory, shoreline survey and mail out survey. Interviews were also conducted at boat ramps at six times during the year. Information gathered from this survey is used throughout this report. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed out to Collier County registered boat owners. This represents a sample size of 11% of the total 13614 boat owners. Of the 1500 surveys sent out 572 -2- were returned, a response rate of 38%, or 4% of the total boater population. To the question: Do you support site-specific boating speed limits to: A. improve boating safety? B. protect manatees and other marine life? 75% responded yes to part A and 77% said yes to part B. These figures indicate that the majority of boaters in Collier County would support site-specific boat speeds. 2 . 1. 2 Boating Use Areas of Collier County Boating facilities and land uses that may affect the Florida manatee in Collier County are described below. These are divided into sections determined by the pass or inlet with which they are associated. The information from this chapter was largely taken from the Coastal Zone Management Plan (Collier County Natural Resources Department, 1991) and the Boating Study and Facility Survey (Collier County Natural Resources Department, 1994) . Figure 2-1: Collier County Marine Resources Location Map, indicates the locations of public and private marinas and public boat ramps in the county, Appendix A contains information on popular boating destinations. Boat speeds in most coastal areas in Collier County are restricted to 20 MPH. One of the purposes of regulating the speed and operation of motor boats within Collier County is to provide protection for the Florida manatee (State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1990a) . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area Wiggins Pass is an extremely dynamic inlet system with constantly changing channel and sandbar configurations. Wiggins Pass and its associated shorelines, back bays, wetlands, and upland habitats form a valuable resource system for Collier County. The Pass and connecting waterways provide access to the Gulf for recreational and commercial boaters. The natural back bay and upland habitats are ecologically important systems which harbor an abundance of wildlife, including many commercially valuable and protected species. The pass drains a portion of Little Hickory Bay, Wiggins Bay, and associated estuaries. Connection exists between Little Hickory Bay and Estero Bay to the north in Lee County. Wiggins Pass also drains the Cocohatchee River and its tributaries to the east, and Water Turkey Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon to the south. -3- .4 0., 3 +., C v -a d L U .0 +' d d -Y 3 .CZ >- +' c t. d 4-, 0 d C XI E t o 0 C d L c U c � m x .Y 715d .CCLCbL L d d C C C U > a d X .Y L C >- d a C Cu O U d s d o CY 00 C -S--- X >, UOXdy UCo A +' dfWOCLyad dA E +' c -' L. L L d >,-6 C Ow kriZ X W N c a, d d o LJ C v L y +, 5 S d .a te U L a_ Q U Cn C Qx +, C 0 U >- f p 4 L +1 0 CV Z. OCtai03000d0L 3000ddddda0 - 0L ~, N �hcocr, o NV) .4. 0vDr� COCro ..... NC'1Nt0 'Oh •• .-4 ..... ., .-, .-. NNNNNNCUNNCU0101V) 0) 0) 0101VI L liar • ., o , 11 N L d aea Co � t :... N4 C O co • '-.. SCC Cit 0 as ,4 ClaC. d dXFS? 3e - N N �:' .., W coz dx 3dO ® .� _ ib: •aL >, CSL � U4 � � � Cly m0., m - - d > C ~ � > +' d F74-.• • �, �. 13 62 >, CIcGU � 3 LI N >.4. N •, c ,� . C L 0C COd0 •-r r► Z d00 �C +' da0o8 6 ci, .► (Ai (/ O L U O - U -= L 13 C10 d 0 0 i�,,i-� Q 6d d C _ Or "" d 0 dt XU_ OiL ) rc oua. dv ����: o lit v Nr,d0ti.1 Li u. . _,,,,.. . __ <0 '� '�i' �` IJ tiir_.fflig" -4. 7. it :_. 0 :i ITa ' •. '— r{ o. NNS u Cu Figure 2-1 Collier County Marine Resources Location Map -4- The Wiggins Pass area serves much of the North Naples boating public. The most popular boating activities listed from this area are recreational fishing and cruising. When the Gulf is calm most fishing activity takes place offshore. Wiggins Pass also provides the nearest Collier County access to some of the best tarpon fishing in the world during the Spring. Backwater fishing is also very popular in this area . Many fishermen prefer the calm predictable backbays to the rather unpredictable offshore waters. Several small mangrove lined bays exist between Wiggins Bay and Little Hickory Bay where several types of game fish are sought. The Channel from Wiggins Bay to Little Hickory Bay is shallow and unmarked. It winds through mangroves and oyster bars and offers the cruiser many bird watching and sightseeing opportunities. Little Hickory Bay connects to Estero Bay to the north. Estero Bay is listed as an Outstanding Florida Water body and offers many sight seeing opportunities as well as access to the Intracoastal Waterway. 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 Clam Pass Area Clam Pass is a natural unimproved inlet that connects the Gulf of Mexico to a number of small lagoons and creeks that are aligned approximately parallel to the shoreline. Boating activity in this area is limited due to the ephemeral nature of the pass, and the shallow waters of the bay system, however, canoeing is very popular. 2 . 1 . 2 . 3 Doctors Pass Area Doctors Pass provides a major ingress and egress to the Gulf of Mexico for residents and visitors of the Moorings and Parkshore Subdivisions. Doctors Pass is an example of a typical man-altered inlet, located between the Park Shore and Naples Headland beach management segments within the City of Naples. Doctors Pass and its associated back bay system has been totally altered by development, and as such, is considered to be an artificial waterbody. Inner and Outer Doctors Bays are classified as Class II waters (Appropriate for Shellfish Harvesting) by the FDEP (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-302) . Boating activity in this area primarily takes place in the Gulf of Mexico. Doctors Pass is situated approximately five miles north of Gordon Pass and 18 miles north of Capri Pass both of which are popular cruising destinations. Offshore fishing is the most popular boating activity. -5- 2 . 1 . 2 . 4 Gordon Pass Area Gordon Pass is one of the most active passes on the southwest Florida coast. It offers the major ingress and egress to the Gulf of Mexico for residents and tourists of the City of Naples and Collier County. Naples Bay, Dollar Bay and the Gordon River provide water-oriented recreation and commercial opportunities to local residents and tourists. These areas are not officially part of the Intracoastal Waterway, although termed as such. They are actually part of a local inland waterway, providing a protected passage from Naples to Goodland. Historic shorelines of Naples Bay and the Gordon River were dominated by mature mangrove forests, while submerged seagrass beds and oyster bars were the dominant benthic communities. In the early 1960's extensive dredge and fill operations were undertaken to create a greater amount of waterfront property out of open water and wetlands. Most of the coastal area south of Gordon Pass is encompassed in state-designated Aquatic Preserves. Waters and wetlands within these Aquatic Preserves are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve boundaries run from Gordon Pass to south of Cape Romano Island, while excluding Marco Island. Cruising is one of the most popular boating activities in the Gordon Pass area. The canals of Port Royal or cruising to several restaurants on Marco Island are the most favored destinations. There are currently four marinas in Naples Bay that offer 38 boats for rent and many tourists utilize them. Other popular destinations are Keewaydin Island and Hurricane Pass. Recreational fishing, both offshore and backwater, is the favorite boating activity. The City of Naples Boat Traffic Study (Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates , Inc. , and Mote Marine Laboratory, 1989) , determined the present level of service (LOS) for Naples Bay and Dollar Bay; both bays are placed in LOS category "C" . Category "C" is determined to be the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual boats becomes significantly affected by interactions with other boats in the bay system. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of other boats and maneuvering requires substantial vigilance on the part of the boater. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level (Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc. , 1989) . Having already arrived at this decline in the level of service in the Gordon Pass area, continued allowance of both public and private marinas will continue to lower the level of weekend and seasonal boating pleasure and safety. -6- 2 . 1 . 2 . 5 Hurricane/Little Marco Pass Area Hurricane and Little Marco Passes are located between the southern ends of Keewaydin and Little Marco Islands and the northern section of Cannon Island. The two passes can be considered as one pass "complex" due to their proximity and drainage characteristics. Little Marco Pass is the inlet that leads from the channel between Little Marco Island and Keewaydin Island to the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Pass is the larger of the two passes and leads from the channel between Little Marco Island and Cannon Island to the Gulf. The pass complex lies approximately 7 . 9 miles to the south of Gordon Pass and 1 . . 6 miles to the north of Capri Pass. Hurricane and Little Marco Passes drain the inland waters of South Dollar Bay, Rookery Bay, Henderson Creek, and portions of Johnson Bay and all the associated tributaries, drainage canals, and embayments. These waterbodies, with the exception of the Henderson Creek Canal, the Lely Canal, and the headwaters of Henderson Creek, are within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve boundaries. The waters within the Preserve boundaries have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) . The entire system can be thought of as the Rookery Bay ecosystem, encompassing approximately 43 , 000 acres of land and water between the City of Naples and Marco Island. Hurricane Pass and Little Marco Pass provide ingress and egress to the Gulf of Mexico for many recreational and commercial boaters in Collier County. This region is one of the most utilized and popular recreational areas for boaters, skiers, and fishermen. The waters between Keewaydin Island and Little Marco Island from the north end of Little Marco Island to the Gulf of Mexico, and the waters between Little Marco Island and Cannon Island to the Gulf of Mexico have been designated as boating recreation/water sports areas. This designation allows boat speeds of up to 35 miles per hour for recreational activities such as water skiing. Rookery Bay, Johnson Bay and several smaller bays and creeks are favored fishing areas for both commercial and recreational fishermen. These shallow backwaters are home to several species of commercially valuable fish as well as much sought after game fish. 2 . 1 . 2 . 6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Area Big Marco Pass and Capri Pass are located south of Little Marco and Cannon Islands and north of Marco Island. Coconut Island separates the two passes. However, because of its small size and the negligible distance between it and the other passes, this area will be treated as one pass complex. The passes are tide-dominated inlets, and have a large ebb tidal delta; this delta causes frequent shoaling. Prior to 1973 when a storm -7- breached Coconut Island forming Capri Pass, Big Marco Pass was the main navigational channel leading to the Marco River and was the southern limit of the federal navigational channel from Naples. The drainage basins emptying into Capri and Big Marco Passes roughly encompass lands between Henderson Creek to the north, U. S. 41 to the northeast, and S.R. 951 and S.R. 92 to the east. Waterbodies within the basin include Johnson Bay, Mcllvane Bay, Tarpon Bay, Unknown Bay, Addison Bay, Bear Point Cove, Three Island Cove, Big Marco River, Sanctuary Sound, Collier Bay, the residential bays and canals of Isles of Capri and north Marco Island. Boating traffic in this area is heavy particularly on weekends and during "season" when the many winter residents are present. Recreational fishing is the most popular boating activity with cruising listed as a close second. Restaurants on Marco, Isles of Capri and Goodland are popular cruising destinations. Boaters have a choice of entering the Gulf through the Passes, heading north towards Naples via the Inland Waterway or south along the Marco River to Goodland and the Ten Thousand Islands. The passes and inland waters in this area are frequently used by Florida manatees for feeding and resting activities. For this reason, as well as for boater safety purposes, the canals of Marco Island and Isles of Capri , and the eastern and northern shores of Marco Island, have been designated as idle speed zones. The waters of Big Marco Pass, from the eastern end of Johnson Bay to the pass opening, have also been approved as idle speed zones by the Board of County Commissioners on October 9 , 1990. 2 . 1 . 2 .7 Caxambas Pass Area Caxambas Pass is bound by Marco Island to the north, and Kice Island to the south. It drains several shallow natural waterbodies including Caxambas Bay, Barfield Bay, Grassy Bay, Little Grassy Bay, Blue Hill Creek, and Blue Hill Bay. It also drains the man-made residential canals of Marco Island, and the altered waterbodies of Roberts Bay and STokehouse Creek. Caxambas Pass itself is not marked, although it is a commonly used navigational channel. Several markers exist to the east, in Caxambas Bay, to mark shoal areas. The waters of the south half of the pass, and all waters of its drainage basin outside of Marco Island, are within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve boundaries, and are designated as Class II , and as Outstanding Florida Waters of the State. Recreational fishing is the most popular boating activity in this area. When the waters of the Gulf are too rough for passage through the Pass, boaters have the option of several natural channels to the more sheltered waters of Gullivan Bay and the Ten -8- Thousand Islands. The many grass flats that occur in the area are noted for sea trout and other popular game fish. The pass and inland waters in this area are heavily used by Florida manatees for feeding and resting activities. For this reason, as well as for boater safety purposes, Roberts Bay, Smokehouse Creek, and the canals of Marco Island have all been designated as idle speed zones. The northern half of Caxambas Bay from Red Marker "4" , east and north to the northeast corner of David Key, has also been designated as an idle speed zone. 2 . 1 . 2 . 8 Ten Thousand Islands: The Ten Thousand Island system consists of myriad mangrove islands, oyster bars and sand spits interspersed with numerous tidal creeks and passes. The area is part of the largest mangrove system in the western hemisphere, with black and white mangroves forming dense forests landward of the fringing red mangroves. Marco Island and Goodland are located at the northwest and northeast ends of the Ten Thousand Islands, respectively, Everglades City and Chokoloskee, at the south end, and Port of the Islands located approximately in the middle. The majority of the area is protected in State or Federal preserves. The Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve, the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park encompass almost the entire coastal area to the south county line. Fishing is the major recreational activity throughout the Ten Thousand Islands. Charter boats and fishing guides are abundant in the Goodland area, and Port of the Islands also has charter boats for fishing in the Ten Thousand Islands. Everglades City and Chokoloskee support the majority of the Commercial fishing industry in the County, but recreational and charter fishing are also major boating activities. Commercial fishing is of prime importance. Very large catches of mullet, bluefish, red drum, grouper, king mackerel, sea trout, Spanish mackerel , red snapper, and pompano are common. Sport fishing opportunities are abundant as well , as the area supports rich populations of snook, tarpon, and mangrove snapper. Sport fishermen also utilize the natural populations of redfish, pompano, sea trout, sheepshead, and mackerel . Clams, oysters, and conch contributed to a rich fisheries industry in the past, but overharvesting depleted these resources. Stone crabs are commercially taken in large numbers. Eco-tourism is a growing industry in the Ten Thousand Islands. The natural beauty of this area is being enjoyed by people from all over the world. Tour boat operations are proliferating in the area surrounding Everglades National Park to exploit this industry. The Park System also operates a number of sight-seeing -9- boats through the islands. Animal species often sighted include bald eagles, ospreys, bottlenose dolphin and manatees. 2 . 1. 3 Manatee Protection Programs 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 International Protection Regulation dealing with manatee protection outside of the U. S. is minimal . Manatees are now rare or extinct in areas outside the U. S. due mainly to human exploitation. They have been hunted for meat and other products, and overexploited for hundreds of years. Many of the governments within the manatee's natural range are experiencing severe social, economic, and political problems, making effectual manatee protection impractical . Regulations generally do exist that prohibit exploitation, but enforcement isn't strong. To prevent extinction of this species, protection efforts must come from within the United States (Marine Mammal Commission, 1988) . 2 . 1 . 3 . 2 Federal Protection The USFWS of the U. S . Department of the Interior, protects manatees under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 . These laws prohibit the harassment, hunting, capture, or killing of manatees. Harassment is defined as " . . . an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering" (USFWS, 1989) . The Endangered Species Act defines sanctuaries, refuges, and critical habitats . "Sanctuaries" are inviolate areas where human activities are completely prohibited so that manatees can breed, nurse, and rest without human disturbance. "Refuges" are areas where human presence is allowed, but activities deemed to cause disturbance or harassment to manatees are restricted. These areas require regulation of development and other human activities for manatee protection. The USFWS designated critical habitat areas in the 1970' s, before much of the current knowledge about manatee protection was available. Since that time, it was found that there are many more areas that should be so designated. Most of coastal Collier County is presently designated as critical manatee habitat (from the midpoint of Gordon Pass south to the Collier/Monroe county line) . The position of the USFWS is that it is preferable to consider essential manatee habitat areas when regulating activities deemed harmful to the conservation of manatees. Essential habitat is broadly defined as any land or water area which contains elements necessary to the survival and recovery of the Florida manatee from its current endangered status, and which may require special management and protection measures. All of coastal Collier -10- County is within essential manatee habitat (Turner, 1991) . One of the major objectives of the USFWS Florida Manatee Recovery Plan of 1989 is to "minimize alteration, degradation, or destruction of habitat used by manatees and monitor its status. " The plan recommends the following activities: 1 . Identify habitats of special biological significance to manatees. 2 . Characterize habitats of special biological significance to manatees. 3 . Identify and evaluate potential hazards to manatee habitats. 4 . Identify and protect essential habitats. 5. Monitor status of essential habitats. 6. Inform and educate public. 7 . Establish additional State/Federal regulations as needs are identified. 8 . Enforce regulations. 9 . Evaluate effectiveness of education programs, regulations, and enforcement. 2 . 1 . 3 . 3 State Protection The Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, Subsection 370 . 12 (2) , Florida Statutes, provides manatee protection by declaring the State of Florida a "refuge and sanctuary for the manatee, the ' Florida state marine mammal" . State responsibilities for manatee protection fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the FGFWFC. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida made several recommendations in their October 24 , 1989 action for increasing boating safety and manatee protection. A state-wide maximum boating daytime speed limit of 35 MPH within marked navigation channels, 20 MPH nighttime speed limit for all waters, mandatory vessel operator licensing, "in rem" enforcement, maximum horsepower/load restrictions, D.U. I . repeat offender provisions, mandatory boating safety education, formation of a boating education unit, and added Florida Marine Patrol Officers and support staff were all approved in this action, which was to amend Chapter 327 , Florida Statutes, "Vessels: Registration and Safety" . Conceptual approval was given to the FDNR (FDEP) in 1989 to proceed with legislative proposals for amendments to the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, to increase protection for habitat, to protect manatees from harmful acts, and to authorize local governments to protect manatees through local ordinances (State of Florida Governor and Cabinet, 1989) . The adoption of a boating facility expansion policy for the 13 key manatee counties, including Collier County, has been approved. This policy involves the limitation of construction for new or expanded boating facilities to one powerboat slip per 100 feet of shoreline until an approved manatee protection plan and siting -11- policy has been implemented by local governments. The Governor and Cabinet directed the FDNR (FDEP) to present recommendations for priority acquisition of critical manatee use areas under the CARL program and to strengthen aquatic preserve management plans for seagrass bed protection. The FDNR (FDEP) , in their 1989 Manatee Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule, list themselves as the lead agency, with participants to include the FGFWFC, Oceanaria, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, regional planning councils, and local governments. The plan outlines the following criteria: 1. Maintain and improve reporting systems for dead/injured manatees . 2 . Establish and expand a network of manatee reserves and protected areas connecting travel corridors. 3 . Protect and maintain the integrity of coastal ecosystems. 4 . Develop manatee protection plans ( local government as lead agency) . 5 . Evaluate current and future enforcement regulations and develop programs including workshops/training sessions. 6. Standardize fines and improve and educate judiciary system. 2 . 1 . 3 . 4 State Mandated Objectives for County Protection Plans Mandated objectives for county manatee protection plans by the FDEP include reducing the number of boat-related manatee mortalities, achieving an optimal sustainable manatee population, protecting manatee habitat, promoting boating safety, and increasing public awareness of the need to protect manatees and their environment (State of Florida DNR, 1989c) . The framework for the County' s Manatee Protection Plan, as recommended by the FDEP, is required to include boat facility siting and regulation criteria, boating regulations, manatee research, habitat management, and education, and implementation strategies. An information base should include details such as the locations and capacities of all marina and port facilities and boat ramps, boating activity patterns, manatee sighting and mortality information, special waters information (i . e. , Aquatic Preserve, Outstanding Florida Waters, etc. ) , locations of significant manatee habitat resources, protection areas, and safety zones, locations of manatee information displays, and other relevant data . A recommendations section should include boating expansion criteria; identification of boating recreation areas where higher boat speeds should be permitted, a plan for marking navigational channels in currently unmarked waterways used by manatees, designation of speed zone, refuge, and sanctuary areas, -12- installation of manatee educational displays, development and circulation of educational pamphlets to boaters, inclusion of manatee and marine habitat education programs in the County's school system curricula, development of appropriate aquatic plant control methods in manatee areas, identification of land acquisition projects to increase sanctuary areas for manatees, and other actions as specified by the FDEP (State of Florida DNR, 1989c) . 2 . 1. 3 . 5 County Protection On October 24 , 1989 , the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida approved a proposal allowing the FDEP to implement interim manatee protection plans in 13 key manatee counties, including Collier County. On December 19 , 1989 , the Collier County Board of County Commissioners elected to limit boat speeds to 30 MPH in all officially marked navigation channels, and 20 MPH in all other County waters, with site specific modifications. A 300' wide shoreline buffer slow-speed zone, not including marked navigational channels, was also designated (Resolution No. 89-416) . These modifications include a boating speed limit of 30 and 35 MPH in the Dollar Bay and Hurricane Pass areas, respectively, which were designated as recreation areas for sport boating, water skiing, or similar activities that require boat speeds greater than the County-wide speed limit. A further modification was the implementation of an idle speed zone in the portion of Caxambas Bay located between the southern shore of Marco Island and the central shoal area of the bay and its designation as a manatee protection area . Previously designated idle speed zones include the Port of the Islands area and all "residential east-west canals and north-south canals to the southerly extent of the intersecting east-west canals which lie southerly of the centerline of U. S. Highway 41" (Florida Statutes 370. 12 (2) (f) 11 . ) , Gulf of Mexico waters within 500' of sandy and/or bathing beaches (Ordinance 89-11) , portions of Caxambas Waterway, Goodland, Isles of Capri , Rock Creek, Vanderbilt Waterway, Gulf Harbor, and the Marco River (Resolution Nos. 79-165, 86-1, and 86-11) , Vanderbilt Lagoon (Resolution No. 85-146) , and the portion of Henderson Creek east of S.R. 951 (Resolution No. 81-199) . The conditions in the resolution were adopted by state law in an amendment to Rule Number 16N-22 . 023 on June 26, 1990 and became effective in August, 1990. This resolution was passed with the understanding that the major cause of known human-related manatee mortality is boat/barge collision, that the boat speed restrictions are temporary measures to reduce such collisions, and that a more comprehensive protection plan will be formulated at the County level. Goal 7 of the County's Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) states that "the County shall protect and conserve -13- its fisheries and wildlife" , and includes several policies relating specifically to manatee protection. Objective 6. 2 in the CCME states that "there shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands" , which includes critical manatee habitat areas. The CCME objective addressing manatee protection (Objective 7 . 2) states that "by January 1, 1990, West Indian Manatee deaths shall not exceed the five year average of 1983 through 1987 of eleven deaths. " This objective was not met by the given date; on the contrary, manatee deaths in Collier County amounted to 19 in 1989 , 13 in 1990, 14 in 1991 and an all time high of 20 in 1992 . Reasons for this may include an increase in boater activity in manatee areas, a failure to have a viable manatee protection plan in place, and an insufficient amount of public awareness regarding manatee protection. It is hoped that with the implementation of this plan, human-related manatee deaths will decrease in Collier County. Presently, Collier County Project Review Services requires the following stipulations for all commercial and multi-family development orders related to boat docks and marinas in critical manatee habitat: 1 . Instruction to all personnel associated with construction of the facility concerning the presence of manatees, the existence of manatee protection laws and penalties, and the necessity to report any collisions with manatees. 2 . All vessels associated with the project shall operate in deep water wherever possible, and where not possible, shall operate at idle speed where the draft of the vessel provides less than a three foot clearance from the substrata. 3 . At least one manatee awareness sign shall be installed in a prominent location within the facility. 4 . A permanent manatee educational display shall be installed and maintained at a prominent location at the facility. 5. Educational literature on the manatee and its habitat shall be distributed to the users of the facility. 6 . Turbidity screens used during construction will not endanger manatees. 7 . The manatee protection plan shall be reviewed by the FDNR prior to county final site plan approval and/or issuance of building permits (Prynoski, 1990) . 2 . 1. 4 Manatee Distribution -14- Manatees are common year-round residents in Collier County. To investigate local populations of manatees, available sighting data were analyzed. Sighting data were obtained from three major sources: FDEP's aerial sighting data for Collier County (Frohlich, 1989 ; Nabor and Frohlich, 1991) ; "Manatee Alert" sighting data for Collier County (Scheneman, 1990-91) ; and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve's sighting data for the Rookery Bay area (Bertone, 1990) . Other sources of information regarding manatee sightings in Collier County are also given. See Appendix B for information on the DEP Manatee Distribution Map. 2 . 1. 4 . 1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) aerial sighting data for Collier County This information was taken from draft reports by Frohlich (1989) , and Nabor and Frohlich (1991) released to assist Collier County in the preparation of an interim manatee protection plan. This type of survey, used in southwestern Florida since 1973 , is considered the best available method for the collection of data on trends in relative abundances and distributions of manatees. Six general areas were chosen for these surveys, taking into account present and possible future conflict between manatee and human activities: Port of the Islands area, Naples Bay and surrounding waters, Everglades City area, Ochopee, the area near the Collier/Lee County line, and the Marco Island area. Each of these study sites was divided into 2-10 zones. Aerial surveys were conducted bimonthly (this varied in a few instances) , for a period of 1-3 years, depending on the study area. These surveys still continue (Frohlich, 1991) . A total of 3 , 207 manatee sightings was recorded in Collier County over the 1986-89 period, 64% of those (2 , 060) occurring at Port of the Islands, and 26% (837) in the Marco Island area. For any month at any study area , the highest mean number of manatees per survey was in the Marco Island area (36. 4) , followed by Port of the Islands (28 . 6) , the Naples area (6 . 7) , Everglades City (2 . 6) , Ochopee (2 . 3) , and the Lee/Collier border ( 1. 3) . At Port of the Islands, sightings occurred year-round. The mean number of manatees per survey was highest during January and March , with values of 50. 5 and 45. 3 , respectively. Lowest values (15 - 16 . 7 mean manatees/survey) occurred during the months of July, August, and October) . The number of manatees seen in the Port of the Islands area increased over the 3 year period surveyed: 544 in 1988 , 714 in 1989 , and 802 in 1990 . Manatees congregate in this area year-round, attracted to the fresh water that spills over the weir at the northern end of the Faka Union Canal (where it drains the Golden Gate system) . This area also may provide relatively warmer water during periods of cold weather. The basin is designated as an idle speed zone, and the Faka Union Canal a caution zone, both year-round, to minimize -15- the number of boat/manatee collisions (Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, F. S. 370. 12) . The Faka Union Canal may also be designated an idle speed zone by the Florida Marine Patrol , if they deem it necessary. In the Marco Island area, sightings also occurred year-round. The mean number of manatees per survey was highest during May (67 . 0) , with mean values of 19-45 found during all other months, with the exception of December (8 . 0) . Manatees were more abundant in the Marco Island area during warmer months (summer, spring, and fall) , and low in abundance during winter. This trend is opposite that of the Port of the Islands, in which manatee abundances are highest during the winter. These data concur with typical manatee congregation and dispersal patterns over the year. In addition, the highest percentage of females with calves was recorded during February, November, and December, with January being much lower. This may indicate trends in movement to and from refuge areas (e.g. , Port of the Islands) (Nabor and Frohlich, 1991) . Within the Marco Island area, calves were most abundant in waterbodies including the Big Marco River, Tarpon Bay, and Caxambas Bay. Manatees were present nearly year-round at the other aerial survey sites, with no distinct patterns of abundance. Although much of the County's manatee habitat was not included in these aerial surveys, these data generally reflected a county-wide dispersion pattern of manatees throughout the year, with convergence into refuge areas (e.g. , Port of the Islands) during cold weather. 2 . 1. 4 . 2 "Manatee Alert" The Collier County Natural Resources Department established a database for the "Manatee Alert" sightings from April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. "Manatee Alert" was published each day in the Naples Daily News and reported manatee sightings phoned into a toll free number. Unfortunately this feature no longer appears in the paper. The purpose of the database was to gain some indication of frequency of contact between manatees and humans. For the creation of this database, the Collier County coastline was divided into 9 major units, each of which was divided into 2-13 subunits. This format enabled manatee sightings in specific areas of each unit to be recorded. Approximately 2 , 000 sightings were reported in Collier County from April 1, 1990 to March 31 , 1991 . Manatees were seen throughout the County, the boundaries extending from just north of Wiggins Pass, down through the Ten Thousand Islands, to northern Everglades National Park. Sightings were reported in the inshore Gulf waters and passes, as well as in the inland waterways, back bays, and tributaries. Most manatee sightings were reported in populated areas and areas frequented by -16- boaters/fishermen, as opposed to areas of low human habitation (e.g. , the Ten Thousand Islands area) . This trend may be due to the nature of the data collection method and should not be construed to mean that manatees are in low abundance in the more isolated areas of the county. The unit with the greatest number of sightings was the Marco Island unit (1, 091) . This unit includes the passes, bays, and rivers surrounding the island, as well as all of its inland canals/waterways. Manatee sightings were (and are) especially abundant in these inland canals/waterways (711) , as well as in the passes and rivers surrounding the island. An average of 59 sightings/month was reported for the inland canals/waterways of Marco Island. Speculations exist on whether manatees show a "preference" for this area, as opposed to other adjacent less-populated areas (e.g. , the Ten Thousand Islands area) . This high abundance could simply be attributed to increased likelihood of sighting by the large number of interested residents on the lookout for manatees in the Marco Island area. In addition, there are reports of residents providing fresh water via garden hoses hanging off their docks in the canals behind their residences. Other attracting factors may include food sources (seagrasses in some canals, possible feeding of manatees by residents) , and relatively warmer water (lack of flushing in dead-end canals) . The next highest number of sightings reported was in the Naples Headland unit, followed by Kice Island, Keewaydin Island, Vanderbilt Beach, and the Ten Thousand Islands units. Lesser numbers of sightings were reported in the Park Shore, Barefoot Beach, and Coconut Island units. The subunits with the greatest numbers of sightings reported (besides Marco Island inland waterways) included Big Marco River, Caxambas Pass, Naples Gulf, Vanderbilt Beach Gulf, Big Marco Pass, Henderson Creek, Marco Island Gulf, and Naples Bay. Manatees were sighted year-round, with more sightings reported during April and May than in other months. This could be due to the fact that manatees typically begin to leave their winter refuges and congregate during the spring for mating purposes. 2 . 1. 4 . 3 Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) sighting data This information was obtained from Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, which keeps boating logs of manatee sightings in the Rookery Bay area, including notes on manatee behavior (Bertone, 1990a) . Much of the data were gathered during bimonthly water sampling runs. The area encompassed within most of the sampling runs extended from the inland waterway to the north of Rookery Bay, throughout Rookery Bay and Henderson Creek, down into Johnson Bay, as well as the waters surrounding Marco Island. In the two and one-half year period between May 1988 and December 1990, 123 sampling runs were conducted. During these runs, 393 -17- manatees were sighted, with most of those (over 90%) seen in Rookery/Hall Bay, Henderson Creek and adjacent areas, the remainder being sighted in the Marco Island area (Bertone, 1990a) . It was also noted that areas of greatest manatee concentrations were found at Johnson Bay along the eastern shoreline between Markers 14 and 20, in Rookery Bay, and at the basin adjacent to Enchanting Shores Trailer Park on Henderson Creek. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is currently analyzing these data, and redesigning the sighting program in order to make it more quantifiable (Bertone, 1990b) . 2 . 1. 4 . 4 Other sources of manatee sighting information The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their 1989 report, cite the seagrass bed areas around the Ten Thousand Islands, and the freshwater areas at the Faka Union Canal as specific resources used by manatees. Freshwater remains available at Port of the Islands, at the headwaters of the Faka Union River Canal . This waterbody may provide relatively warmer water during short winter cold periods. According to the USFWS ( 1989) , the Port of the Islands area is listed as the only major warm water refuge in Collier County. The Wiggins Pass area and the waters inland of the pass are known to be commonly used by manatees (Davis, 1990) . W. Carleton, of Vanderbilt Surf Colony II reported frequently seeing manatees in the small western arm of Water Turkey Bay adjacent to Delnor Wiggins State Recreation Area, and witnessed a manatee birth there in 1989 (Carleton, 1990) . "Manatee Alert" reports of 4/6 - 4/9/91 indicate heavy usage by manatees of the Vanderbilt coast, Wiggins Pass, and back bay areas during this time period. It was reported that one area of major concentration of manatees is the seagrass beds on Cape Romano Shoals (Dryden, 1990) . Bertone (1990b) reported an area of major concentrations of manatees located at the basin of the Enchanting Shores Trailer Park on Manatee Road. This development is adjacent to Henderson Creek. He noted that manatees are documented coming into the basin year-round, and that in colder months, manatees congregate there in greater numbers. During the Christmas freeze of 1989 , 7 manatees were seen in the basin for 6 days, and up to 11 manatees were seen in the basin at one time. His data indicate that fresh water of slightly warmer temperature seeps through the substrata in the basin. Stout and Stout (1991) indicated that this area is heavily used by manatees year-round. Frohlich, (1991) , indicated that manatees have been observed via aerial survey in transit in Henderson Creek. He posited that it was likely that the manatees are using the area as a source of fresh water. -18- 2 . 1 . 5 Manatee Mortality and Injury_ 2 . 1. 5 . 1 Manatee Mortality in Florida In Florida, it is estimated that nearly 10% of the State' s total manatee population (about 140 individuals) die on average each year. Human-caused mortality is considered to be the greatest threat to the species' survival, and accounts for almost half of the known causes of manatee deaths. From the onset of the manatee carcass salvage program by the DNR, in 1974 , to January, 1993 , a total of 2 , 075 dead manatees have been recovered by the State. Despite increased protection, manatee deaths have increased in recent years. The five year average ending in 1987 was 112 deaths per year. The five year average from 1988 to 1992 was 169 deaths, a 50% increase over the previous five year period. The primary cause of known human-related injury and death in Florida is collision with power boats or barges. Boat/barge related manatee mortality accounts for approximately 80% of human-related deaths . The number of boat-related deaths increases each year as the number of registered boats increases. Most living manatees exhibit non-lethal prop scars (State of Florida DNR, 1989b) . Manatee behavior patterns themselves may affect the probability of boat strikes. In narrow channels with high concentrations of boat traffic, manatees prefer traveling along channel margins or shoreline margins, avoiding the channel's center. They may be thus avoiding the heavy boat traffic and/or fast currents. Manatees are able to move quickly in short bursts of speed, and can detect and avoid oncoming boats if the boats are moving slowly enough and there is a way to avoid then. However, when manatees are feeding, they are less wary of boat traffic. In addition, they cannot dive below the level of the vessel's draft if they are in too shallow an area. The most frequent incidences of manatee strikes by boats may be caused by erratic boat traffic patterns in non-channel shallow seagrass bed areas. Therefore, slow or idle speed zones should be established in shallow feeding and resting areas and along waterway margins, where manatees are known to occur. Entanglement in float lines for crab traps, drowning in nets, entrapment, crushing, or drowning in water control structures, and vandalism such as shooting and poaching, are other major causes of human-related injury and death to manatees. Oil spills, herbicides, and other chronically present chemical contaminants can lead to chronic poisoning of manatees, with subtle pathological effects, acute poisoning resulting in death, and a reduction in the amount of suitable food or feeding areas (USFWS, 1989) . More subtle effects on manatee populations can be caused by human interest. Snorkelers, swimmers, and scuba divers interested in observing the animals may inadvertently disturb them. Pursuing the manatees by boat, touching them, or "hitching rides" have been observed to drive the manatees away from warmer -19- waters into colder waters where they are more prone to disease. This is especially true around warm water refugia in northern Florida and around power plant effluents. Human disturbances of this nature have also been seen to disrupt relationships between nursing females and their calves (USFWS, 1989) . 2 . 1. 5 . 2 Known Manatee Mortalities in Collier County The following mortality information was taken from FDEP' s database of Florida manatee deaths, by county, from 1974 through August 1993 . The database contains information on each mortality, including field identification number, date, death category, location, sex, length, and necropsy results. See Appendix C for information on the DEP Manatee Mortality Location Map. In Collier County, from 1976 through December 1993 , 186 dead manatees were recovered (6 of these were verified but not recovered) (see Table 2-1) . Sixty-nine were verified through necropsy as being "human-related" deaths : 63 were killed by collision with watercraft, and 3 were shot (two of these were also butchered) . Of those killed by watercraft collision, 15 were recovered from the Port of the Islands/Faka Union Canal area, and 15 from Everglades National Park. Other boat-killed manatees were recovered from the Rookery Bay/Henderson Creek area, Naples Bay, Dollar Bay, Goodland Bay and Marco Island. Manatee Mortality in Collier County Year Watercraft Other Human Perinatal Other Undetermined Total Collision Related Natural 1976 - - - - 1 1 1977 - - - - 3 3 1978 - - - - 3 3 1979 1 1 - - 2 4 1980 1 1 e - 3 5 1981 4 - 1 - 8 13 1982 3 - 1 - 1 5 1983 4 - 1 - 4 9 1984 - - - 2 7 9 1985 1 - 3 2 7 13 1986 9 - 1 - 2 12 1987 6 1 1 1 2 11 1988 5 - 3 - 6 14 1989 7 - 7 1 4 19 1990 7 - 1 3 2 13 1991 5 - 4 1 4 14 1992 5 2 5 2 6 20 1993 5 1 3 3 6 18 TOTAL 63 6 31 15 71 186 Table 2-1 Manatee Mortality in Collier County -20- Also during this time period, 31 dependent calves were recovered (also referred to as perinatal deaths) , and 15 deaths were attributed to "natural" causes. The number of manatees in these two death categories has increased recently. Some of these deaths could be attributed to human activities including pollution (pesticides, herbicides, etc. ) of ingested vegetation or water, entanglement in fishing nets and traps, and disturbance by boaters, divers, and fishermen (Van Meter, 1987; Naples Daily News, January 4 , 1991) . Seventy-one manatees died due to undetermined causes, and were recovered in locations throughout the County. Of this number, 25 were recovered from the Port of the Islands/Faka Union Canal area. A certain proportion of these 71 deaths could have been attributed to collision with boats, as most of the manatees in this death category were so badly decomposed that the cause of death could not be determined. The highest number of overall mortalities was in the Port of the Islands/Faka Union Canal area (56) , followed by the Everglades National Park area (28) . Although the Port of the Islands/ Faka Union Canal area is designated as a manatee protection zone, many boaters fail to travel slowly, as it is approximately 3 . 5 miles long. Other mortalities were reported from the Rookery Bay/Henderson Creek system, Marco Island and other areas throughout the County. During the period from 1986-1993 , mortalities were relatively high compared to previous years, both in number of boat collisions and overall . The greatest number of mortalities occurred in 1992 (20) , followed by 1989 (19) , 1993 (18) , 1988 (14) , 1981, 1985 , and 1990 ( 13 each) . The high number of deaths in 1989 could have been partly attributed to the severe freeze, in which 46 manatees died statewide (The Miami Herald, November 18 , 1990) . There are probably more mortalities than have been recorded, for several reasons. First, a carcass may be reported but later not found by FDEP recovery personnel (Frohlich, 1991) . Second, it is probable that a small number of deaths and/or collisions are not reported by boaters for fear of fine/imprisonment. This is because convictions for violation of state boat speed zone laws carry a maximum fine of $500 and/or imprisonment of up to 60 days (federal penalties can be more severe) . However, outside of the posted speed zones, accidental manatee hits carry no penalties (Florida Power and Light, 1987) . Lastly, under certain circumstances, boaters may not even realize that they've hit a manatee. Another recovery problem is low enforcement manpower. According to District 5 of the Florida Marine Patrol (Naples Daily News, -21- June 20, 1990) , their patrol , made up of 4 officers (in 3 shifts) is not visible enough to deter boaters who violate the law (e.g. , speeding violations in slow speed zones) . The County Sheriff's Department also recommends allocations of more State resources to enforce existing and proposed rules. 2 . 1 . 5. 3 Conclusions based on mortality data Three waterbodies within the County have been identified as high manatee mortality areas, based on the number of deaths attributed to boat collisions. Of the 63 deaths caused by boat collisions, 16 were recovered from the Port of the Islands/Faka Union canal area. This area accounts for the highest concentration of manatees in Collier County. The Faka Union canal is the salt water portion of the extensive Golden Gate Canal system. A weir is situated at the north end of the Port of the Islands marina basin. This waterbody attracts manatees because of the volume of warm freshwater input, and the large amount of aquatic vegetation that flows over the weir. During the Synoptic Survey conducted by the FDEP on January 12 , 1992 , 246 manatees were counted in the Faka Union canal . This large number indicates this area is utilized as a warm water refuge by the area manatee population. Everglades National Park has the second highest boat collision mortality rate. Since 1976, 14 manatee deaths were attributed to boat collisions. Most of the manatees recovered from this area were in Chokoloskee Bay. Chokoloskee Bay is over 6 miles long and over a mile wide in most places. The average depth of the Bay is less than 3 feet at Mean Lower Low Water. The third waterbody is the Rookery Bay/Henderson Creek area. A total of seven manatees killed by boat collisions have been recovered from this area. Rookery Bay is a shallow bay located approximately midway between Naples and Marco Island along the Inland Waterway. Henderson Creek flows into Rookery Bay from the east. A weir is located at the headwaters of the creek where it joins a freshwater canal at U. S. 41. A borrow pit constructed near the headwaters of Henderson Creek contains a freshwater spring. This borrow pit is frequently used by manatees, particularly during the winter months. 2 .2 Land Development 2 . 2 . 1 Marina and Boat Facility Siting The following information was mostly derived from the 1994 Collier County Boating Study and Facilities Inventory. Although the shoreline was physical inventoried, sone error in counting -22- boats and vacant docks is evident. 2 . 2 . 1 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area According to the 1993 Boat Study there are approximately 660 boats kept at private docks and condominiums in the Wiggins Pass area during the winter season and around 450 boats during the off season. There are approximately 740 vacant docks during the busiest time of the year. These figures indicate that 53% of the docks in the Wiggins Pass area are currently vacant. Wiggins Pass Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pump Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Back Bay Marina 34 7 30 0 X X X 5 NO Wiggins Pass Marina 0 0 335 25 X X X X 8 YES Del-Nor Wiggins State Park Transient Only 0 0 X YES Cocohatchee River Park Transient Only 0 0 X X YES Island Marina 22 58 0 0 YES Vanderbilt Beach Marina 13 3 0 0 X X 2 NO Table 2-2 Wiggins Pass Boating Facilities Marinas There are presently four commercial marinas which service the Wiggins Pass system. The northern-most marina, Back Bay Marina, located at the north end of Little Hickory Bay, services the Wiggins Pass and the New Pass (Lee County) boating public. Services offered by the marina are repair services, fuel, bait & tackle, charter boats, wet boat storage (41 spaces) and dry storage (30 spaces) . Wiggins Pass Marina, to the east of Wiggins Pass, offers services such as boat repair, fuel , bait and tackle, charters, ships store, and a 360 space dry storage building. There are no wet slips available, but a large floating dock is used for temporary tie-ups. Island Marina has 80 wetslips, no dry storage, and no fuel facilities. Vanderbilt Beach Marina is located at the southern limit of the Wiggins Pass area, offering fuel, bait & tackle, charter boat services, and 16 wet slips. At present there is one additional marina planned for this area, by Tempustech, Inc. The proposed project consists of six wet -23- slips for temporary mooring, and 90 dry slips. The petitioners are proposing a manatee protection program in their mitigation plan. This includes three manatee education kiosks with bulletin boards, boater safety and manatee displays, video, slide, and other programs, and distribution of brochures. A visitor training program is also proposed, wherein the club will sponsor free manatee awareness/boater safety programs for club members. Watercraft will be restricted to lengths of 26' or less, and all vessels will be stored in dry dock. Water quality monitoring will also be conducted (State of Florida DER, 1991) . Boat Ramps Delnor Wiggins State Recreation Area has one public boat ramp. Although the parking lot is filled to capacity every weekend (37 parking spaces) , people still stand in line awaiting an opening. The ramp allows immediate access to the estuarine system of the Water Turkey Bay area and back bay waters as far north as Little Hickory Bay, as well as access to the Gulf of Mexico. Collier County Parks and Recreation Department commissioned a recreation and planning consultant to prepare the Collier County Boat Landing Study (Reynolds, Smith and Hill , 1988) . One of the objectives of the study was to insure adequate provision of facilities for all Collier County residents (seasonal and permanent) . To accomplish this, a standard was formulated for boat ramps vs. present population ( 1: 11 , 347) and projected populations by comparison to other counties and the Florida State standards (1: 5, 000) . Geographic distributions of boat ramps vs. populations, and resource locations were also taken into account. Although local surveys for Collier County in comparison to other counties resulted in a much higher per capita participation in boating and fishing recreational activities (250% higher than other counties in the State of Florida) , a midpoint standard was allocated ( 1 : 6, 675) . According to the Collier County Boat Landing Study, the North Naples Planning District, which encompasses the entire Wiggins Pass area, requires only one boat ramp to satisfy the public needs in 1990 (besides the Delnor Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area boat ramp) . The projected population by the year 1999 for this area is 30, 340 residents, which calls for an additional two boat ramps. In recognition of this deficit, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department has constructed on a 6 . 2 acre site at Conklin Point, less than one mile east of Wiggins Pass, a four lane boat ramp facility. The Cocohatchee River Park boat ramp contains 60 car/trailer parking spaces and 42 transient docks. The boat ramp should be sufficient to accommodate the North Naples Planning District well into the 2000' s. 2 . 2 . 1 . 2 Clam Pass Area Currently there are nine boats (four of which are jet skis) and -24- 25 vacant docks in the Seagate subdivision located on the southern end of Outer Clam Bay. Clam Pass Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pump Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Clam Pass Park 0 0 0 0 Canoe NO only Table 2-3 Clam Pass Boating Facilities Marinas There are no marinas within Clam Pass system. The Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 79K-0282 Special Conditions ( for the filling of the 98 acres of wetlands for the Pelican Bay PUD) specify that there is to be no dredging allowed (by permit or otherwise) in Outer, Inner or Upper Clam Bays, its connecting waterways, and/or adjacent wetlands, or Clam Pass (except to maintain the opening to waters of the Gulf of Mexico) . Another permit condition indicates that there are to be no bulkheads, piers, stilt houses, walkways, or other structures allowed in the Clam Bay system or adjacent wetlands connecting to private uplands (a small pier and the Collier County boardwalk were stipulated exceptions to the permit conditions) . For these reasons there may never be a marina permitted in this area. Boat Ramps Due to the sensitivity of the area, shallow back bay systems, and the highly ephemeral nature of Clam pass, there are no public boat ramps in the Clam Pass system, however, an area is set aside as a canoe launch. 2 . 2 . 1. 3 Doctors Pass Area Residents inside Doctors Pass and the bay system are provided with mooring facilities. There are 1155 boat docks or other mooring facilities located at private residences and condominiums. The boating population that utilizes Doctors Pass is very seasonal. During the summer months the boating population using the Bay systems and the Pass is at a minimum, -25- averaging 300 boats. The peak winter boating population is approximately 550 boats. Doctors Pass Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pimp Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Park Shore Marina Transient Only 0 0 X X 5 NO Table 2-4 Doctors Pass Boating Facilities Marinas One marina services the Doctors Pass area . The Parkshore Marina is located at the south end of Venetian Bay, in the Venetian Bay Villages shopping center. The marina offers fuel, live and frozen bait, rental tackle, and rental boats. There are approximately 3 boat slips (depending on boat size and rental boat status there could be up to 8 total slips) available for use by the public. There are no other marinas planned for this area. All coastal areas serviced by Doctors Pass are developed. Boat Ramps There are no public boat ramp facilities in the Moorings or Park Shore subdivisions. No public boat ramp facilities are anticipated for the Doctors Pass area in the future due to present development (Holley, 1991) . 2 . 2 . 1. 4 Gordon Pass Area The shoreline survey conducted in 1993 indicated that there were nearly 2000 boats docked at private residences and condominiums during the winter "season" in the Gordon Pass area. During this same period approximately 1300 docks were vacant. Of the total 3235 docks located in the Gordon Pass area 40% are vacant during the busiest time of the year this number increases to 48% during the summer months. -26- Gordon Pass Facility Wetstips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pump Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Brookside Marina 86 14 30 0 X X X X 8 NO Naples Marina & Boat Center 0 0 370 202 X YES Port 0' Call Marina 16 0 16 0 X X 14 NO Naples Sailing & Yacht Club 40 8 0 0 NO Bay Marina 9 21 70 0 X X X NO Boat Haven 110 6 198 2 X X X X 10 NO Great American Boat Yard 54 3 4 0 X NO Turner Marine 84 21 32 33 X X X NO Coconut Grove Marina 28 3 0 0 X X NO Naples Landing Transient Only 0 0 X YES Naples City Dock 88 0 0 0 X X X YES Cove Inn Marina 33 3 0 0 YES Cove Marina 7 0 0 0 X X 6 NO Naples Yacht Club 43 8 0 0 X X NO Moby Ricks Marina 12 3 0 0 X X NO Gulfshore Marina 0 0 1C3 37 X X X NO South Point Yacht Club 76 4 0 0 X YES Bayview Park Transient Only 0 0 X YES Keewaydin Dock Transient Only 0 0 X X NO Table 2-5 Gordon Pass Boating Facilities Marinas There are 13 commercial marinas which service the Gordon Pass area. The total number of wet slips for these marinas is 965 and 820 in dry storage. There are also many "self storage" lots in the area with "open air" boat storage. The wet storage facilities are nearly filled to capacity during the winter season; however, only 60% of the dry storage is utilized. These figures represent the fact that many boats are stored during the summer and are docked at private residences during the winter season. The Naples Municipal Dock, located on Naples Bay at the end of 12th Avenue South, contains 88 boat slips available for public rental and three transient slips, each providing electrical power and water. The City dock also provides the following facilities: restrooms, showers, vending machines, fuel , ice, frozen bait, -27- charter fishing, charter sailing, fish cleaning tables, a head pump, and live shrimp. The City dock has a long waiting list for boat slips, and vacant slips are filled on a lottery basis. Boat Ramps At present there are two City-owned public boat ramps and one County-owned public boat ramp, which provide access to the Gulf of Mexico via Gordon Pass. The County ramp is located at Bayview Park and the City ramps at Naples Landing Park. Bayview Park has a double boat ramp and is located approximately one mile east of Gordon Pass, on the east side of Naples Bay. The park contains picnic tables, barbecue grills, a playground, a large lighted pavilion equipped with a double barbecue pit, and restroom facilities. Bayview Park provides 49 parking spaces (16 car/trailer and 33 car) for boaters and visitors. Because of the popularity of the area, there is a great need for ancillary parking facilities, especially for boat trailers. On weekends the ramp parking is filled to capacity, as well as the road leading to the park (Danford Avenue) . There is no land presently owned by the County to accommodate an expansion. Plans are currently underway with a private land owner to expand the park facilities both for parking and boat ramps. The Naples Landing Park boat ramps are located approximately three miles north of Gordon Pass, on the west side of Naples Bay (at the east end of Broad Avenue South) . The two and one-half acre park site and boat ramp service a large population of boaters from the City of Naples. The bayfront park contains three small pavilions and restroom facilities. There are three boat ramps, each with a loading dock. Additional docking areas are located along the park. The "Old" Landing boat ramp is located directly adjacent to the "New" Landings, containing one boat ramp. There are 37 combination car-trailer parking spaces and 11 car parking spaces available at the ramps. According to the Collier County Boat Landing Study ( 1988) , there are three ramps currently in demand in the Gordon Pass area (leaving a one ramp deficit) , and an additional two ramps will be required by 1996 . The study does not indicate or give reference to the four boat ramps in the City of Naples, at the Naples Landing Park. Therefore, at present there seems to be sufficient ramps (although a grave deficit in parking seems apparent) to support the local population for the next eight years (Reynolds, Smith, and Hills, 1988) . In addition to the public ramps, there are also three boat ramps located at private marinas that can be used by the public for a small fee. 2 . 2 . 1. 5 Hurricane/Little Marco Pass Area Most of the docks located in the Hurricane/Little Marco Pass area -28- are transient docks built along Keewaydin Island, Cannon Island and Little Marco Island. Several of these docks are large multi-boat docks which cater to private clubs with land holdings on these islands. The residential area of Henderson Creek consists mostly of manufactured housing communities. Most of the waterfront homes have docks which can accommodate Class A and Class 1 vessels. The 1993 shoreline inventory indicated that 54 boats were present during the off season. This number more than doubled to 109 during the season. Marinas There are no marinas in the Hurricane/Little Marco Pass area. The adjacent lands surrounding the area are predominantly zoned as ST (Special Treatment) due to their environmentally sensitive nature. These lands contain mangrove forests and other wetland habitats . Much of the property to the west of southern Dollar Bay is in government ownership within the Aquatic Preserve. Since the entire area is located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, and the waters are designated OFW, the location of marinas, their related uses, and potential impacts in the Preserve are a major concern to the State DEP. Any proposed marinas are subject to the rules and regulations of the Florida Administrative Code, Subsection 18-20. 004 (Rules of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Chapter 18-20, Florida Aquatic Preserves) . Boat Ramps There is one boat ramp within the Hurricane/Little Marco Pass area, located at Rookery Bay near the terminus of Shell Island Road. The ramp is unimproved and specifically geared to small boats, since water depths in Rookery Bay rarely exceed 3 feet. Access to the pass area is via a small section of Rookery Bay (historically known as Hall Bay) and through Calhoun Channel (running between Johnson Island and Cannon Island) . Due to the sensitivity of the area and lack of development, no additional boat ramps are predicted for the future. 2 . 2 . 1 . 6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Area The Big Marco/Capri Pass complex is almost completely encompassed by the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, Class II Outstanding Florida Waters of the State. The Class II status currently includes a prohibition for shellfish harvesting. The Aquatic Preserve boundaries bisect Big Marco Pass at the center line. The passes drain Johnson, Mcllvane, Tarpon, Unknown, and Addison Bays, part of Goodland Bay, Big Marco River, Sanctuary Sound, and the inland bays and canals of Isles of Capri and Marco Island. -29- Nearly every waterfront home and condominium on Isles of Capri and Marco Island has a private residential dock associated with it. The 1993 boat survey shows nearly 530 private docks on Isles of Capri of which 200 are vacant during the off season. During the winter season 2420 residential docks were counted on the portion of Marco Island served by the Big Marco/Capri Pass system of which 1110 were vacant. The number of vacant docks on Marco increased to 1265 during the off season. Big Marco/Capri Pass Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pump Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Isles of Capri Pelican Bend Marina 20 2 0 0 X X NO Williams Capri Marina 21 8 88 13 X X X NO Misfits Marina 37 3 0 0 X X X 5 YES Marco Island Snook Inn Transient Only 0 0 X NO Factory Bay Marina 26 47 0 0 X X X 32 YES Marco River Marina 65 0 200 0 X X X 20 NO CR 951 Boat Ramp Transient Only 0 0 X YES Table 2-6 Big Marco/Capri Pass Boating Facilities Marinas Marco Island and Isles of Capri contain the second highest concentration of commercial marinas in Collier County. The area supports 5 commercial facilities which provides 538 wet slips and approximately 240 dry slips . Boat Ramps The only boat ramp that services the Big Marco Pass area is the S .R. 951 boat ramp. The ramp is highly utilized due to the ease of access to the Gulf of Mexico and the prime fishing grounds of the Ten Thousand Islands. The ramp is filled to capacity during weekdays, especially during the winter, and over-filled on the weekends. It is estimated that by the year 1994 an additional ramp will be needed to accommodate the increasing population of this area (Reynolds, et. al . , 1988) . The S.R. 951 boat ramp contains a paved 35 foot wide launching facility capable of -30- launching two boats at a time. Parking areas include 17 trailer and two car spaces. Amenities provided include a fish cleaning table, garbage cans, and a manatee awareness sign. 2 . 2 . 1. 7 Caxambas Pass Area Caxambas Pass is located south of Marco Island and north of Kice Island. The Pass and Caxambas Bay is partially stabilized along its northern shoreline by hard, man-made structures such as vertical seawalls and riprap revetments. Its southern boundary is left in its natural state, and consists of several shoals and undeveloped mangrove islands. The residential canals on the south end of Marco Island empty into Roberts Bay and Caxambas Bay. Virtually all single family residences along these canals have boat docks associated with them. A total of 1365 residential boat docks were counted in this area of which 528 are vacant during the off season. Caxambas Pass Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pu.p ;at Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Sign Caxambas Pass Ramp Transient Only 0 0 X X X YES Table 2-7 Caxambas Pass Boating Facilities Marinas There are no public marinas in the Caxambas Pass area. However, there is a multitude of private marinas and dockage facilities associated with private condominium and resort developments. Boat Ramps The Caxambas Park boat ramp is located in Caxambas Bay, on the southwestern peninsula of Marco Island at Caxambas Pass. The park is a well developed facility on a four acre parcel, with paved access and parking for 31 trailers and 30 cars. The paved ramp is 30 feet wide and provides 2 lanes for boat launching. Picnic areas with benches and tables are provided under shelter or in open locations. Other amenities include restrooms, two floating docks, a water system, a fish cleaning table and security lighting. A concessionaire is contracted by the county to provide fuel and a bait and tackle shop. -31- 2 . 2 . 1 . 8 Ten Thousand Islands The Ten Thousand Islands area includes Goodland, Port of the Islands, Everglades City and Chokoloskee. Most waterfront homes in these areas have private docks. There is very little fluctuation in the number of boats (3%) using private docks in this area between summer and winter since most are utilized by commercial fishermen or professional fishing guides. The Ten Thousand Islands is mostly made up of state and federal preserve areas which include the Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve, the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Everglades National Park. These public land holdings are mostly made up of mangrove forests and saltmarsh and will never be suitable for marina construction. Ten Thousand Islands Facility Wetslips Dry Storage Ramp Fuel Pump Bait Repairs Boat Manatee Used Vacant Used Vacant Out Rental Signs Goodland Bridge Marina 26 37 4 0 X X X 8 NO Goodland Bay Marina 28 12 121 9 X X X 2 NO Collier/Seminole Park Transient Only 0 0 X YES Port of the Islands 71 25 0 0 XXXX 5 YES Everglades City Barron River Marina 23 62 0 0 X X X YES Captains Table Marina Transient Only 0 0 X X NO Everglades Rod & Gun Club Transient Only 0 0 X NO Chokoloskee Parkway Village 17 16 9 21 X X X NO Chokoloskee Outdoor Resorts 20 13 0 0 X X X 5 YES Table 2-8 Ten Thousand Islands Boating Facilities Marinas Goodland currently contains 2 public marinas with 132 dry slips -32- and 100 wet slips . A new marina has been permitted and has yet to be developed. The new marina will be the largest in the town upon its completion, containing 140 wet slips and 250 dry storage slips. Access to the Gulf of Mexico from Goodland is via Coon Key Pass. Port of the Islands contains a private marina with 100 wet slips, on the Faka Union Canal . The marina is currently being expanded to include an additional 75 wet slips and floating docks. Access to the Gulf of Mexico is via Fakahatchee Pass. Stipulations on the permits to construct the additional slips included a phased expansion plan contingent upon a decrease in manatee mortality in the area. An approved manatee protection plan was required to be ongoing for at least one year, which demonstrated that speed regulations were effective and being complied with by the boating public. Monitoring is required to continue, and the additional slips would have to be removed if the plan proves to be ineffective. The manatee protection plan includes informing all personnel associated with the project about manatees and regulations concerning them. Manatee protection signs are required by the FDEP, with at least one permanent educational display per 50 boat slips. In addition to manatee protection, other environmental stipulations were required . Sewage pumpout facilities connecting to the central sewage system are to be installed, turbidity controls are required during construction, and liveaboards at the new slips are required to have direct sewage hookup. Everglades City currently contains one public marina and 2 hotel marinas. Access to the Gulf of Mexico is via the Barron River across Chokoloskee Bay to Indian Key. Chokoloskee has two marinas for a total 96 wet slips. Dry storage is available for boat/trailer only on a transient basis. Access is gained to the Gulf by crossing Chokoloskee Bay to Sandfly Pass or Chokoloskee Pass . Boat Ramps There are no County owned public boat ramps in the Ten Thousand Islands area. An additional County ramp should be considered for the Goodland area for access to the Ten Thousand Islands. The Goodland Bridge Marina has a single lane boat ramp available for public use for a fee. This is the only ramp availabe in Goodland at the present time. At Collier-Seminole State Park, a boat basin with a two-lane boat ramp provides access to the Ten Thousand Islands and the Gulf of Mexico. A small admission fee into the park allows use of the boat ramp by the public. A bathhouse, fish cleaning table and picnic benches are also available at this location. Port of the Islands has a two lane boat ramp that is available -33- for public use for a small fee. Everglades City and Chokoloskee do not have public boat ramps; however, there are a few marinas that allow public use of their ramps for a small fee. There are no County boat ramp facilites in Everglades City or Chokoloskee, however, there are several boat ramps available to the public for a small fee. Both the Barron River Marina and the Captains Table Marina offer ramp service in Everglades City and the Chokoloskee Outdoor Resorts also has a single lane boat ramp. 2 . 2 . 2 Analysis of Existing Marina Usage As of October 1993 , Collier County contained 88 public and private marinas (including condominium and private club dockage facilities that contain more than 10 slips) . There are 32 commercial/public marinas containing a total of 1, 717 wet slips and 1, 602 dry slips in the county. There are 56 private and/or club marinas containing an additional 1, 541 wet slips in the county. During the winter season of 1993 the commercial marinas were at 71% occupancy. The 1993 Boat survey also indicated that 36% of wet slips in private marinas are utilized. 2 . 3 Water Quality and Aquatic Vegetation 2 . 3 . 1 Water Quality Concerns Degradation of natural waterbodies that encompass manatee habitats have a negative impact on manatee populations. Development activities and poor agricultural practices contribute to this type of degradation, increasing turbidity, nutrient, and contaminant levels into estuarine and coastal waters. The continued degradation of estuarine waters in Collier County directly affects sea grass beds, which are the main foraging areas for manatees . Most of the seagrass beds in the County have either dwindled in size or disappeared completely due to poor water quality and the effects of upland development. Contaminants, such as pesticide and herbicide residues, petroleum products, and heavy metals may contribute to the reduced health of individual manatees if these animals are chronically exposed to low levels. Such exposure may permit opportunistic infections to lead to manatee mortalities if conditions permit. Acute exposure to high levels of toxic pollutants, such as those resulting from petroleum or chemical spills, also represents a threat to manatee survival . Collier County Pollution Control Department has an estuarine monitoring program which is designed to pinpoint such water quality problems. Estuarine water quality data for Collier County's estuarine systems, covering the period 1972 - 1990, was obtained from a number of separate studies including FDEP, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Pelican Bay -34- Improvement District, and Park Shore Development Corporation. Differences between the various studies in design and duration preclude any definitive conclusions regarding estuarine water quality. 2 . 3 . 2 Freshwater Sources Although no conclusive evidence exists that manatees require freshwater to survive, manatees actively seek freshwater resources which are considered important manatee habitat components. Typical areas include the Gordon River, Blackwater River, Barron River and Halfway Creek. Other freshwater sources in Collier County include point source discharges from water control structures. Manatees are known to commonly use the area at the north end of the Port of the Islands boat basin. The weir north of the basin drains the entire canal system of Golden Gate Estates. It is likely that manatees also use other areas where water control structures deliver substantial quantities of freshwater. Another source of freshwater commonly used by manatees is located at the basin adjacent to Enchanting Shores Trailer Park on Henderson Creek. Bertone ( 1993) reported that freshwater "boils" up from the substratum into the waters of the basin. Manatees have often been sighted in this basin, and in transit to and from it via Henderson Creek, by Bertone and residents of the trailer park. FDEP aerial surveys indicate that manatees transit that region of Henderson Creek regularly (Frohlich, 1991) . 2 . 3 . 3 Aquatic Plant Control Activities Presently, the Collier County Storm Water Management Department is responsible for maintaining all of the secondary and other drainage canals in the county. The Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District maintains the major primary drainage canals. The Florida DEP oversees and approves the annual work plans for water management in the county. The work plans include specifications for aquatic plant control such as the types of herbicides to be used, their application, the time of year application takes place, and application rates. All aquatic plant control activities in Collier County occur upstream of the water control structures. Typically, herbicide use occurs during the months of March and April, which are times of low flow conditions . Herbicide application is most effective during this time period. In addition, this is the time of year when the least amount of the chemicals enter the estuaries downstream of the water control structures. In the Faka Union Canal, herbicide application takes place north of Stewart Blvd. in South Golden Gate Estates. South of Stewart Blvd. , to U. S. -35- 41, aquatic vegetation is controlled by mechanical methods only. The S.R. 29 canal , which drains into the Barron River, is treated only from 1-75 northward. The canal is not treated at all from I-75 south to the Barron River. There are plans by the Big Cypress National Preserve to purchase the one mile wide strip of land encompassing the S.R. 29 canal between I-75 and the Barron River, and allowing it to return to its natural state. 2 . 4 Habitat Protection 2 . 4 . 1 General Considerations Habitat protection is an essential element in the protection plan for manatees. Areas that are used for feeding, as well as areas that manatees find attractive for resting, mating, calving, and nursing, need to be reserved as sanctuaries or otherwise protected, so that the species can begin to recover (USFWS, 1989) . Seagrass beds are the most essential resource to the survival of the species. Recovery and maintenance of the existing Florida manatee population in this area directly depends on seagrass preservation, since these meadows provide most of their forage material. As herbivorous marine mammals, manatees have presumably evolved from terrestrial mammalian stock; this ancestral group fed on terrestrial angiosperm (flowering) plants similar to those presently eaten by grazing mammals . Manatees are still physiologically similar to their ancestors, and have similar dietary requirements . Seagrasses provide the major source of angiosperm plant material in the marine environment, and are therefore essential to the survival of these mammals. Seagrasses, the primary food source for manatees in this area, are sensitive to development activities. Dredging, shoreline construction, and boat traffic are all threats to the viability of existing seagrass beds. Seagrass meadows are highly productive biological communities that tolerate only warm, clear marine waters , and are biotic indicators of high water quality and healthy marine biological systems. According to the Marine Mammal Commission report of 1988 , "food supplies are not yet limiting to the manatee populations of Florida . However, if the productivity of submerged seagrass beds near winter refuges declines significantly, recovery of the manatee would be affected. Protection of seagrass beds needs to be strengthened to ensure an adequate food supply to resident and transient manatees. " To protect the remaining seagrass meadows from further degradation from upland water sources, Collier County should begin a more intensive water quality monitoring program at watershed outlets entering the bays and backwaters which flow into the seagrass beds. The County should also seek the aid of the local U. S. Soil Conservation Service in establishing Best -36- Management Practices (BPM) for existing subdivision and agricultural areas. Also, non functioning BPMs should be located and corrective measures taken to make them functional . Private land owners as well as local governments should be encouraged to improve water quality from all existing and proposed urban and agricultural developments. 2 . 4 . 2 Collier County Land Development Code The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) addresses seagrass protection in Section 2 . 6. 21 Private Boathouses and Docks. 2 . 6. 21. 7 All dock facilities are subject to, and shall comply with, all federal and state requirements and permits, including but not limited to the requirements and permits of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2 . 6 . 21. 8 Where new boathouses, boatshelters, or docking facilities are proposed or boat dock extensions, the location and presence of seagrass or seagrass beds within two hundred (200) feet of any proposed dock facility or boathouse shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch to 200 feet when available from the county, or a scale of one inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available from the county. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by a site visit by the Site Development Review Director or his designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit. 2 . 6 . 21 . 8 . 1 All proposed boathouses, boatshelters, and dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten (10) feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation and hard bottom communities. 2 . 6. 21. 8 . 2 Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrasses, or a boathouse, boatshelter or docking facility within ten feet of seagrasses. Such -37- boathouses , boatshelters or docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: 1 . The boathouse, boatshelter or dock shall be at a height of at least three and one-half (3 . 5) feet NGVD. 2 . The terminal platform of the dock shall not exceed one hundred sixty (160) square feet. 3 . The access dock shall not exceed a width of four (4) feet. 4 . The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrasses possible. 2 . 6. 21. 8 . 3 The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to any project approval or permit issuance. 3 . 0 MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN 3 . 1 Boating Considerations 3 . 1 . 1 Site Specific Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the FDEP Manatee Mortality Data and the 1993 Collier County Boating Study and Facility Inventory. These recommendations are intended for manatee protection, boating safety, and marine habitat protection. Recommendations include designated speed zones, and additional channel markers (See following Map Section for Existing and Proposed Speed Zones) . Manatee mortalities in Florida have steadily increased over the last 15 years, to a high of 206 in 1990 . Collier County has displayed a similar trend in manatee deaths with a high of 20 deaths in 1992 . This alone should be enough rationale for limiting speeds in inland waterways, as well as establishing manatee sanctuary zones in areas of frequent manatee occurrence. However, another important reason for limiting boat speeds in crowded inland waterways is Florida' s boating fatality rate. In 1993 , there were 1 , 017 boating accidents in the State, resulting in 63 human deaths (this number is down from 80 fatalities in 1992) , in Collier County there were 24 accidents involving 1 fatality (FMP) . Speed Zones and limits in Collier County will be enacted by ordinance, and will comply with those defined in the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (F.A. C. 16N. 22) . -38- 1 . "Idle speed" means the minimum speed that will maintain the steerage of a motorboat. 2 . "Slow speed" means no speed greater than that which is reasonable and prudent to avoid either intentionally or negligently annoying, molesting, harassing, disturbing, colliding with, injuring or harming manatees and which comports with the duty of all persons to use due care under the circumstances. A vessel that is: (1) operating on a plane is not proceeding at slow speed; (2) operating at a speed that creates no wake or minimum wake is proceeding at slow speed; (3) in the process of coming off plane and settling into the water or coming up onto plane is not proceeding at slow speed; (4) completely off plane and which has fully settled into the water and is proceeding without wake or with minimum wake is proceeding at slow speed. 3 . 1 . 1. 1 Wiggins Pass Area Much of the Wiggins Pass area currently has an Idle Speed designation (See Figure 3-1) . Vanderbilt Lagoon to Wiggins Pass is an Idle Speed Zone, and from the mouth of the Cocohatchee River to the pass is currently proposed Idle Speed. The Idle Speed Zone from the north end of Water Turkey Bay to marker #1 in West Bay should be changed to Slow Speed. The Little Hickory Bay area is currently undergoing rapid development. Along with this development comes an increase in boating activity. The residents of Little Hickory Cove have requested that their area be designated an Idle Speed Zone. Also because of the increased numbers of boaters in the area the channel should be marked from Little Hickory Bay to Wiggins Pass. The waterway connecting Little Hickory Bay to the pass is shallow, narrow, and winds through dense mangroves, oyster bars and sea grass beds. A marked channel will reduce the possibility of boaters damaging the fragile habitat or becoming lost. 3 . 1. 1. 2 The Clam Bays This shallow bay system contains some of the best sea grass beds in the northern part of the County. In order to protect the sea grass beds which is manatee habitat the entire Clam Bay System should be posted as an Idle Speed Zone (See Figure 3-2) . n.b. Collier County will exclude this portion of the plan until the Naples City Council decides the policy. -39- ELJNI I- . Nk_ NiJ N Existing Idle Speed Un Proposed Idle Speed ii}Existing Slow Speed ', Proposed Slow Speed O Mana tee Death * Boat Related Death -- -- 110Pa t II t 1 ' ��, t�! 11 . (. .. 4 9 Figure 3-1 Wiggins Pass Area -40- ( t__ HL 1 H f__ LE___ l3LND [] Existing Idle Speed QJ Proposed Idle 7,pced (i;Exis ting Slow Speed N Proposed Slow Speed O Mana tee Death * Boat Related Death \ lir 1111 d AP Is 4,.q \ • 1 i ... , LA\ V0i j�� •• o u" 1 ,, , • \\I„ , , S ii, Figure 3-2 The Clam Bays -41 • - SP1-J- _ t [_i \ f-= H_- I-- ( ). F-- NJ [ i Existing Idle Speed [Ii] Proposed Idle Speed (IExis ting glow Speed 0 Proposed Slow Speed ° Manatee Death * Boat Related Death Vii ° o O ye0 ' Q'' .'l' :•••• :::::. "44111...... ci:Z1) \ 1-4 , 2 � � I O 04_ O CD . ^ O .. / ), 7:o 0- 0 0 0 b i \ . Figure 3-3 Inland Waterway -42- . BEEF_. 1) / 1 .11. 1.-: 1. _ L- L3E__ \ D Li Existing Idle Speed []I] Proposer Io le Speed IJExisting Slow Speed 0 Proposed Slow Speed OManatee Death * Boat Related Death -- , -- - Q — v - owc r • J \ ... ..1) 914 rr fNi,,,,::::::,,::::*:: f 1.+''.=" O ..0.11”`P' rr, fi ffr'i}C ` At '� d TARPON 0 11111 \ C L/ =me , my : ..:* Op,N,: 4 . o MeWlir ( ••••••••:-;-:- -4.1V-1 ‘ =41111rN, :i3K:::!_, w--1014_ &._--r_ 0 --=--• :::;:A:. 7=-Jiwr— 'I . 4- c,d / 4 . � o dr i /-1 /:--\\ 0 Figure 3-4 Capri Pass & Marco River -43- ; PE= ED 1C_1NEC t _ F= C-3E\ D 0 Existing Idle Speed f B Proposed Idle Speed I Ex;s -;ng Slow Speed Ae Proposed Slow Speed () Manatee Death * Boat Related Death e N 1 ._I) ii), Clip 1.ylifi ; - 1 \ I , . \%\ 0 03 r0 0 6 ( .. 4* -l'17.- a BARFIELD _1 -57ti 'a .�. '`\ -__-\ BAY O -1 VAIPP ff_li, -,/) 'C ' r 00 ....... ...w......____ ____ w....7,. 0 z_ _ tit,,i c:s_ , ,.. . 1. 1. 1. 1. ,.....,,,.... , . l . ---' ., e HORR; -.04.4% ' ISL � BAY `�1 0 C '1 cl-,2 . - , (:CAlek(---)4Z v ` i.___.) n HELEN 4, �4sii ' KEY -c-- \ 46 I o p KICE ISLAND r______ ---, .); \ Figure 3-5 Caxambas Bay & Goodland Bay -44- PL . VD / E ] . E-_ i E-_ C� %_ ND ti fix;stlng Idle Speed a:] Proposed Idle Speed IUExisting Stow Speed Proposed Slow Speed () Manatee Deatr; * Boat Related Death I IFAKA UNION CANAL � EAKA - ATCHEE se 9111 RIVER - --,� yjj) Figure 3-6 Faka-Union Canal & Port of the Islands -45- HE-- (- Ji iliJNE 1 E Lli ._ iNJ l) fiEx,,, ting Idle Speed [l] Proposed Idle Speed liJExis ting Slow Speed M Proposed Stow Speed () Manatee Death * Boat Related Death ° - , 1,4 1 c:3 c? 0CIE* i l ill ,111, 1 BARRON ill RIVER I VERGLADES ° c?illm,11,00 I CITY Pp.i i;!:.:. Occ `t. ' ALF WAY • ?:•`.. ``-` CREEK a CHOKOL • '- r�tljl'7G�'tly:. ;? ! I !. lx�..c ::. i SAY4e:::ik.. . Y .-,,..We ':�wf:;f Y-may f =hvti. ?---,.)? .154,0 ,4kIWA ,,,z-: sr3` ,: - 4' . ril‘. .:, , -.5.,,,?„,-,:,„,„.„ ` '} TURNER :::.:, RIVER ct: ' , .... :IC Olv 5 (et ill' v 41. C b I 14r? C �'': OLOSKE Figure 3-7 Barron River & Chokoloskee Bay -46- 3 . 1 . 1 . 3 Inland Waterway The Inland Waterway is an approximately ten rile channel that runs from Naples Bay south to Capri Pass. This waterway varies in depth from between -3 feet to -14 feet at MLLW. The channel for the most part is surrounded by mangroves and shallow bays containing numerous oyster bars and sea grass beds. The Inland Waterway is one of the most heavily traveled areas in the County. Many boaters routinely use this channel to travel between Naples and Marco Island. When the Gulf is rough, virtually all boating traffic is confined to this waterway. This channel also provides the only access to Rookery Bay and Johnson Bay areas that are heavily utilized by manatees. The channel between markers 52 and 47 (See Figure 3-3) is the narrowest and among the most shallow areas of the Inland Waterway. This area often referred to as "The Narrows" presents a hazard to boaters, especially in meeting and overtaking maneuvers when more than two vessels are involved. Also, two manatee deaths attributed to boat collisions have been recorded here since 1989 . For these reasons, this section of the channel should be designated a Slow Speed Zone. The waterway forks at the north end of Little Marco Island. The unmarked western channel between Little Marc: and Keewaydin Islands is relatively deep (7 - 12 ft. MLLW; and is very popular with boaters and water skiers . The marked channel that bears to the southeast is much narrower and shallower , it then takes a sharp turn to the east. Boaters heading SE are looking directly into Hurricane Pass which is another designated water recreation area, however, there is a shoal area containing oyster bars and seagrass beds. Boaters who are unfamiliar with this area or fail to make the turn often go aground. The prop scars are very evident in this area . To help alleviate this problem additional channel markers should be placed between markers 29 to 27 . These additional markers will make the channel more apparent. Continuing south the channel enters Johnson Eay. The channel itself is relatively deep, but outside the channel the waters are generally less than 3 feet. The channel through this area is marked with alternating day markers . This confuses many boaters. Other boaters want to "cut the corner" and as a result go aground or prop-dredge their way through the sea grass beds. The seagrass beds in this area are known to be frequented by manatees. This portion of the channel from marker 16 to 14 should be delineated with additional markers . The south end of Johnson Island consists of a shoal containing seagrass beds and is another area where prop-dredging and grounding' s occur. This is also the intersecrion of Capri Pass and the Inland Waterway. Manatees traverse this area when moving from the Marco River to Johnsons Bay. This area should be -47- designated as Slow Speed (See Figure 3-4) . Additional markers should also be placed in order to better delineate the channel and guide boaters around this shoal . 3 . 1 . 1 . 4 Marco River The channel under the Judge Jolly Bridge is very narrow and heavily traveled. Many boaters utilizing the 951 boat ramp approaching the channel are blind to boating traffic to the west. Manatees are frequently sighted in this area, and several deaths have been recorded here. For these reasons the area from Flotilla Passage extending out to the channel and the area 300 feet on either side of the bridge should be designated Slow Speed (See Figure 3-4) . Additional channel markers should also be placed along portions of the Marco River. The area from marker 15 west of the Judge Jolly Bridge (CR 951) to marker 25 east of the bridge should be marked. Although the channel is relatively deep and wide through this area the adjacent waters are very shallow and contain many seagrass beds and oyster bars. Another area of concern along the Marco River is where it enters Goodland Bay (See Figure 3-5) . This is a very active area for both manatees and boaters . Boaters returning from the Ten Thousand Islands and Goodland must pass through this area. The Goodland bridge presents a choke point along this route, also the Barge Marina is situated to the west. Manatees routinely utilize the Goodland Bay area. Aerial siting data indicates manatees present during all surveys. Additionally two manatee deaths caused by boat collisions have been recorded in this area during the past five years. The area from marker 15 in the Marco River to the existing Idle Speed Zone at marker 10 should be a Slow Speed Zone. 3 . 1 . 1. 5 Port of the Islands - Faka Union Canal Manatees congregate in the Port of the Islands/Faka Union Canal area year-round, attracted to the fresh water that spills over the weir at the northern end of the marina basin. This area also provides relatively warmer water during periods of cold weather. More manatees have been sighted in this area than any other area of the County. Port of the Islands (POI) contains a private marina with 100 wet slips on the Faka Union Canal . The Resort is planning to expand -48- the marina facility by an additional 75 slips. Waterfront homes are being constructed along the ten finger canals, and 31 of these homes have private docks associated with them. The boat ramp at the facility is also a favored launching spot for boaters wishing to fish the Ten Thousand Islands. Boating activity in this area is expected to increase in the coming years. The marina basin is designated as an Idle Speed Zone, and the Faka Union canal is a caution zone with the Idle Speed Zone extending southward for 500 feet where it becomes a Slow Speed Zone for the rest of the length of the canal (See Figure 3-6) . Compliance with these speed zones is sporadic at best. The Florida Marine Patrol schedules one day a month patrol duty. Port of the Islands should be required to include a manatee informational brochure in the closing documents of all real estate transactions on the waterfront. This brochure will include general information on manatees and how to spot them along with details of the POI speed zones and the maximum fine of $500 . 00 for violating these zones. General information on the manatees at POI and details of the speed zones will also be presented at the annual meeting of the home owners. POI should incorporate a description of the speed zones and potential fines for violating these zones into the boat rental agreement to be signed by renters. Ramp users will also be required to sign a list stating they understand the speed zones and potential fines. 3 . 1 . 1 . 6 Chokoloskee Bay/Barron River Everglades National Park has the second highest boat collision mortality rate. Since 1976, 13 manatee deaths were attributed to boat collisions. Most of the manatees recovered from the area were in Chokoloskee Bay. Chokoloskee Bay is over 6 miles long and over a mile wide in most places. The average depth of the Bay is less than 3 feet at Mean Lower Low Water. Manatees are routinely observed in the deeper water of the borrow area alongside the Chokoloskee causeway. The area from the mouth of the Barron River out to the first spoil island and then heading in an approximate Southeasterly direction 400 yards of the causeway all the way to Chokoloskee should be designated Slow Speed (See Figure 3-7) . The Barron River is also a heavily traveled manatee route. Many manatees swim up river to the freshwater canals running along S.R. 29 and U. S. 41. The river extending from the mouth to the S.R. 29 bridge should be designated Idle Speed. -49- 3 .2 Marina Siting Collier County has a linear coastline that extends over 50 miles in length. If all the coastal canals, rivers, bays and islands are included the coastline is literally hundreds of miles long. The vast majority of this coastline is in Public Ownership as parks and preserves (See Figure 3-8) . For the most part, the areas of state and federal lands extend from Dollar Bay south to the Monroe County line with the exception of Marco Island, Isles of Capri, Goodland, Port of the Islands, Everglades City and Chokoloskee Island. These areas are mostly remote mangrove forested and salt marsh lands which will never be permitted for marina use. 3 . 2 . 1 Collier County Land Development Code The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) allows for the construction of private boathouses and docks in the Agricultural and Residential zoning districts (RSF 1-6 , RMF-6 , 12 , 16) , and Accessory use in Residential Tourist (RT) , Village Residential (VR) and Mobile Home districts. Marinas are permitted in the C-3 , C-4 , and C-5 commercial districts and in the Community Facilites District as a conditional use. Boat yards and marinas are permitted as a conditional use in the VR district. The procedure to change the zoning involve notice and advertising, two public hearings and approval by a super majority of the Board of County Commissioners, the procedures for which are listed in Division 2 . 7 of the LDC. Multi-slip docking facilities with 10 slips or more, and all commercial marina facilities shall comply with the stipulations listed in the LDC. The guidelines for the construction of boat houses and docks are listed in LDC Section 2 . 6 . 21 , and contain language for the protection of seagrass beds and other benthic communitees (See Sec. 2 . 4 . 2) 3 . 2 . 1 . 1 Recommended Additions to the Land Development Code The following stipulations are recommended to be appended to the LDC: 1. A manatee protection plan shall be submitted by the development, which shall address, but not be limited to, the following categories: - Education and public awareness Posting and maintaining manatee and speed zone signs - Information on boat traffic - Monitoring and maintainance of water quality to comply with state standards. -50- • LEE =WY IKONS►Ari 4 II I. COASTAL PUBLIC LANDS alai Nr �• .::: le I �011111111 .r 4 ........44 i 1 N szu 1 4-4,° Ilk (..; . s �:•:•i.•i•:::•, ` ‘1.1.".:.-.1.::::::::::*•..:• • *:°•:•:•:: 10110,1'-.-..* X•:•:0:::: ••. •• •.••••• • '� ••:. •.• . •• r .7 .1.7.-. %• •i• ••• •••• is•:•. i: is••i::i::%:*::::::::::::::::::::.:.::::.. •e„I .••• • ••••••••••••• • •• S•:- • �.�i•••i"i:i�•••:••':ii:•i••i •• ••. •i:!Y�•'�:•:"i-';:::::::::::::!:::. •• •••i:ii••i•i••y�i•+ ••.Rti••• � / fir... �.....•...• •. L �•••�•••••.•••••• • • • ••• ..•.• x-..••:•• ••:• i:4:•::::-:••:,.a.:+:•::::::::. 4••� •5 •:••.••=••••:•a :••.•.. •:•.••••.•. i• ••...'••p::'. •••••• [14VJP�KATWlK " IC :•i:•:i"• •:•.'.•.::!:•�:yty�s•••:::i:••••�i.i••i�°•:•ilii••• VONFOX Figure 3-8 State and Federal Parks and Preserves -51- 2 . Boat basins accomodating facilities with 10 boat slips or more shall be designated and posted as idle speed/manatee protection and boating safety zones. Signs shall be installed and maintained by the facility. 3 . All access channels shall be posted as idle or slow speed/manatee protection and boating safety zones. Signs shall be installed and maintained by the facility. 3 . 2 . 2 Site Specific Recommendations The following site specific recommendations can be implemented by creating and overlay to the zoning maps and including specific standards. This overlay can then be appended to the LDC. 3 . 2 . 2 . 1 Wiggins Pass Area The waters of the Wiggins Pass area are very shallow, on average less than 5 feet at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) . The Army Corps of Engineers designed the Wiggins Pass System for 3 foot draft vessels, and current maintenance dredging permits are based on the 3 foot draft design. For manatee protection the clearance required below the boat motor prop and the bottom is 2 feet minimum. Therefore the maximum draft depth should be limited to 3 . 0 feet for any new marinas or multi-dock facilities. 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 The Clam Bays The Clam Bay system is a very shallow enclosed bayed complex. It is made up of three bays interconnected by shallow meandering creeks which wind through a dense mangrove forest. The Clam Bay system contains some of the richest seagrass beds in northern Collier County. The system is currently served by a canoe launching facility which is open to the public. A residential area at the southern end of the system contains the only power driven vessels and they are limited by draft as to when they can operate. In order to protect the shallow benthic habitats no power boat facilities should be permitted for the Clam Bay system. 3 . 2 . 2 . 3 Collier Bay Collier Bay contains extensive seagrass beds. Manatees are known to congregate in this area. Several manatee deaths have occurred in this bay and associate waters. This area is currently posted as an Idle Speed Zone. Because of the presents of manatees in this area and the existence of seagrass beds, it is recommended that the currently imposed 1 power boat slip per 100 feet of -52- shoreline limitation on multi dock facilities remain in effect. 3 . 2 . 2 . 4 Port of the Islands Shoreline development within the manatee sanctuary at Port of the Islands will be restricted as follows: 1. Single family residential docks should be restricted to one power boat slip per 100 feet of shoreline or increments thereof with one power boat slip allowed for single family property lots with less than 100 feet of shoreline. 2 . Multi-family residential docks should be restricted by allowing only marginal wharves along the waterfront of multi-family areas with no finger piers of "T" docks allowed. 3 . The commercial marina should be restricted to the total 175 slips currently permitted . If future demands exceed this number then additional slips may be permitted only after proving no further deleterious effects to manatees have occurred subsequent to the adoption of this plan. Port of the Islands will provide the documentation stating compliance with these recommendations. 3 . 2 . 3 Marina Siting Criteria The Collier County Natural Resources Department has developed a rating system for marina siting throughout the remainder of the county. The purpose of the marina site rating system is to help determine the maximum powerboat wetslip densities in order to improve existing manatee protection. The marina site rating system gives a high, medium or low ranking based on two (2) criteria; water depth and native marine habitat (See Figures 3-9 - 3-13) . Adequate water depth in Collier County is considered to be greater than five (5) feet at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) . This premise is based on the fact that the majority of vessels in the county are less than three (3) foot draft, allowing two (2) feet of clearance below the keel for manatee protection. Greater depths will be required for those facilities designed for or capable of accommodating vessels having greater than a three (3) foot draft. These depth requirements will also apply to the area between the proposed facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet, pass or deep water. Where necessary, marking of navigational channels may be required. -53- ......... ......, vIARINA SITING CRITERIA LEGEND Adequate Depth Native Habitat ( > 5 ft ) y'•-" \4(trCt Pim / , :..8 •• s I y---- v I / 1 MI I 11 lime 1 _ 17,04. ..1- WGGINS PIA:S. 6;a114*4 12.677.‘1.... I I PASS ... ,.'--41 III AI a 'II I Wil■ L c-' 1 �� I Figure 3-9 Wiggins Pass Area -54- ___". MARINA SITING CRITERIA LEGEND Adequate Depth Native Habitat ( > 5 ft ) a, ipa 111111 MN aaa� was t 7i•= • r a a 1 CLAV =a = 1I PASS ,.. . n . . • C .esti. DOCTORS if. PASS N.•. i .:..... .s 4. . ,, .. . - , \ --- .. r17-- , Figure 3-10 Clam Pass & Doctors Pass -55- .__ , VARINA SITING CRITERIA LEGEND Adequate Depth G Native Habitat ( > 5 ft ) ----- — — 0 ,. Ci ;i al lill .41 :is 1 \ ....4111P- '. '141:-.... _.......7 . , N....a_ i s. :.:.... ..:.. ,, sii: g . ------n If?:tir' ; ...„,,..0.1._. s, •�� ■'' ill oe— ❖.-� I ••:• a :. III .z;' 'o• ••, •• •• � J 1 . • S• • die: _ - I T1 : i PASS ...,........v..* - max __ Figure 3-11 Gordon Pass Area -56- ......... ....__ MARINA SITING CRITERIA LEGEND e Adequate Depth et Native Habitat ( > 5 ft ) .. :;...IN1111 II ..111 ,_ moi.. „_ ii:~ tirr,:!�ll:: `��ter► kVika. • �� CAPRI PASS ~ .:.._ ~::.r:::. ='i . ':� 11.-`/,/��C\1JpMea UP. '. ••i:. 0 r• . �le -mm•- .0 imimmummile ,\ 17#9 •11•111111111111111P In I IV IIIIINNINP • • 1111•.j.011111111 a.* t IM fr.. ._'.r_ ' ''%, : •/MM. OM 11111/1111111111\1=1/10 Om. ° , I_ ..1 4. immummume two ..„.4•••••!'• IV\le . ors Iv . 4 r v t ...9111111.11111W 11•11111.1111111.1111111::.7;.... ^461111111111W 4/2//0/MNI. ..\ • aimb air .... G aft. .... 4 -. ? Q;;' r ,.1 ' Mir 0 •.. in b ,...k .3-* CAXAMBAS .<:ti�- _. =� ., PASS _._. _ Iii oft o — 11•7111M UL- =-.....- 1•111/1/0/11/1/11/11/111/111/11111111 111111/1/1 111/111 MEM WI"�.' -tel, s+'��i�. �"' 4=0, 111. IMMO" wow AIN...mor C\_ b Figure 3-12 Marco Island & Goodland -57- , ........... MARINA SITING CRITERIA LEGEND Adequate Depth 0 Native Habitat ( > 5 ft ) rs_Wr-e*z, • e•fir +�`• i ' i, -- i A I. .. mss.angliggla l . , ��� `. , I• '.��J 'rte • • .. 1• tri �i '� S .0 'Row.,. •- WJ� � f� ��-.... `' •:atew. j •v: WOW.10 `m" al,.0111-firels oratlis7 ..--- '1=• 0. : /111111111,"-'1 iii‘ . .C y 411 ._ Vim iii • Mr.%::::.• IV.. rNift -•ii.,.--:... • • e . �.. ,.%,..,.. _:'�::-jam.• - a•`c• : "' :�; Native marine habitats include seagrass beds, salt marshes, mangroves or other biologically productive submerged and shoreline habitats which may be adversely affected or destroyed by dredging and filling activities. 3 . 2 . 3 . 1 Ranking Criteria A ranking of High is given to a site that has adequate water depth and access, and will impact no native marine habitats. A Medium ranking is given when there is adequate water depth and access, but will impact native marine habitat, and when the water depth is less than five (5) feet MLLW but will not impact native marine habitat. A Low ranking is given to an area that does not have adequate water depth or access, and will impact or destroy native marine habitat. MARINA SITING CRITERIA Water Depth Native Marine Habitat Wet Slip Density 2 Greater Than Less Than No Impact Impact Maximum Allowable 5' MLLW 5' MLLW HIGH X X 18/100 MEDIUM X X 10/100 MEDIUM X X 10/100 LOW X X 1/100 (1) A water depth of 5 feet must be availabe within 100 feet of the proposed Marina. (2) No impact is defined as no greater than 5% of the native marine habitat is distrubed. Table 3-1 Marina Siting Criteria & Allowable Wet Slip Densities A High rating would allow up to 18 wetslips per 100 linear feet of contiguous shoreline. This is based on an average of wetslip densities of existing marinas in Collier County. The Low rating would allow one ( 1) powerboat slip per 100 linear feet of contiguous shoreline, with the remaining slips allowable only to sailboats. This is based on the current state imposed standard. The Medium rating would allow ten (10) power boatslips and eight (8) sailboat slips per 100 feet of shoreline. -59- 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 Implementation In conjunction with Table 3-1 and Figures 3-9 - 3-13 , it is possible to determine the approximate areaswhere the recommended maximum allowable densities will be applied. The exact areas will depend on site specific data gathered during the site development process reviews. This rating system does not preclude the existing zoning and density regulations required by the current Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) . This system shall be used to determine the allowable maximum powerboat wetslip densities within future marina sites for the purpose of manatee protection. These criteria will be applied at the appropriate time of receiving a County permit. An amendment to the LDC will be necessary to implement these criteria. A summary of marina siting criteria and densities can be found in Figure 3-14 . -60- • LEE COUNTY • 41LY ;INS PASS.;•E MARINA RESTRICTIONS ' • ®DRAFT < 3 FEET • ®t DOCK PER 100 FEET SHORE E3 MARINAS PROHIBITED Water Deptl. •attire it+r,rat e•pitat vet flip Otn1t• Ems t . . . . Greater I'an test '•ar •o law lope( Raa..ua Allowable S• Mtv S• .::r . t �...� •1G• . 19/100 1111111Ind...,. _ . 10/1005. i,r111111 tl[D I tM „--, I I 10/100 KOIIM I I 1/100 2:ter (1) depth of S feet net be e+e•laive o tn.n 100 fret of t••• Coopcted Karina. iii 11 (2) to iapa(t i1 defined ♦$ro yeacer t•••St of the •41;•• war.'.. •1b'I at Ie OIstrs••C. (3) Sa•e iigores 1'0 3'13 for apps JC ••• local.c•-• Of at l a.a0le de,,t'to O •x"'1!10.1.c rwootIllalfilm. i WINIAmela ••• * 93 ,C� •00T}I GOLDEN GATE 11•11.0 S. C-1 e IMP 6" ..asits"ils IV/Om , ...... 1111/616.4 IIIIM•0 .....„.......... el'•;•1111s UMW s. fAKAHAT( {EE OS � �\1PSI•••Y•ala• � •..e.. Ialalt. •i ao iI , •��••Imo.-NUM at r•=�•Y.., ... a►�A•►4.� Coll \ .d• •••r rale •al•••.=ice.Vain.. s \- ice.s:-atomise • tip.1`MIA •r �_�_: �'�, / •s e• ai•I•••. •=••I= v►�•�.� .�.r...a ihes= WI RCYMiO • •S M..J��ta.••w••.Z 1.-r 1CtuM MILStJIv[ ••••••••.naa••a•• ►R.•ea•.••• .r.;. ,, .ti ,.ems r,� 1411011.1 ►1RK ".••..•i�i•icM ..•. NONROE COUNTY Figure 3-14 Marina Siting Criteria -61- 3 . 3 Education, Research, and Awareness Education and public awareness may be the most important elements in a viable protection plan for any species or habitat. In order for a protection plan to be truly effective, it is necessary for the public to understand the problems facing the continued survival of the Florida manatee, the reasons why the species should be protected, and the ways that humans can aid in its recovery. In addition, more research information is needed on manatee physiology, habitat needs, and behavior. The cause of death for 36% of recovered manatee carcasses could not be determined. Many of these carcasses were severely decomposed before they were recovered (State of Florida DNR, 1990a) . For the above reasons, it is strongly recommended that education, research, and awareness programs , as well as increased recovery efforts, head the list of priorities for the County's manatee protection program. 3 . 3 . 1 Education County environmental staff should coordinate with the local school board regarding environmental education. Programs should be adapted for grades K through 12 and include information about the Florida manatees and how they can recover from their endangered status. Field trips to see manatees in the wild and in captivity, as well as field trips to essential manatee habitat, should be part of the program. 3 . 3 . 2 Public Awareness Brochures should focus on the rationale and provisions for regulations, as well as encouraging the public to take precautions outside of designated restricted zones. Information regarding manatee behavior and habitat needs should also be included. Such information may include feeding preferences, areas within the county where manatees are known to congregate, the fact that manatees prefer shoreline areas and channel margins, descriptions of critical manatee habitat areas and how to preserve them, etc. Brochures should be distributed at public boat ramps, boat rental facilities, marinas, boat registration offices, safe boating courses and federal, State, and county park facilities. The Collier County Natural Resources Department recently authored a 4-fold informational brochure regarding manatee protection. The brochure will be included in all boater registration mailings in Collier County (estimated 20 , 000 per year) . The brochure includes general information regarding the Florida manatee, a map of designated protection and speed restriction zones, citations of the enabling legislation, and information on what boaters could do to help protect manatees. -62- 3 . 3 . 3 Research County environmental staff should coordinate with FDEP and USFWS for the purpose of assisting in manatee research . The County can contribute to sighting studies and habitat usage by the Florida manatee within Collier County. Studies should also be coordinated with those of bordering counties, specifically Lee and Monroe Counties, and with the Biology Department of Edison Community College. 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS and IMPLEMENTATION 4 . 1 Boat Speed Regulation 4 . 1. 1 For the purpose of manatee protection, Collier County shall enact an ordinance that will establish Idle Speed zones in the following locations: 1 . ) Little Hickory Cove (See Figure 3-1) 2 . ) The Clam Bay System (See Figure 3-2 ) 3 . ) The Barron River (See Figure 3-7) 4 . 1. 2 For the purpose of manatee protection and boater's safety, Collier County shall enact an ordinance that will establish Slow Speed zones in the following locations: 1 . ) The Inland Waterway between markers 52 and 47 (See Figure 3-3) 2 . ) The south end of Johnson Bay (See Figure 3-4) 3 . ) The Marco River at the Judge Jolly Bridge (See Figure 3-4) 4 . ) The area from marker 15 in the Marco River to the existing Idle Speed Zone at marker 10 (See Figure 3-5) 5 . ) The area in Chokoloskee Bay extending from the mouth of the Barron River out to the first spoil island and then heading in an approximate Southeasterly direction 400 yards off the causeway to Chokoloskee (See Figure 3-7) . 4 . 2 Habitat Protection 4 . 2 . 1 To protect shallow seagrass beds located adjacent to boat channels additional channel markers shall be placed in the following locations: 1 . ) The Inland Waterway from marker 29 to 27 , from marker 16 to 14 , and the south end of Johnson Island. 2 . ) The Marco River from marker 15 west of the Judge Jolly Bridge (CR 951) to marker 25 east of the bridge. -63- 4 . 2 . 2 To protect the remaining seagrass meadows from further degradation from upland water sources, Collier County shall continue the water quality monitoring program at watershed outlets entering the bays and backwaters which flow into the seagrass beds. 4 . 3 Shoreline Development 4 . 3 . 1 For manatee protection during the construction of marinas and multi-boat facilities the following are recommended additions to the Land Development Code: 1 . ) A manatee protection plan shall be submitted by the development, which shall address, but not be limited to, the following categories: - Education and public awareness - Posting and maintaining manatee and speed zone signs - Information on boat traffic - Monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with state standards. 2 . ) Boat basins accommodating facilities with 10 boat slips or more shall be designated and posted as idle speed/manatee protection and boating safety zones. Signs shall be installed and maintained by the facility. 3 . ) All access channels to the marina shall be posted as idle or slow speed/manatee protection and boating safety zones. Signs shall be installed and maintained by the facility. 4 . 3 . 2 The waters of the Wiggins Pass area are very shallow, on average less than 5 feet at Mean Lower Lo:: Water (MLLW) . The Army Corps of Engineers designed the Wiggins Pass System for 3 foot draft vessels, and current maintenance dredging permits are based on the 3 foot draft design. For manatee protection the clearance required below the boat motor prop and the bottom is 2 feet minimum. Therefore the maximum draft depth shall be limited to 3 . 0 feet for any new marinas or multi-dock facilities. This shall be implemented by creating an overlay to the Official Zonning Map, providing specific standards and amending the LDC. 4 . 3 . 3 The Clam Bay system is a very shallow enclosed bayed complex. It is made up of three bays interconnected by shallow meandering creeks which wind through a dense mangrove forest. The Clam Bay system contains some of the richest seagrass beds in northern Collier County. The system is currently served by a -64- canoe launching facility which is open to the public. A residential area at the southern end of the system contains the only power driven vessels and they are limited by draft as to when they can operate. In order to protect the shallow benthic habitats, and due to the ephemeral nature of Clam Pass, no power boat facilities shall be permitted for the Clam Bay system. This shall be implemented by creating an overlay to the Official Zonning Map, providing specific standards and amending the LDC. 4 . 3 . 4 Collier Bay contains extensive seagrass beds. Manatees are known to congregate in this area. Several manatee deaths have occurred in this bay and associated waters. This area is currently posted as an Idle Speed Zone. Because of the presents of manatees in this area and the existence of seagrass beds, the currently imposed 1 power boat slip per 100 feet of shoreline limitation on multi dock facilities shall remain in effect. This shall be implemented by creating an overlay to the Official Zonning Map, providing specific standards and amending the LDC. 4 . 3 . 5 Adopt the Marina Siting Criteria and Density limited listed in Section 3 . 2 . 3 (See Figure 3-14) 4 . 4 Education and Public Awareness 4 . 4 . 1 County environmental staff shall coordinate with the local school board regarding environmental education. Programs should be adapted for grades K through 12 and include information about the Florida manatees and how they can recover from their endangered status. Field trips to see manatees in the wild and in captivity, as well as field trips to essential manatee habitat, should be part of the program. 4 . 4 . 2 Brochures shall be printed which focus on the rationale and provisions for regulations, as well as encouraging the public to take precautions outside of designated restricted zones. Information regarding manatee behavior and habitat needs should also be included. Such information may include feeding preferences, areas within the county where manatees are known to congregate, the fact that manatees prefer shoreline areas and channel margins, descriptions of critical manatee habitat areas and how to preserve them, etc. Brochures should be distributed at public boat ramps, boat rental facilities, marinas, boat registration offices, safe boating courses and federal, State, and county park facilities. 4 . 5 Research 4 . 5 . 1 County environmental staff shall continue to coordinate with FDEP and USFWS for the purpose of assisting in manatee research. The County can contribute to sighting studies and habitat usage by the Florida manatee within Collier County. Studies should also be coordinated with those of bordering counties, specifically Lee and Monroe Counties, and with the -65- Biology Department of Edison Community College 4 . 6 Port of the Islands Port of the Islands and the Faka-Union Canal contains the highest concentration of manatees in Collier County especially during the winter season. Because of the high concentration of manatees present in this area special consideration must be given for this location . Increased manatee awareness by both the resident and transient boaters is essential for protecting the manatees. The County should encourage the Port of the Islands Homeowners Association to adopt the following: 4 . 6. 1 Port of the Islands should be required to include a manatee informational brochure in the closing documents of all real estate transactions on the waterfront. This brochure will include general information on manatees and how to spot them along with details of the POI speed zones and the maximum fine of $500. 00 for violating these zones 4 . 6 . 2 POI should incorporate a description of the speed zones and potential fines for violating these zones into the boat rental agreement to be signed by renters. Ramp users will also be required to sign a list stating they understand the speed zones and potential fines. 4 . 6 . 3 Shoreline development within the manatee sanctuary at Port of the Islands will be restricted as follows : 1 . Single family residential docks should be restricted to one power boat slip per 100 feet of shoreline or increments thereof with one power boat slip allowed for single family property lots with less than 100 feet of shoreline. 2 . Multi-family residential docks should be restricted by allowing only marginal wharves along the waterfront of multi-family areas with no finger piers of "T" docks allowed. 3 . The commercial marina should be restricted to the total 175 slips currently permitted. If future demands exceed this number then additional slips may be permitted only after proving no further deleterious effects to manatees have occurred subsequent to the adoption of this plan. REFERENCES -66- Austin, D. F. and D.M. McJunkin. January, 1978 . An ethnoflora of Chokoloskee Island, Collier County, Florida. In: Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 59 ( 1) : 50-67 . Bertone, S. 1990a. Rookery Bay Manatee Sighting Log. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Naples, Florida. Bertone, S. 1990b. In: Collier County Natural Resources Department. February, 1990. Survey, Manatee Protection Questions and Responses. Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Bertone, S. 1993 . Personal communication. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Naples, Florida . Boldt, John, P. E. , Director. August 16, 1993 . Personal communication. Water Management Department, Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Bureau of Aquatic Preserves, Division of State Lands. June 28 , 1988 . Rookery Bay and Cape Romano-Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserves Management Plan. State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Florida . pp 82-83 . Carleton, W. 1990. In: Collier County Natural Resources Department. February, 1990 . Survey, Manatee Protection Questions and Responses . Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Citrus County Manatee Plan Committee and the Citrus County Planning Division. 1991 . Citrus County Manatee Protection Plan (Draft) . Lecanto, Florida. 67 pp. City of Naples. 1989 . City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. Naples, Florida. 403 pp. , 35 appendices, maps. Clark, J. 1974 . Rookery Bay: Ecological constraints on coastal development. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D. C. 91 pp. Collier County Growth Planning Department. January, 1989 . Support document: land use data and analysis. In: Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. pp. LU-II-235-260 . Collier County Natural Resources Department. 1994 . Collier County Boating Study and Facility Inventory. Collier County Environmental Services Division. Naples, Florida. Collier County Natural Resources Department. 1991. Collier County Coastal Barrier Management Plan, Section 6. 3 . -67- Collier County Board of County Commissioners . Naples, Florida. Collier County Natural Resources Department. February, 1990. Survey, Manatee Protection Questions and Responses. Collier County Government. Naples, Florida . Davis. 1990. In: Collier County Natural Resources Department. February, 1990. Survey, Manatee Protection Questions and Responses. Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Dryden, K. 1990. In: Collier County Natural Resources Department. February, 1990. Survey, Manatee Protection Questions and Responses. Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-3 . . Chapter 18-20; Subsection 18-20. 004 . Florida Power and Light Company. 1987 . Boaters' Guide to Manatees. Miami, Florida. 29 pp. Florida Statutes, Chapter 327 . Florida Statutes, Chapter 370 . 12 . Frohlich, R.K. 1989 . Draft: Summary of Manatee Surveys for Selected Areas in Southwest Florida , 1986-1988 . Florida Marine Research Institute, Southwest Florida Field Station. Fort Myers, Florida. 9 pp. Frohlich, R.K. 1991. Personal communications. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Protected Species Management. Tallahassee, Florida . Grabe, S. , 1991 . A Preliminary Assessment of Estuarine Water Quality in Collier County: 1972-1990 . Pollution Control Department, Collier County Government. Naples, Florida. Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc. , and Mote Marine Laboratory. June, 1989 . Boat traffic study; prepared for the City of Naples, Phase I Report. Naples, Florida. 73 Pp. Holley, C. , Director. 1991. Parks and Parkways, City of Naples. Naples, Florida. Marine Mammal Commission. December, 1988 . Preliminary Assessment of Habitat Protection Needs for West Indian Manatees on the East Coast of Florida and Georgia. Washington, D. C. 107 pp. -68- Miami Herald, The. November 18 , 1990. Manatee deaths on rise despite new awareness. Miami , Florida . Moynihan, G. March 14 , 1991 . Memorandum to Ilene Barnett regarding locations of "Caution Manatee Area" signs in Everglades National Park. Everglades National Park, U. S. Government. Everglades City, Florida . Myers, C.T. III . 1985. Section 107 Appraisal report for Doctors Pass small-boat navigation channel , Collier County, Florida . U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville, Florida . 20 pp. Nabor, P. 1991. Personal communication. Florida Marine Research Institute, Southwest Florida Field Station. Fort Myers, Florida. Nabor, P. and R.K. Frohlich. 1991 . Draft: Manatee Distribution and Relative Abundance in Waters Surrounding Marco Island, Florida . Florida Marine Research Institute, Southwest Florida Field Station. Fort Myers , Florida . 17 pp. Naples Daily News. June 20, 1990. Awareness can help manatees. Naples, Florida. Naples Daily News. January 4 , 1991 . State manatee deaths rise. Naples, Florida. Parker, S. L. August 1989 . Report on a Survey of Florida' s Registered Boat Owners for the Save the Manatee Club. Survey Research Laboratory, Policy Sciences Program, Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida . 74 pp. REDI Aerial and Map Atlas of Collier County, Florida. 1993 . REDI National Headquarters. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Reynolds, Smith and Hill Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc. 1988 . Collier County boat landing study; for the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department. Jacksonville, Florida . 30 pp. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. August, 1989 . Manatee Plan for Collier County. State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Florida . 4 pp. Rose, P.M. , Environmental Administrator. August, 1991. Letter to Ilene J. Barnett regarding draft manatee protection plan. Tallahassee, Florida. Save the Manatee Club. March, 1991. Save the Manatee Club Newsletter. Maitland, Florida. 7 pp. -69- Scheneman, B. 1990 through 1991 . Manatee Alert. Naples Daily News. Naples, Florida . Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council . 1984 . Marina Siting Survey, Southwest Florida . Ft. Myers, Florida. 30 pp. and appendices. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1989 . Permit Number 111460389 , Intent to Issue; to Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Tallahassee, Florida. 30 pp. . 1991. File No. 111939239 . Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida. Ft. Myers, Florida . State of Florida Department of Natural Resources . 1989a. Manatee Protection Plan Guidelines. Tallahassee, Florida. . 1989b. Manatee Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule. Tallahassee, Florida . . 1989c. Suggested Framework: Manatee Protection Plan. Tallahassee, Florida. . 1990a . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Rule No. 16N-22 . 023 . Tallahassee, Florida. State of Florida Department of Natural Resources . 1990b. File Number DBS 88-208C0. Final Order. Tallahassee, Florida . State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991 . Database of Manatee Deaths in Collier County. VAX printout. Tallahassee, Florida. 22 pp. State of Florida Governor and Cabinet. October 24 , 1989 . Boating Safety and Manatee Protection Recommendations: Summary of Actions by the Governor and Cabinet. Tallahassee, Florida . Stout, W. F. , and E.M. Stout . 1991 . Letter to W. Lorenz , Environmental Administrator, Collier County Government, regarding Enchanting Shores Trailer Park manatee area . Naples, Florida. Tebeau, C.W. 1966. Florida' s Last Frontier: The History of Collier County. Copeland Studies in Florida History; University of Miami Press. Coral Gables, Florida. 278 pp. United States Department of Commerce. May, 1981 . NOAA Nautical Chart 11426 - Estero Bay to Lemon Bay, Florida. United States Department of Commerce. April, 1990 . NOAA -70- Nautical Chart 11430 - Lostmans River to Wiggins Pass, Florida. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. April 17 , 1985 . Fakahatchee Strand : A Florida Panther habitat preservation proposal ; Final environmental assessment. 64 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989 . Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Florida Manatee Recovery Team for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia . 98 pp. Van Meter, V.B. 1987 . The West Indian Manatee in Florida. Florida Power and Light Company. Miami, Florida . 41 pp. Whitfield, W.K. , and S. L. Farrington. 1975. An Annotated Bibliography of Sirenia . Florida Marine Research Publication Number 7 . FDNR Marine Research Laboratory. St. Petersburg, Florida . 44 pp. -71- A P P E N D I X A The following information was excerpted from the 1994 Collier County Boating Study and Facility Inventory. - A-1 - Table 3 Ramp Destinations - Season See Maps 6-11 (Pages 87-92) . DEPARTURE POINT ORS DNW 1 NPL BVP CRB 1 CXR Total ' DESTINATIONS t Addison Bay 2 2 Backwaters** 6 11 12 14 25 68 Big Marco Pass 2 2 Blind Pass 1 1 Cape Romano 2 7 9 Caxambas Pass 10 10 Chokoloskee Bay 6 6 Coconut Is 2 2 Dismal Key 1 1 Doctors Pass 1 1 Everglades City 1 1 2 Flotilla Channel 2 2 Goodland 2 11 4 17 Gordon Pass 9 9 Gulf of Mexico 2 24 1 19 14 26 86 Gullivan Bay 1 2 3 Horr ' s Is 1 1 Hurricane Pass 1 1 1 3 Inland Waterway 3 3 6 Keewaydin Is 2 29 15 46 Kice Is 14 14 Little Marco Is 1 1 Marco Is 1 1 19 9 5 35 Marco River 11 2 13 Naples Bay 4 15 5 1 25 Outside County 12 8 1 2 23 Rabbit Key Pass 1 1 Rookery Bay 1 6 5 12 Tarpon Bay 1 1 10, 000 Islands 9 2 7 18 Whitehorse Key 1 1 Wiggins Pass I 2 1 2 1 1 *Data from 18 Jan. , 10 Mar. , and 3 Apr. ramp surveys. **Backwaters refers to unspecified inland waters of Collier County Ramp Destination ORS - Outdoor Resorts DNW - Del-Nor Wiggins State Park NPL - Naples Landing BVP - Bayview Park CXR - Caxambas Pass Park CRP - Cocohatchee River Park CRB - County Road 951 Boat Ramp Table 4 Ramp Destinations - Offseason* See Maps 12-17 (Pages 93-98) DEPARTURE POINT CRP DNW NPL BVP CRB CXR Total DESTINATION ' Addison Bay 1 1 Backwaters** 10 14 3 7 21 8 63 Big Marco Pass 1 1 Blind Pass 1 1 Cape Romano 3 5 8 Capri Pass 2 2 Caxambas Pass 6 6 Cocohatchee Rv 2 2 Coon Key 3 1 4 Dismal Key 1 1 Flotilla Channel 1 1 Goodland 1 3 4 Gordon Pass 2 5 7 Gulf of Mexico 21 15 4 15 12 18 85 Keewaydin Is 122 23 2 1 48 Kice Is 1 10 11 Little Marco Is 2 1 3 Marco Is 8 7 18 3 36 Marco River 4 4 Naples Bay 10 2 12 Outside County 2 1 3 Rookery Bay 1 2 1 4 Sea Oat Is 1 1 10, 000 Islands 1 1 Vanderbilt Bch 1 1 *Data from 31 May, 15 Jul . , and 14 Aug . ramp surveys. **Backwaters refers to unspecified inland waters of Collier County Ramp Destination ORS - Outdoor Resorts DNW - Del-Nor Wiggins State Park NPL - Naples Landing BVP - Bayviey✓ Park CXR - Caxambas Pass Park CRP - Cocohatchee River Park CRB - County Road 951 Boat Ramp 31 4\100444 cZ3.z_lur g =g3 1 (r) > Cf) C 0 O I ' 1 Q M (f) o J o (f) z 7 C1) C) Z c Cr) LJ O J1 > 0 }- QQ I mm (1� 0 r" f "„oemoe,/- yam N I{ I Q 440) ue) Q- P► C,4 O > -, Q 7c� !' 1-z---- < . . P (r) m z til � O 4 Q < < ISI .4illitifi 211711: 10,01111p 1111> - i ' VI 1 I 1 ��o I __41c : illi 1 • tD i 1 1 i v • pi 11 41 VII II I 141 0,5„, rC� 0 D 0 > (I) 0 0 .71 Fri m > fl tiI 0 l O n 0 > 0 (I) CJ U) U D U) U) re00000.0"11"1111111111°44K3 CG 0 � W o 7 o I 4 U --� CIS U o > z 7 7 > 0 --I o 7 0 Tr- (f) 1 ` N '` I 1 1 { A i r g' r'"*. / I - • � 1 V dfr I03 I 4 ? 71 / ''''t .110 1 4 8 iiiil \ ,,, ,i - .6' j I (A .44)000... lite _; / C' i- 1 oo �, l I ' I 3-3 ___< 1 ' 1 › > (Jo ----- u) < , ---1 4 0 -D o 7 7 > > coo APPENDIXB Due to the size of the Manatee Distribution Map copies will be made available for viewing or copying at the following location: Collier County Natural Resources Department Bldg. H 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl 33963 or by contacting the Department of Environmental Protection Office of Protected Species 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399 - B-1 - APPENDIX C Due to the size of the Manatee Mortality Location Map copies will be made available for viewing or copying at the following location: Collier County Natural Resources Department Bldg. H 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl 33963 or by contacting the Department of Environmental Protection Office of Protected Species 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399 - C-1 - NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: EPTAB Members ��1 FROM: William D. Lorenz Jr. , P. E. , Administrator DATE: May 25, 1994 SUBJECT: Resolution Attached is a resolution allowing advisory boards to submit their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the appointment or reappointment of members. It allocates 41 days from notification of the Board office which I received on May 18, 1994 . EPTAB, therefore, has until June 28 , 1994 to submit its written recommendations. I have already provided you a list of the recent applicants. Also attached to this memo is a qualification matrix for your consideration. Staff will submit this completed matrix to the Board office. This item will appear on your next regularly scheduled meeting of June 6, 1994 . Please be prepared to discuss your recommendations on that day. WL: j1\6653 Attachments: (Resolution) (Matrix) c: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant, BCC Environmental Services File /' I RESOLUTION NO. 94-136 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FORMAL POLICY ESTABLISHINGi ,'� GUIDELINES FOR RECEIVING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has established - • Cc, /- various advisory boards and quasi-judicial boards to assist in j/ Q i _ ri 1�cY}S various facets of county business and functions; and WHEREAS, members are appointed to the various advisory committees and quasi-judicial boards by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to establish a policy and set forth guidelines regarding the recommendation process for membership on advisory committees and quasi-judicial boards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following guidelines are hereby established for Board of County Commissioners receipt and acceptance of recommendations from the various advisory committees and quasi-judicial boards for appointment of members to such committees or boards: 1) Recommendations will be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners for appointments or reappointments for vacancies on advisory committees from the current membership of the committee. An advisory committee shall be allocated 41 days after notification from the Board office to submit in writing their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the appointment or reappointment of members to such committee. 2) The County Staff is to review and categorize the applicants in areas of expertise and assure that the applicants possess the mini:-:::: position requirements for the appointment they are seeking. 3) The following Boards are included in the category of Quasi-Judicial Beards and no recommendations will be accepted or considered from such boards regarding appointments or reappointments for vacancies on such Boards: a. Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals b. Collier County Code Enforcement Board c. Contractor's Licensing Board d. Public Vehicle Advisory Committee This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: March 1, 1994 n -A'T'TEST: I/ BOARD OF COUNTY ISSIONERS DWIGHT E: ,BROCK, CLERK COLLIER C , FLORIDA B YOFF H Ci - • N , CHAIPM•AN •Approved ,as to form and legalr's$fficiency: Kenne County Attorn EXPERIENCE BAXTER RAY WILSON PAST EXPERIENCE AIR QUALITY BOTANY COASTAL PROCESS ECOLOGY ESTUARINE PROCESS HAZARDOUS WASTE HYDROGEOLOGY HYDROLOGY HYDRAULICS POLLUTION CONTROL SOLID WASTE STORMWATER WATER RESOURCES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ZOOLOGY LAND-USE LAW LAND-USE PLANNING COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 3301 E. TAMIAMI TR. NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FL 33962 (813) 732-2505 FAX (813) 774.9222 May 25, 1994 A CERTIFIED BLUE CHIP COMMUNITY Mr. Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning State of Florida Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 RE: Land Development Regulation Challenge - Case No. LC-91-F-01 and Case No. LC-93-F-01 Dear Mr. Pennock: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your March 24 , 1994 letter regarding the subject Land Development Regulation Challenge Case Number LC-91-F-01 and LC-93-F-01. The County acknowledges your assessment that the adoption of land development regulations for Objectives 11. 6 and Policy 11.6. 1 is no longer an issue with the adoption of Ordinance 93-37 . You also state that the Ordinance "does not address the portion of Policy 6. 1. 1 that requires development standards and criteria for xeric scrub habitats. Nor does it inventory, define and contain developments standards and criteria, based on the presence of dominant or indicative species, for xeric scrub habitats, marine, freshwater, transitional zone wetlands, hardwood hammocks, pine flatwoods and dry prairie habitats, as required by the remaining portion of the policy. " Objective 6. 1 and its attendant policies were adopted to consider more encompassing land development regulations to protect habitats than were originally adopted by the County in 1989. The County has already adopted land development regulations providing for the protection of native vegetative communities and habitat consistent with policies 6.4 . 6 and 6. 4 . 7 . Attached is a copy of the Section of the County's ULDC which addresses Vegetation Removal, Protection and Preservation. Please refer to Section 3 .9 . 5. 5. While the County has not adopted the Habitat Protection Ordinance, it has adopted minimal land development regulations Mr. Robert Pennock, Chief May 25, 1994 Page -2- which addresses all native habitat and is therefore in compliance with minimum state requirements. The Board of County Commissioners did consider the Habitat Protection Ordinance at a June 16, 1993 Public Hearing. It directed staff to defer further work on the HPO until the NRPA program becomes more fully developed. Again, this recognizes the fact that the County already has adopted land development regulations designed to protect habitats consistent with policies 6.4 . 6 and 6. 4 .7 . This direction further recognizes the Objectives and Policies of Goal 14 which require the County to avoid unnecessary duplication of existing regulatory programs. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Stan Litsinger at 643-8408 . Sincerely, "k.-tiork illiam D. Lorenz Jr. , P. E. , Administrator Environmental Services Division WL: j1\6651 c: Commissioner Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman Gary Beardsley Stan Litsinger Marjorie Student Environmental Services File V pM 1onf,9 V€teradon emoval,Proreetfon and Preservarron DIV. 3.9 VEGETATION REMOVAL, ,PROTEOTIOI AND PRESERVATION. SEC. 3.9.1 TITLE AND CITATION. This division shall be known and may be cited as the 'Collier County Vegetation Removal. Protection and Preservation Regulations.' SEC. 3.9.2 PURPOSE. The purpose of this division is the protection of vegetation within Collier County by regulating its removal; to assist in the control of flooding, soa erosion, dust, heat, air pollution and noise and to maintain property, aesthetic and health values within Collier County; to limit the use of irrigation water in open space areas by promoting the preservation of existing plant communities. To limit the removal of existing viable vegetation in advance of the approval of land development plans; to Omit the removal of existing viable vegetation when no landscape plan has been prepared for the site. It is not the intent of this division to restrict the mowing of non-protected vegetation in order to meet the requirements of other sections of this code. SEC. 3.9.3 APPUCABILITYNNLA, FUL TO REMOVE VEGETATION. It shall be unlawful for any individual. firm, association.joint venture, partnership, estate, trust. syndicate, fiduciary, corporation, group, or unit of Federal, State, County, or municipal government to remove or cause to be removed vegetation. or after mangrove trees without first obtaining a vegetation removal permit from the Development Services Director except as hereinafter exempted. Selective trimming of mangrove trees, and alteration of mangrove trees by duly consituted communication, water, sewerage, electrical, or other utility companies: engineers or surveyors working under contract with these agencies when the mangrove alteration is done as a necessary governmental function, does not require a permit. This does not include trimming to provide a better view for upland property owners to enjoy coastal waters or trimming in excess of that necessary to maintain or install communication, water,electrical, or sewerage services. All mangrove debris except leaf and twig material which inadvertently falls into the water shall be disposed in uplands in an appropriate manner. SEC. 3.9.4 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. 3.9.4.1 Other Pam*: Reoulred. No vegetation removal permit shall be issued by the Development Services Director until all applicable Federal and State, and County approvals as designated by the Development Services Director have been obtained. These approvals may include, but are not limited to: - building permits - special treatment (ST) development permits - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permits or exemptions - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation permits or exemptions - Florida Department of Natural Resources permits or exemptions - South Florida Water Management District permits or exemptions - other applicable agency reviews or permits or exemptions - other County approvals. 3.9.4.2 Application Contents. Application for a vegetation removal permit shall be submitted to the Collier County 3-123 Oct 30,1991 Amended July 6,1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct 14,1S'92 Amended Dec. 17,1993 itisron 5.9Vegetation Removal, Proteedon and Preservation 3.9.4.2.3 An executed statement which includes: 1. Names, address, and phone of property owner. 2. Name, address, and phone of authorized agent and on-site representative. 3. Proof of ownership. 4. Legal description. 5. Reason for proposed removal. 6. Method to distinguish vegetation to be removed from vegetation to be preserved and Collier County 3-124-a Orr. 30, 1991 Amended July 6,1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct. 14, 1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 Qtv(sion 3.9 Vele:adore Removal, Protection and Preservation method of removal. It should be noted that the root system of the vegetation shall also be protected. 7. Signature of property owner or copy of a specific contract signed by property owner. 3.9.4.2.4 Vegetation Relocation Plan. If vegetation relocation is proposed by the applicant prior to Site Development Plan, construction plan or other final approvals, a vegetation relocation permit(vegetation removal permit) may be issued by the Site Development Review Director provided that it can be demonstrated that early transplantation will enhance the survival of the relocated vegetation. The vegetation relocation plan shall document methods of relocation, timing of relocation, watering provisions, maintenance and other information as required by the Site Development Review Director. SEC. 3.9.5 VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION STANDARDS. 3.9.5.1 Vegetation Protection. 3.9.5.1.1 General. During construction, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or damaging of vegetation shall be taken,including the installation of protective barriers.Vegetation destroyed or receiving major damage must be replaced by vegetation of equal environmental value, as specified by the Development Services Department, before occupancy or use unless approval for their removal has been granted under permit. 3.9.5.1.2 Fitfina and Construction Debris. During construction, unless otherwise authorized by the vegetation removal permit, no excess soil, additional fill, equipment, liquids, or construction debris, shall be placed within the drip line of any vegetation that is required to be preserved in its present location. 3.9.5.1.3 Attachments. Unless otherwise authorized by the vegetation removal permit, no attachments or wires other than those of a protective or non-damaging nature shall be attached to any vegetation during construction. 3.9.5.1.4 Excavation. Unless otherwise authorized by the vegetation removal permit, no soil is to be removed from within the dripline of any vegetation that is to remain in its original location. 3.9.5.1.5 Protective Barriers. 1. Installation of protective barriers. All protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning with the commencement of any phase of land clearing or building operations and ending with the completion of that phase of the construction work on the site, unless otherwise approved to be removed by the Site Development Review Director's field representative. All protective barriers taf be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers - Division of Forestry, State of Florida or other methods approved by the Development Services Director. Collier County 3-125 Oct. 30,1991 Amended July 6, 1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct. 14,1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 Division 3.9 Vegetodon Removal,Protection and_Preservation 3.9.5.2.7 On a parcel of Land zoned Residential Single Family (RSF), Village Residential (VR), Estates (El or other non-agricultural, non-commercial zoning district in which single family lots have been subdivided for single family use only, a vegetation removal permit may be issued for any permitted accessory use to that zoning. 3.9.5.2.8 The proposed mangrove alteration has a Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit or meets the permitting standards in Florida Administrative Code 17-321.030, 17-321.050, 17- 321.100, 17-321.801, 17-321.802,or 17-321.803 as may be amended. 3.9.5.3 Manacement Plan Rewired. For all individual areas of mangrove trees and areas of preserved plant communities larger than one half(1/2)acre in area, the owner shaft submit,for the approval of the Development Services Director, a narrative management plan indicating the manner in which the owner will preserve the native plant communities. The narrative shall include: 3.9.5.3.1 Whether or not the existing vegetation is to be preserved in the existing species composition. 3.9.5.3.2 If applicable, the manner in which the composition of existing plant material is to be preserved (hand removal of invasive species, prescribed burning, etc.). 3.9.5.3.3 The maintenance schedule for the removal of invasive species. 3.9.5.3.4 The maintenance schedule for the removal of debris. 3.9.5.3.5 Other information that may be required by the Development Services Director that is reasonable and necessary to determine if the management plan meets the requirements of this Code. 3.9.5.4 On-Site Inspection. The Development Services Director's field representative may conduct an on-site inspection to determine if the proposed vegetation removal meets the criteria in Sec. 3.9.5.3 and conforms to the preservation standards in Sec. 3.9.5.5 below. 3.9.5.5 Preservation Standards. 3.9.5.5.1 All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate at a minimum the preservation standards contained within this section. 3.9.5.5.2 All new developments, shall retain existing native vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Existing viable native vegetation shall be retained unless necessary grade changes, required infrastructure, stormwater management system design or approved construction footprints necessitate its removal. The need to remove existing native trees shall be demonstrated by the applicant as part of the vegetation removal review process. When required to be removed, existing viable native trees shall be transplanted into site landscaping unless the applicant can demonstrate, that transplanting is not feasible or appropriate. Retained areas of vegetation shall be preserved in their entirety with all trees, understory, and ground covers left intact and undisturbed, except for prohibited exotic species removal, enhancement with native plant material and pruning and maintenance. Colter County 3-127 Oct. 30, 1991 Amended July 6, 1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct. 14,1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 pt+itivn 3.9 Vezetation_temoval,Protection and Preservation 3.9.6.2 Peale!of Permit,In the event an application is denied by the Development Services Director, the reasons) shall be noted on the application and returned promptly. 3.9.6.3 permit Fees.All vegetation removal and agricultural clearing permit applications requiring review and approval shall be charged a review fee unless specifically exempted by the Development Services Director pursuant to this Code.The Board of County Commissioners shall establish and adopt, by Resolution, a schedule of fees for vegetation removal, review and approval permits. The schedule of fees and the Resolution establishing such fees shall be on file with the Clerk to the Board. The schedule of fees may be changed by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. 3.9.6.4 Exceotions. 3.9.6.4.1 A vegetation removal fee is not required to remove the following prohibited exotic vegetation from developed property or from undeveloped property after a vegetation removal permit has been issued: 1) Australian pine (Casvarina spp.) 2) Melaleuca (Melateuca spp.) 3) Braz,'aan pepper (Schinus jerebinthifolius) 4) Earleaf Acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) 5) Catclaw mimosa (Mimosa piara) 6) Java p&im (Smralvm pturrini) 7) Downy Rosemyrtle ()'fhodomvrtus jomentosus) 8) WomerVs Tongue (Albizia 3.9.6.4.2 Except for lots on undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and any project proposing to alter mangrove trees, a vegetation removal permit for clearing one (1) acre or less of land is not required for the removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree on a parcel of land zoned residential, single-family (RSF), Village Residential (MRI, or Estates (E), or other non- agricultural, non-commercial zoning districts in which single famity lots have been subdivided for single family use only, where the following conditions have been met: 1) A building permit has been issued for the permitted principal structure (the building permit serves as the clearing permit), or 2) The permitted principal structure has been constructed, and the property owner or authorized agent is conducting the removal. 3.9.6.4.3 A vegetation removal permit is not required for the removal of vegetation other than a specimen tree from property zoned Agriculture (Ai'where the following condjtions have been met: 1) The property is to be used for a bona fide agricultural use as defined by this Code and application for an agricultural clearing permit has been filed with and approved by the Development Services Director prior to the removal of any protected vegetation pursuant to this Code. Collier County 3-129 Oct 30. 1991 Amended July 6, 1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct. 14,1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 /\ pulsion 3.9 Veiriadon Removal, Protection and Preservation 3) The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) consumptive water use permit or exemption, it required by SFWMD. 4) The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the South Florida Water Management District surface water management permit or exemption, if required by SFWMD. 5) The applicant has obtained and produced a copy of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit or exemption, if required by the ACOE. Collier County 3-130_a Oct 30,1991 Amended July 6, 1992 Land Dew lopmenr Code Amended Oct. 14, 1992 Amended Dec. 17, 1993 _ VfirtationRemyvaLitotectiOn_arid?reierwnon 1 6) The applicant bas submitted data relating to wetland impacts and protected wildlife species habitat subject to Collier County Growth Management Plan - Conservation and Coastal Management Element policies 6.2.9, 6.2.10 and objective 7.3 and associated policies and Collier County Land Development Code Division 3.11. This data will be required only when the County's on-site inspection indicates that there are potential or actual impacts to wetlands and to protected federally and stale listed wildlife habitat. 7) The property owner, or authorized agent, has filed an executed agreement with the Development Services Director, stating that within two(2)years from the date on which the Agricultural Clearing Permit is approved by the Development Services Director, the owner/agent will put the property into a bona fide agricultural use and pursue such activity in a manner conducive to the successful harvesting of its expected crops or products. The owner/agent may elect to allow the subject property to lie fallow after completing the bona fide agricultural use, for the remainder of the ten (10)year period required by Sec. 3.9.6.5(8). If the clearing is expected to occur over a period greater than two years, this will be stated on the application and may be addressed as a condition on the Agricultural Clearing Permit if determined by staff to be appropriate. 8) The property owner, or authorized agent, has filed an executed agreement with the Development Services Director stating that the owner/agent is aware that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will not rezone the property described in the Agricultural Clearing Permit for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval of the Agricultural Clearing Permit by the Development Services Director, unless for any such conversions in less than ten (10) years, the converted land shall be restored with native vegetation to the degree required by this Code. 3.9.6.5.2 j3etermination of Completeness. After receipt of an application for an Agricultural Clearing Permit, the Development Services Director or his designee shall determine whether the application submitted is complete. All applicable conditions specified in Section 3.9.6.5.1 must be addressed in order to obtain a Determination of Completeness. If the application is not complete, the Development Services Director or his designee shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies. No further steps to process the application shall be taken until all of the deficiencies in the application have been met. Where the applicant submits as part of the application for an Agricultural Clearing Permit a copy of the completed application for a SFWMD consumptive use permit or exemption, for a SFWMD surface water management permit or exemption, or for an ACOE permit or exemption, as applicable, a Modified Determination of Completeness may be issued providing that said permits or exemptions are not necessary for further County review and providing that all other deficiencies in the application have been addressed. A Determination of Completeness or a Modified Determination of Completeness shall be made, in writing, within tea (10)business days of receipt of the completed application. 3.9.6.5.3 Criteria for Review of Application. Review of the application for an Agricultural Clearing Permit shall commence upon issuance of the Determination of Completeness or Modified Determination of Completeness and shall be completed within twenty business days from the date 111114 Colder County 3-131 October 30,1991 Land Development Code Amended October 14.1992 Qivfsfpn 3.9 Vejeration Removal,Protection and Prttenonon Applicants failing to provide notification as specified herein shall be required to submit a new application for an Agricultural Clearing Permit. 3.9.6.5.6 f xeniptiors. 1. An Agricultural Clearing Permit is not required for operations having obtained a permit under Ordinance No. 76-42 and which can demonstrate that an approved bona fide agricultural activity was in existence within two years of the permit issuance date, or for operations which can demonstrate that a bona fide agricultural activity was in existence before the effective date of Ordinance No. 76-42. Such demonstrations for exemptions may include agricultural classification records from the Property Appraiser's Office; dated aerial photographs; occupational license for agricultural operation; or other information which positively establishes the commencement date and the particular location of the agricultural operation. 2. Upon issuance of an Agricultural Clearing or as exempted above, activities necessary for the ongoing bona fide agricultural use and maintenance shall be exempted from obtaining additional Agricultural Clearing Permits for that parcel providing that the intent, use and scope of said activities remain in accordance with the ongoing Agricultural Clearing Permit or exemption. Ongoing bona fide agricultural activities that qualify for this exemption as described in this Section may include but are not limited to clearing for, around or in dikes, ditches, canals, reservoirs, swales, pump stations, or pens; removal of new growth, such as shrubs or trees, from areas previously permitted or exempted from this Section; fireline maintenance; approved wildlife food plots; or other activities similar in nature to the foregoing. Fences, buildings and structures requiring a building permit shall be exempt from an Agricultural Clearing Permit but must obtain a Vegetation Removal Permit. 3. No Agricultural Clearing Permit shall be required for protected vegetation that is dead, dying or damaged beyond saving due to natural causes also known as Acts of God providing that: a. The Development Services Director is notified in writing within two(2)business days prior to such removal and the County makes no objection within said two (2)business days; b. The tree is not a specimen tree; c. The vegetation is not within an area required to be preserved as a result of a required preservation, mitigation or restoration program; d. The parcel is currently engaged in bona fide agriculture, as defined by this Code. 4. No Agricultural Clearing Permit shall be required for the removal of any vegetation planted by a farmer or rancher which was not planted as a result of a zoning regulation or a required mitigation or restoration program. Collier County 3-133 October 30, 1991 `s,,� f,�� � ,u C Amended October 14, 1992 Pfv4.41on 3.9 Veleta/ion ermgval, protection and Preservation 3.9.6.6.7 pisppsal of Exotic Vegetation. The disposal of the prohibited exotic vegetation after removal shall be approved as a part of the local development order. Disposal sites may include, but not be limited to mulching facilities at the Collier County Landfill. 3.9.6.7 mon of Specimen Tree. By resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, a plant may be designated a 'Specimen Tree' because of its historical significance, rarity in Collier County, age or extraordinary size. A public bearing shall be held with notice provided to the property owner by certified mail. The designation shall be recorded in the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. All recording fees are the responsibility of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3.9.6.8 Penalty. 1) The failure of a property owner or any other person to obtain an approved agricultural • clearing permit as required in Sec. 3.9.6.4.3 shall constitute a misdemeanor and each protected living, woody plant,constituting protective vegetation, removed in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation or by imprisonment in the County jail not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 2) The failure of a property owner or any other person to put the subject premises into a bona fide agricultural use as required in Sec. 3.9.6.5.1 7)shall constitute a misdemeanor for which the agricultural clearing permit was approved by the Development Services Director and each protected living, woody plant, constituting protective vegetation, removed in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 per violation or by imprisonment in the County jail not to exceed sixty (60)days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to or in lieu of the penalties provided by general law for violation of Ordinances, the Board of County Commissioners may bring injunctive action to enjoin the removal of vegetation in violation of this Code. 3) Any person violating any provisions of this Code or the conditions of a permit issued hereunder, and not specifically covered in subsection (1) and subsection (2) of this Section, shall constitute a misdemeanor and each protected living, woody plant, constituting protective vegetation, removed in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed 5500.00 per violation or by imprisonment in the County jail not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to or in lieu of the penalties provided by general law for violation of Ordinances, the Board of County Commissioners may bring injunctive action to enjoin the removal of vegetation in violation of this Code. Collier Conry 3-135 October 30,1991 1 Dtwlopment Code Amended October 14,1992 mvision $9 Vegetation Removal, ProucNpn and Preservation D1 if the unlawful removal of trees has caused any change in hydrology, ground elevations or surface water flows, then the'hydrology, ground elevation or surface water flows shall be restored to pre-violation conditions. El In the event of impending development on property where protected trees were unlawfully removed, the restoration plan shall indicate the location of the replacement stock consistent with any approved plans for subsequent development. For the purposes of this Ordinance,impending development shall mean that a developer has made application for a development order or has applied for a building permit. F) The Site Development Review Director may, at his discretion, allow the replacement stock to be planted off-site where impending development displaces areas to be restored. In such situations,off-site plantings shall be on lands under the.control of a public land and/or agency. The off-site location shall be subject to the approval of the Site Development Review Director. G) The donation of land and/or of funds under the control of a public agency may be made if none of the above are viable alternatives. This donation of land and/or funds shall be equal to or greater than the total sum it would cost to restore the area in which the violation occurred. (Preservation of different contiguous habitats is to be encouraged). 3.9.6.9 Corrective Measures for Environmental Violations. 1. The persons) responsible for violations of the environmental sections of the Land Development Code shall be notified according to Section 1.9.5 and shall have thirty (30) days to prepare a mitigation plan that is acceptable to the County to resolve the violation. The mitigation plan shaft be submitted to Development Services staff for review and comment. Once the plan is accepted by Development Services, the responsible party shall have fifteen (15) days to complete the mitigation unless other arrangements are specified and agreed upon in the mitigation plan. 2. Mitigation shall restore the area disturbed unless the responsible party demonstrates that off-site mitigation will successfully offset the impacts being mitigated for. Off-site mitigation shall be on lands under the control of a public agency, or identified for public acquistion, or on lands protected from future development. Ratios for off-site mitigation shall be as follows: 2:1 for uplands and 3:1 for wetlands. 3. The selection of plants to be used shall be based on the characteristics of the Florida Land Use.Covers and Forms Classifications System(FLUCCS)Code. The exact number and type of species required may vary depending on the existing indigenous vegetation found at the site. 4. If only trees were removed and the understory vegetation was not disturbed, then the replacement of the DBH(diameter at breast height) in inches removed shall be required. For example, if one 10` DBH tree was removed, then a minimum of 10 one inch diameter trees 6' tall shall be required to mitigate. 5. If the violation has caused any change in hydrology, ground elevations or surface water flows, then the hydrology, ground elevation or surface water flows shall be restored to pre-violation conditions. Collier County 3-137 Oct. 30,1991 Amended July 6,1992 Land Development Code Amended Oct. 14,1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 Qrvrsfon 3.9 Veteradon Removal,_Proucdon and Preservation and subject to review and approval. 6. A program to control prohibited exotic vegetation (Section 3.9.6.4.1) in the mitigation area shall be required. 3.9.6.9.3 county Review of Mltiaatlon Man. 1. Development Services will review the plan based on, but not limited to, the preceding requirements within 15 days. Additional relevant information may be required when requested. 2. Should the County reject the mitigation plan, the reasons will be provided so the applicant can correct the plan and re-submit for county review. 3.9.6.9.4 J fonitorina & Replanting. 1. A monitoring program shall be required that would determing the survivability by species of the plants used in the mitigation effort. A minimum of five reports will be submitted. Reports shall be due at one year intervals 2. Eighty percent survival by species shall be required for a five year period unless other arrangements are specified and agreed upon in the mitigation plan. Replanting shall be required each year if the mortality exceeds 20 percent of the total number of each species in the mitigation plan. 3. The soil and hydrological conditions for some mitigation areas may favor some of the plants and preclude others. Should the County and/or consultant find that over time, some of the species planted simply don't adjust,the mitigation plan shall be re-evaluated by both the consultant and the County, and a revised plan will be instituted. This condition shall not apply to all mitigation areas and each case will be evaluated individually, based on the supported data submitted by the mitigator. 3.9.6.9.5 ponation of Land or Funds. The donation of land and/or funds to a public agency may be made if none of the above are viable alternatives. This donation of land and/or funds shall be equal to or greater than the total sum it would cost to mitigate for the violation according to Sections 3.9.6.9-3.9.6.9.4 including consulting fees for design, and monitoring, installation costs, vegetation costs, earth moving costs, irrigation costs, replanting and exotic removal. SEC. 3.9.7 APPEAL FROM ENFORCEMENT. 'V Any person who feels aggrieved by the application of this division, may file, within thirty 130) • days after said grievance, a petition with the Site Development Review Director, to have the case reviewed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. SEC. 3.9.8 SUSPENSION OF PERMIT REQUIREMENT. The Board of County Commissioners may, by emergency resolution, suspend the permit requirement for vegetation removal in the aftermath of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, when the following conditions are met and contained in the resolution: • Collier County 3137.E Oct. 30,1991 Amended July 6,1992 Land p b Code Amended Oct 14,1992 Amended Dec. 17,1993 i CL Ma, 24 94 9 : 52 NU .Ou_• Zajt v ..ice EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO EVALUATE THE CONCEPT OF CLUSTERING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED AS NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS AND TO DIRECT STAFF ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. OBJECTIVE: On April 12 , 1994 , the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board (EPTAB) requested that the Board of County Commissioners (DCC) amend the Growth Management Plan to provide for the concept of clustering development in the Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA's) located within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation of the Future Land Use Map. Staff was asked to evaluate this request and bring it back to the BCC for further discussion. CON$.,IDERATION ,l The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation applies to those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore, allowable land uses are of low intensity. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1 unit per 5 gross acres. A staff interpretation, issued December 3 , 1990, stated that clustering development within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation would not be permitted. Objective 1 . 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element requires the establishment of NRPA's in order to protect endangered species and their habitats. Policy 1. 3 . 1 a. provides that the NRPA's be identified as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map and that guidelines and standards for development be established to maintain the resource. One method staff has been asked to evaluate is clustering development in the NRPA in order to promote conservation. As an example, if a NRPA located within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation were to be designated encompassing 1 , 000 acres, the maximum permitted density would be 200 dwelling units, with each unit located on a minimum five acre tract. If clustering were permitted on 50 acres for the 200 units the remaining 950 acres would be left undeveloped. Clustering within the Agricultural/Rural Area can have both positive and/or negative impacts. Clustering development can leave more land in open space with less impacts on a majority of a site. However, development on a portion of the property can create negative impacts if the density or intensity of use is too high. Also, the number of units to be clustered is a major it! : May 24 y4 y JS NO .UU� r . u. factor that must be considered in making a determination whether clustering is appropriate. If a NRPA was designated that was 5, 000 acres in size, the maximum number of units to cluster would be 1, 000 units which could promote urban sprawl and leapfrog development. The negative impacts of sprawl are the inefficient patterns of development not well served by public facilities and services such as fire protection, roads, schools, parks, etc. The demand would be for a level of service which approaches that expected in a more urban area rather than the rural area. At this point in time the BCC has directed staff to prepare one NRPA clam Pass. This would not be an area appropriate for clustering because it is under public ownership. Without knowing the extent of the area to be designated as a NRPA or the location, the maximum intensity of the clustered units can not be determined, nor where they could be located on the site or the suitability of the land use. These are all questions that should be part of the justification for the amendment . Until other NRPA's are identified by the Board of County commissioners it is difficult to provide the information needed to support the amendment. The EPTAB Advisory Board discussed this issue again at their meeting on May 9 , 1994 and requested that the BCC amend the Growth Management Plan as follows: - Amend the Future Land Use Element to generally provide for clustering to occur in a designated NRPA that is located within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation. Clustering would be permitted in conjunction with a specific plan for the NRPA. - Policy 1. 3 . 1 a of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element requires that NRPA's be placed on the Future Land use Map (FLUM) as an overlay. The proposed amendment is to revise the language to place the NRPA's on the FLUM after they are adopted by the BCC and incorporated into the Land Development Code. The placement of the NRPA's on the FLUM would be accomplished in conjunction with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Growth Management Plan required by January, 1996 and subsequent amendments by January, 1997 . FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of staff time to prepare an amendment to the Future Land Use and the Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Growth Management Plan and could be incorporated into the annual work program. GROWTILMANAGEMEST IMPACT: The clustering concept in the NRPA could be designed to further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use and Conservation & Coastal Management Elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2 TEL : May 24 94 9 : 34 No .002 P . 04 RECQMN NDATIOJI: That the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff in regard to processing amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. PREPARED BY• &-•- P-.e-e-40-'14 DATE: 5-4,70i/ 9Y Barbara A. Cacchione, A. I .C.P. Chief Planner, Long Range Planning REVIEWED BY: —::21 ,6 (v 1 DATE: C1(14 /l Donald W. Arnold, A. I .C. P. Acting site Development Plan Review Director REVIEWED BY: DATE:_w Richard R. Clark, Acting Community ' Development Services Administrator 3 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: May 23 , 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4 : 00 p.m. I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - May 9, 1994 IV. Announcements V. Old Business a. North Golden Gate Estates Ad Hoc Committee Status Report b. Update on Clustering Concept/Future Land Use Element c. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) d. Development of workplan for EPTAB (Where is EPTAB going?) e. Bill Lorenz - Program Budget (Action Item) (copies to EPTAB) V. New Business VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment DH: j1\6541 MAY-24-94 TUE 16 : 19 P. 01 v:17-••"" C.1 /WI , if eift-6 AXE .:,- ✓ i. 1.-1! 7G.' Ii/ ar p---,A9- . , fiitt;A_ L14 CI I ) 1u-141 ,::::' i'2.,,,,4, ., , , . . ., May 2ti, 1994 / ` " b '; cia :24, , Mr. RobertI,,',,� Pennock, Chief p_w--,,o--p., �7 Bureau of Local Plarininq , i, r,�'rr_ • Department of Community Affairs �" I �' 2740 Centerview Drive9 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Pennock; j RE: Land Development Regulation Challenge-Case No. LC-91-F-01 and Case No. LC-93-F-01 In response to your letter of March 24, 1994 to Timothy J. Constantine, we would urge you to immediately begin to take the steps necessary when a County has no intention of following or amending its own Growth Management Plan. The Board of Directors and our 1300 members would like to Insure that Collier County fulfills its obligation to its Growth Management Plan relative to Policy 6.1.1. However, the Habitat Protection Ordinance(H.P.O.),which the County has offered as the solution to this re gulatory challenge,no chance of seeing the light of day. Based upon the personal experience of several of our has Directors, it is clear that the Board of County Commissioners and the Environmental Services Administrator have no intention of affowing this ordinance to be approved. The County staff and the Environmental Policy and Technical Advisory Board (an advisory board created to implement the growth management pian policies) have been directed to expend no rescorces on the HPO. . Time is on the side of the developers. While this challenge lingers on and the County takes no action on the HPO, the habitat that we are trying to protect is disappearing. If we wait much longer,the issue will be resolved,with the environment as the loser. Therefore, we encourage you to expeditiously pursue this matter. If we can he of any assistance,please contact us. 'ncerely yours ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ROUTING �� � 1 ?�/L ,yi, DATE: �� �'" iii ;? ' ACTION: /rnMcGJnity resident • INFO: cc: Board of Collier County Commissioners , Gary Lee Beardsley Stan Litsinger, Director Growth Management FILE: William Lorenz,Administrator of Environmental Services ld9C •F(24f.�rt' !?C td;5f%?4awX+'ar-s f.,,,, '�fi 1c4. .Rca«/u film,/.44-,./.....-,! :;,_ .... MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Ad , / trator FROM: Sue Filson, Administrative Assist. nt Board of County Commissioners RE: EPTAB DATE: May 16, 1994 As you know, we currently have 3 vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for consideration. I have attached the resumes received for your review and recommendation as follows: Jack Baxter ENVIRONMENTAL S'V CES ROUTING 930 Heron Court DATE: Marco Island, FL 33937 ACTION' Charles F. Ray 85 Ridge Drive — Naples, FL 33963 INFO: Gary K. Wilson WM" 2037 Laguna Way Naples, FL 33963 FILE: Please let me know, in writing, your recommendation for appointment and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-8097 . Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments GENESIS ENVIRONMENTAL 8133945691 P. ell Jk. N i 3.; p. al i altl 0 W E fC°644 C 1- x(`11 44 S41 S W t5it.eSis 3E itfTir.ottnuitta1 £ triit.e S ottttutiug, ;A.m.. lie zarin 314artting T -rackingtsteut t' Date: S•-/3-9f/` . • To: �0 g w. — iii At Fax #: 36 o-z— — -- . # of pages (including this cover sheet): V — — From: tJ -iz- �/,) >r is-&-c - - - -Sent from Mr. Baxter's 7erHome ❑ Office , 4r .`"t Message: xi . , r 1 141 .e RECEIVED MAY 13 60:rd of Con:: 3siofler ' lb hi lb 1 N 91 -T- OFFICE FAX: 813.6,c1.6353 � w - E NAME FAX: 813.994.96 �`,, ___ _7_-- E 11.4 are .1411 j 6100. . • , . IF . _ _ _ - - _ _. . , ..9 2 . ... ,7. e ,:.r GENE:=I'= ENVIRONMENTAL 8133945691 P. 02 JACK BAXTER 930 Heron Court, Marco Island, FL 33937 Telephone: (813) 394-5674 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: 1491 - Present Genesis Environmental Marine Monitoring Inc. - Marco, FL This is an Early-Warning oil spill detection monitoring and tracking system invented by me for the purpose of preventing and/or reducing clean-up costs of oil spills. I am presently engaged in woric- wide licensing and distributor agreements for my Genesis System.. 1990-1991 National Environmental Group Inc. -Gap, PA Vice President of Operations. My duties included all facets of operation for the company from e=s beginning in 1990. Primary responsibilities included securing licensing,setting up and signing government contracts,and following through all phases of the business. Number of employees =30. Salary S72,000 per year. Reason for Leaving-Automobile accident. 1988-1990 Baxter Group-- Hagerstown, MD Owner\Founder. Primary object was to procure government contracts. Number of employe 75. Salary --550,000 + per year. Sold business to larger corporation. '''83-198-8 National Asbestos Removal - Washington, DC Partnership -Owned 66%of Company. Primary objectives we-e to obtain asbestos remova': contracts from government and military bases in Bermuda,Bahamas, Guam, Philippines, etc. Company was solely involved in asbestos removal. Number of employees =35. Salary= S O X- per year. Partnership dissolved. 1974-1983 J.E. Builders - Washington, DC, Sole owner. Builder of custom homes and historic renovations. I built an average of one hundred premium homes per year. Commercial development included converting hotels into condos, primarily in Washington, DC. I also built restaurants for chains such as Marriott and DaVinci's(New York City). Number of employees-=50. Salary $100, +/yr. Also, I purchased from the City of Baltimore 100 homes which I renovated and managed. At present, there is a Management Company overseeing these homes. ADVANCED EDUCATION: University of Maryland Georgia Tech -- Environmental Management UCENSED: Asbestos Removal/Encapsulation by the State of Maryland, Deportment of Environment Aix Management Administration. FEATURED: Marco Island Eagle - May 11, 1994 t S cam! c^. ,..1,...., cal. ,..!.,:.7t,:41 _,• --.,!'", 44 < - = N i n rid ;'„ _ z 4 ▪ sQ FAl -4,,,-,4v,.-',:;_,::. F W OC3Y k' ,,,gam, a..: ..,.. _ .- , i-..:.. ..:L.......‘.2-.. _ \ .4 k "s1 _� .,----:, -sem r4 5c 0. 3 6 1 *-T TA-.'., a coo = Akw w 0 , u • o 00 Qty". . `u -muo .5 (0 1. ri-,,---A -71 ..- , - it....,,,.:-.. :-.. 1Q , at 0..,-75 ..,-... ‘... . k,,-. ' LVA w ° PLS ;il y_� Y. � ,.. [ ,, ` �� ga or -.1« a • ca u x ac c " ° u +Ln�j YC a ti E 0 0 2 y m Z .•. v .-.. C _ L r., ca 6i N lU. G ct Q U •r.• 4 —8 0 8` ? a o f .4 L' c c a ii vo , -0 ° , . a. -a- ob � 3 ., `,,• '! C tiA m : p 0 5 m m .°. C �c.`03tr � � m� 2 x aha y coo - ``. -c5, ° v C �� 1., ,vim• f. 3 p. m ot, a - ° z 7 GENESIS ENVIRONf9ENTtiL 8133j-•a5o91 P. b4 11-A MAY 11, 1994 MARCO ISLAND EAGLE Q c = tr C i, 2 [ r v cq N >, > 2 x 8,. a " >,° -c. = o C x ,` ' ti " 000 .1> <4,..4 g 2 025 o 0 8 a°i >,� tts : 5 3 N tr( a CES. � S � pCo 5 � � � � oa ° � c `� �,� iti i :. O . cs E o.W 11 . .� O tom' = 2 e N •a 7, £ 0 Q. ° =_. E �• .: laca .. � ui3O o a0 � ►, ° 03 0o � V � a _� aa3. twa > ti!v , ce 4a caw c " go ° v E � >,.G " Ouvo r0a cv a. .. a r a •.. v, -• v K 5,,,,. ° v 1 0. .0 5 'E o v to.t V `�' `, R ?�, >,c• v " N Q,.0 3 C m -o _ -0 -0 e 11 i a.', < t5. o tt -, +' 'C O > y .° 1 0 v 4 m^ tt *, O o 2 Iili �p vi 35 $ � a, E S a „ o - 5 EZ ,Q y > m 0 ° uo 7 m co 1 -- v E " 5 v 0 ti �� O G 2 o «� di .Q 0. o O " C 5 sc. 5 L . CL a vi cc �. 'a is j tu _a 0E ..: = ° • Qor°,n� v So3 � 6r-e, cg. >u6 .8 6ov° ronE 41 !l' i ' ',, CZ 0. 0 o • t 5C i V " -� .� ° , 0Tt: a v = ° 0a c o u at. Ec°' � ` r Eo 5 ° t4 � a � tc a ooO rc �,J L .fix 6 I I �• � o `� CI' oy,3 c uai �5 ~ E 0-▪ •.!) oE° v 0 t:''� O �.. f3 " A ��„^. C; ti0' S 71J m _ v "_ �! 4. 3v, - cs5 �+ oa .' o0, Q•oc3 ..0 .3t = a .ca.Eto.. r: _ v4 . as i ■ cid 0 3 o m0 C v, c `" m o o 0 3 " � --. % ^ II . v. h v 'oaa ov > cc `.ao a0 ° t, " r, - o , 1- -, " a +- ° 5 $ E ocl � 3t. vio a, ca� � ^ J ` c ,. ca _ _ b lc30.0 ^ .0 O I?, L 0 vt c` ,-' v a [ ya II > > y f 3 " - 3 o v to >, 0 5 U 'c :; 5 y. u u, C ^ r'. - v `-'- • -. a v c ,... 3 5 0 0 5 >, V, ., 0 -4 „ >, >,o tG o 3 q >,� ❑ iv " o o _, ° .n4v ' v; 3 .,.. � 4 °so ?. vcc = coo -LI at-41- v - 0 y 03 ❑ ;? �. v, o ,04C -, 0 SES v, E c S o ^o>, " Z 0 a 5 r, 0 v - > LcG" 3vvxr' Riia as ;C vv;Q ° z -cJ -- O= v 35 +... >, L _a � � C -c �• " u m S•, 'C c305 g -a C .4 " 5 5 ++ a 5 .0 W ^ L r c' - o O C 3 .: � - .0 = c a a ., is M • " ° - m cs ' �' = = > O c " �5 J ~ C .+ y co co) -r c v x = ct y ., c ' . t4 1:30 0• 0 5v bo m O o .c oc f " E v' S �. ; r y a fa.rt " v v 5 p 3'3ai �y,0 0 U, c�' ... ° ^v 3 L*. 3 ,1 :l L r_ - • O f 0 = C a; , -- N tt.-4, Ci " C 0 i" v " C " g c= C ,_ _ 7 ,.+ v, " .0 o o c .v > ° >, c $ o _0 8 _ 3 c - ^ r, _ a 5 0▪ ° 7,.., t; `t ..a� u c, " . O c4 o C , -0 Q r.Z 5 ; = - C . ^ c .- Ci o d, r 5 3 6 y ,!17 0 g L, Q y — ¢ c v =t a y' - - r- u r 4. 0 � -0 � _ 3 .0 .�. " 5 g. ‘,4) v, E 5 m - _ < r. .. - - ''=` --, c, oa � v ai r "' -. L 'n � � '- - > _ �; _ 5s• _ > `' u � o E 3 -, " °. c t) 0 % > = 0 = _ -a it V t, v O t. E p t _ a_ x : � t, rt--. v $.0 >,° ,2 ,' v ° —^J, ,. ° `, ^'c " > J _ 30 L ...+ c c, •r, U • r _ - ? ▪ f = o o •o z 5 >, o a 5 - ? _ c >,- = c v 3 _ u c o �t 0 0 3 c . v � - v < _ v o -= _ = c: m▪ x E aEZ .X o - r ° E. >, C = 3 = > 3 - _ `o ^, 3 j • C, .0 -0 v 2 3 0 v • a^ G v c r y t c. = 7 ^_ o _• ,^ c `=L�.� .0 " C 3 O " o • 0 --c I L 3 _= c�E, ?3 0 ,....,:a x cC o r y v cv '� � r ., CHARLES F. RAY 85 RIDGE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33963 ( 813 ) 597-3298 Ms. Susan Filson RECEIVED County Commission Offices 3301 East Tamiami Trail MAY 9 1994 Naples, FL 33962 Board of Co ` May 6, 1994 ur; Y Commissioners Dear Ms. Filson, Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of my resume. I hope that you and others of the selection group find me qualified for service with the Environmental vi"sor oa cl. t// K ui/00 Although much of the resume emphasizes Real Estate activities, much of my life has been devoted to study of the environment and environmental management. During my career as an environmental scientist, I was privileged to participate in dozens of environmental projects as described in part by the resume. Most of them were completed by teams that included not only botanists, zoologists and other biologists, but also scientists and engineers specialized in air quality, geology and hydrology, noise suppression and related fields . Many of the projects were performed for government agencies at various levels. Nearly all required extensive liaison and interaction with government. The opportunity to participate in this work with so many professionals from so many fields was rewarding and educational well beyond classroom study. At 63 years I believe I am well qualified for service with the EPTAB. My only reason for wishing to serve is to repay Collier County for the beauty and happiness it has provided me over the past fifteen years. I have no axes to grind, absolutely nothing of selfish interest to gain. I hope that those concerned will consider this application favorably. If selected I will serve faithfully and to the best of my ability. Sincer- ours, Cha les 4.1111P' BIOGRAPHY CHARLES F. RAY 85 RIDGE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33963 ( 813 ) 597-3298 EDUCATION: M.Sc. University of Nebraska 1972 Limnology / Aquatic Biology B.Sc. University of Nebraska — Biology Affiliations Naples Area Board of Realtors Collier County Marine Trades Assn (Founder) Recreational fishing and conservaton groups Employment 1993 - Present; Realtor. Broker Associate at Realty Concepts, 899 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, FL. General real estate sales and consulting. 1980 - 1992; Port of the Islands Resort and Marina, Vice Presid- ent. Initially participated in renovation and ropening of resort that had closed in bankruptcy several years earlier. Rebuilt marina and managed for two years. Concurrently renovated and re- opened trap and skeet ranges, RV Park, tennis courst and other outdoor recreation faciliteis. Restored activites to profitable operations. Supervised design and construction of initial single family sub- division streets, sewer and water systems, water management and other infrastructure. Completed on schedule and substantially under budget. Prepared deed restrictions, marketing plans and promotional materials. Sold out for well over projected revenue. Chaired architectural review committee and established character of the new community. Developed conceptual plans for condominium and patio home projects and larger single family subdivision, supervising engineering and architectural planning. Coordinated formation of Community Improvement District. Assembl- ed documentary and backup information; lobbied for and received authorizing ordinance from Board of County Commissioners. Chair- ed Board of Supervisors; led planning and design of infrastruct- ure including southwest Florida' s first advanced wastewater treat- ment system with water quality suitable for discharge into nat- ural wetlands. Active in preparation and issue of $7, 000 , 000 bond issue for funding development. Prepared or supervised successful permit applications to Collier County, Water Management, District, Departments of Natural Re- sources and Environmental Regulation (now combined as DEP) , Corps of Engineers and other agencies for projects including mainten- ance dredging, seawall construction and other sensitive issues. Coordinated with government agencies at all levels . CHARLES F. RAY BIOGRAPHY PAGE TWO 1973 - 1979; Consulting Biologist; VTN Engineers, ARchitects & Scientists, Irvine, California. Conducted environmental in- vestigations for real estate developments, power plants, mines, transportation corridors, water and wastewater treatment Systems, landfill and wastemanagement systems and other industrial and governmental projects. Completed aquatic biology, water quality and related portions of interdisciplinary studies of existing and potential environmental problem generators. Developed alterna- tive and mitigating plans to offset or eliminate environmental impacts. Completed three year baseline study of aquatic biology in White River Basin of Utah, including fisheries and other aquatics. This pre- Oil Shale Development baseline study included compon- ents on geology, surface and ground watJhydrolog air quality and social disruption potential of a fifty square mile area. Per- formed concurrently with similar projects involving a Texas ur- anium mine and an Alaska molybdenu and silver mine. Prepared lake and watershed management plans, participated in isheries restoration an. - hancement plans and projects; invol- ve. inange ed species resear , and recovery plans for sev- eral species; developed environmental impact review plan for California Department of Fish and Game. Completed field and library research on dozens of projects in areas ranging from major cities to remote wilderness. 1950 - 1970; USAF. Career Flight Engineer, later Aircraft Maintenance Superintendent. Married, healthy. Enjoy physically and mentally demanding work and recreation; fishing, gardening, photography, nature study. Personal and Professional referrences available. CHARLES F. RAY 85 RIDGE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33963 (813 ) 597-3298 REFERRENCES David Budd, Esq. Budd & Thomspon, P.A. 1010 Fifth Avenue S. Naples, FL 33940 Mr. Duke Turner Turner Marine of Naples, Inc. 899 Tenth St. South Naples, FL 33940 Mr. Todd Turrell Turrell & Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 33942 Michele Shumaker Realty Concepts 899 Vanderbilt Beach Road Naples, FL 33963 Mr. Nicholas LaGrasta LaGrasta Homes 725 97th Avenue N. Naples, FL 33963 f°= tiT PORTER WRIGHT, ° ice MORRIS & ARTHUR • Attorneys & Counselors at Law 4501 Tamiami Trail North Suite 400 EI D Naples,Florida83 33940-30603-888 GARY K. WILSON �-- . Telephone: 813-263-8898 813-436-2952 Facsimile:813-436-2990 Nationwide: 800-876-7962 199k Board of County "Cmc s`ione s May 3, 1994 Mrs. Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 33962 Re: Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Committee Dear Mrs. Filson: Please be advised that this letter is intended to serve as an application for a position on the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Committee. I have enclosed a resume for you to review. In addition to the items contained on the resume, please be advised that I have been a resident of Collier County since 1956 when I moved here with my family at the tender age of 6 years. I graduated from Naples High School in 1969, attended Florida State University and obtained my undergraduate and masters degrees from Florida State University and later attended Loyola Law School after serving as a guidance councilor in northeast Florida for 3 years. On graduating from law school, I moved back to Naples in 1980 and have found it a wonderful place to raise my two children. My interest with regard to the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Committee is related to keeping the quality of Southwest Florida environment at it highest possible standard. I have also had extensive experience in the area of real property law related to, not only transactional work, but also land use law. Cincinnati • Cleveland • Columbus • Dayton • Naples,FL • \\i in_on, DC . n { S Mrs . Sue Filson May 3 , 1994 Page Two Also note that I am a registered voter in Collier County, as I believe this is one of the requirements for the position. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very trul • s urs, V / // Gary K. Wilson GKW/bn Enclosure NAPLES/23831.01 fti; GARY K. WILSON 2037 Laguna Way Naples, Florida 33963 Home: (813) 592-1622 Work: (813) 261-8915 PROFESSION: Attorney and Counselor at Law: Admitted to practice in Florida in 1980 . EDUCATION: Juris Doctor, Loyola University, 1977-1980 Class Rank: Top 20 percent . 1973-1974 M. S . , Counseling, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 1969-1972 B.A. , Major in Psychology, Minor in Drama and Religion, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida . Also attended Boston University & Florida State University' s London Program PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 6/1/93 - Present Porter, Wright , Morris & Arthur - Partner with Porter, Wright , Morris & Arthur Concentrating practice in commercial and residential real estate, corporate law, wills and probate . 1990-6/1/93 Willis, Wilson & Buckel Gary K. Wilson, P.A. , 1100 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 211, Naples, Florida 33940 Concentrating practice in commercial and residential real estate, corporate law, wills and probate 1988-1990 Wilson & Buckel , 1100 Fifth Avenue S . , Suite 211, Naples, Florida 33940 1985-1988 Bolesky & Wilson, 1169 8th Street S . , Naples, Florida 33940 1980-1985 Associate with Carroll , Bolesky & Nienas, 1169 8th Street S . , Naples, Florida 33940 PRIOR EMPLOYMENT: 1974-1977 Guidance counselor, Yulee Elementary School, Yulee, Florida 1969-1979 Various summer and part-time positions include : police officer, New Orleans, Louisiana; stain glass artist, Jacksonville, Florida and Gatlinburg, Tennessee; truck driver, eastern United States; managed gas station, Tallahassee, Florida; managed deli and restaurant, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; electrician' s apprentice, Naples, Florida and Bank Teller, Naples, Florida . AREAS OF PRACTICE: Real Estate - Commercial/Residential Experience in all aspects of commercial and residential real estate matters including developer representation, residential closings, title insurance, commercial lease negotiations, financing, condominium practice and landlord/tenant issues . Corporate Organized numerous corporations and partnerships in southwest Florida. Wills and Probate Probate and drafting experience with wills, living wills, and durable powers of attorney. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: The Florida Bar: Real Property, Probate and Trust Section Collier County Bar Association: Real Property Section. American Bar Association: Real Property Section. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANIES : Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund: Title Insurance Agent First America Title Insurance Company: Title Insurance Agent Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania: Title Insurance Agent DIRECTORSHIPS: Kiwanis Club of Naples on the Gulf (1984-1988) Milestone Youth Home (1982-1985) First Presbyterian Church (1984-1990) (Deacon and member of the Session) RECREATION: Tennis, racquetball, running, bicycling and skiing REFERENCES: CLIENTS: Cedell Garland, President of Garland Groves, Inc. and Ian' s Interiors, Inc . , P.O. Box 2405 , Naples, Florida 33939, Phone No. : (813) 455- 6927 O. Gene Gabbard, Former Chief Financial Officer at MCI, 1350 Gordon Drive, Naples, Florida 33940 , Phone No. : (813) 434-6072 Thomas H. Ouverson, President of Waterfront Realty Group, Inc . , 349 14th Avenue South, Naples, Florida 33940, Phone No. : (813) 263- 0552 SOCIAL: Joseph Herms, City Councilman, Naples, Florida, 645 Bougainvillea Road, Naples, Florida 33940 , Phone No. : (813) 262-8664 Rob Murchison, 2755 14th Street North, Naples, Florida 33940 , Phone No. : (813) 434-2913 ATTORNEYS: Leo J. Salvatori, Esquire, Partner with Quarles & Brady, 4501 Tamiami Trail N. , Naples, Florida 33940 , Phone No . : (813) 262- 5959 Jim Pilon, Esquire, Partner with Siesky & Pilon, 1000 Tamiami Trail N. , Suite 201, Naples, Florida 33940, Phone No. : (813) 263- 8282 NAPLES/13294 01 • RECEIVED _ -- • WILKISON & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FJUTIIu MAY 5 1994 ASSOCIATES I DATE: s/.-/q/ I"�`~_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ACTION: Board of County Commissioners — .f\ 28 April 1994 MEMORANDUM INFO: .-1 ; _ . TO: Mike Davis, Chairman- Environmental Policy Technics ; , EPTAB members, Bill Lorenz, Collier C t my Natural Resources Depa ----- -- -- - �- FROM: David S. Maehr -�� i SUBJECT: EPTAB membership Please accept this letter as formal announcement of my resignation from EPTAB. For the last few weeks I have tried to convince myself that I could juggle this responsibility with several new ones including my enrollment as a full time graduate student at the University of Florida. With many challenges still facing our advisory board and the County, I leave this group reluctantly. Having served as past chairman, and vice chairman I feel a particular loyalty to EPTAB by virtue of our many shared frustrations and occasional victories. We all live and work in a county where prudent environmental decisions and visionary leadership are rare. Knowing that you all value the benefits that our unique Collier County landscape provides us, I am sure you will continue to make progress. It has been a pleasure serving with you. I encourage you all to press forward with the NRPA program. Do not allow the constant distractions from diverting you in this challenge, and do not forget the image of the County as one whole unit- like the satellite image that should be hanging on all of our office walls. But, also, be pragmatic. We cannot go back in time, yet we can make the best of the special places remaining in the County and the growing concern of the public over these places' declines. Expend your energies where they they can be most effective and where you can be most efficient. Finally, prevail upon our commissioners to restore a balance of environmental representation on EPTAB. Perhaps now would be the time to encourage the County to pare EPTAB's membership back to 9, if not 7 as originally designed. Our occasional gridlock very likely resulted from our large number. While my new responsibilities will take me away from the County for.extended periods, do not hesitate to call on me if I can be of assistance to you. Thank you. Post-ItrM brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages ` Toe>, /170 / o S_S From/' &U G SOs^Co. Co. � N Dnp Dept. Phone# Fax# tJ�3 W,' Fax# 3584 EXCHANGE AVE., SUI I E A,NAPLES, FL:33441 _ t5 I.5-b,4-.5-14U4 o i o- 52 FAX 8 3-643-5 HORACE A.WILKISON,P.L.S. DAVID S. WILKISON,P E JAMES N. LKISON. _ --_ c ea=--_- 1— COLLIER - ` ENTERPRISES = = 1 3003 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES, FL33940/PHONE813/261-4455 ea. comm.recd copy April 18, 1994 RECEIVED ' . .: . __ APR4 22J9911 `4 . = F Chairman Tim Constantine , �- F , sY ,y _a 3301:E.-Tamiami Trail' $oar �� �'_ . - d of°.Counfy Comnissaoners �- Naples, Florida 33962 '�. 4` �` ,'` -�y _' `' Dear Chairman Constantine F'. — I have recently made the decision to leave Collier Enterprises and pursue vanous :personal mterests not_possible within-the company. Consequently,,I willfbe leaving Collier County1 11-::..7..-47,:4,-:;-;:sometimethisummer if all po• ceeds as I anticipate it will Therefore,I ust regrre{t�lysusubmrt}1c.,7m5.,,,-;_,_fr----;_::-_1 my resignation'from the Environmental Technical"Advisory Board (EPTAB) '` In namm my.replacement,I would hopeyouwould make every effort to selectan mdw dualwho an representthe interests of agriculture and the rural landowner while still having athorough„under'standing of the major environmental issues which face us. With my departure, there is no-one remaining on EPTAB who can fill-that role. t Since I will soon no longer have the opportunity to help shape the future of the county 'T.11. ave - grown to love,_,I would also like to take this opportunity to offer a few parting thoughts: ease ---- P1 do not infer that I am suggesting you and the other Commissioners do not'share these following beliefs. You well may:<However, in this,'my resignation letter, I simply wished to emphasize their importance, not to suggest that any commissioner is individually wanting - ” .2` ' One of my major personal goals over the past nine years with Collier Enterprises has;been to " build bridges between the agricultural and environrental communrties Too oft there is bitter' dispute, lack of understanding, and an inability to communicate between these two groups As a result,`neither the needs of the environmentalist nor those of farmers are met as- optimally as they might otherwise be. The sources of the problem are fear, mistrust, sometimes selfishness, and a frequent unwillingness to recognize and`understand the legitimate concerns `of the'other. This same problem seems to permeate increasingly our county in so many other areas: pro- growth vs. anti-growth;developers vs. environmentalist; old vs. young; rich vs. poor; retired vs. working. The same source of contention exists between these factions as well: fear, mistrust, selfishness, a failure to recognize and understand legitimate needs and concerns of others. While the solution is not simple, you, the Commission, can contribute significantly by always trying to act as a bridge between divergent views and only appointing people to boards and commissions who are committed to working to solve issues in mutually cooperative ways. We do not need demagogues, extremists, radicals. We do need bright people, sensitive to others, who will work cooperatively and in good faith to solve sometimes seemingly insolvable problems. REAL ESTATE, AGRICULTC?E AND CAPITAL.\' NACE.".ENT x �"i,.'i � :-.,-;*_-.:;,-0-:,-,:,, ,;=..,.;.4 ,; 4 ti*,-11;'...4";',77-.5",---'`,>•'- fir"�. � ,� �S� '1 � { w�Y:� ��'1-� t1-•:--- t. ��i 3..i QS�'lYi _ _ -=` ��� X 4.' 1 '+�+^T M.. pe$"3 ```R. ,t .".' �; .-3 xa. {L '`` - - .-.:---1-::::14:44,.• - V, �r�'s s C c.; "i5a'x'";� "a, `2i �r,. ,-f m ,.�- Distribution • �.# *4` ( , Pale 2 ���3 w What Collier,County will be in a generation is in your hands today• . Thus, each of you needs to define and articulate a publiclystated vision of what that Collier can and should be in order to guide your week-to-week decisio• ns .%Sometimes I'feel that this publicly articulated vision is' lacking in Glher County. (I do not feel';the Comprehensive Plan meets this need. it is too : _-- :._ _s large, complex, procedural to perform-:,.:.,-4. S..;-_,.-.role) : Yet none of us can governor lead wisely if we do not havh fatouchsertto wlu we;cananly�etiun when rhetoric, emotions, t 3 -statistics, and proposals, i lithe air . strongly-urgeyou,both d lylana jointly,` o work w zIrvs . . a' . 5 � together to provide-the public with this sion.of what our County can and should be a generation s.�t , �tfromnow r Ss. '� • r � 1 `sew - „:!4s ' ' r ;',s€3.'a t< r-::, , p ' r. <d '--,,.,.,„-,...,-..,,,,,4?„,„,,: ro. '. _ g..8--' � r x One�fin 'thought deeals'wrth`kthe balancing'ofiproperty ghts andaePvironmenta- l quality re � -1 - t ,' . t 44 a- s xa a it `sem C t -��a-is no one who has more strop 1 ,re resented e n is and needs of ro owners anal ' -z-,JS n• J.jI,feel as�stron aly'-abou t t;o as ways liavee Yet in o pectin Y landowners'a b¢1'en'tms :w s -, 5 g r ..ar "5. .�L "�ti.g 'y a'4°`x'.Sv - - � zti + '`4 41 4,se wrxa. i-,... -- . A and addressing eu iee�ds, we mustever1gnoreDrrote�ng_our atural-heritage, both or3our ' Y t } down-quality of life-and for„▪ �that tof our children aid children s the k y s insuring that �_ -may .,f, l `st of an otect o �''4.14..-,.,tis silo utete1 onl ��isc etion{ ,} iutabl�� -t . Y .YY essential or y q y -. "= - • 'C� gS ▪ 1 .. :'-:wF*M^+IG. "* *P!C,1,:---t-" �3-'-' -��- '9 S.h' '}L /.J -.i - �R i :borne;by.all of#Bose who benefit,not¢simply th'Re last people who have not yet developed their >� land To .do otherwise, sends a stemble message develop or alter your land, asquickly as 4 possible'Or-one day you`will not be able toydo so and will therebyhave, =i.---othe economic value ou _now have =While.-.,regelation• m -be the most -politicall palatable wa y to=achieve =- Z environmental objectives, it is more often`th'an not the,least-oinktable - .Environmentalquality is equally as public a good asa road or school 'We�do not ask those where the'road or school is to,be built to bear the full,cost of these public goods :The same should lie"true wheny `the r �. environmental values to be protected benefit•those beyond the boundaries of the land m question. -_-":—.'"--_-:,-'-:=,=-'''--"_•;'.--. _ .::y .5 S a ..2a.�• mss"F .i �� 'r In closing,I would like to express my best wishes to you as a Commission You have a difficult and often thankless task: »P To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can please some of the people some of the times Dine of the people air the time, but never all of the people all of the time No one knows this better than you While I may sometimes'disagree with;your decisions, I am f grateful that each of you has made the commitment to serve the public as Yo have Best regards. ` rely, ..._.7/100-00rAeze- 6' Z(''''(----- David B. Land Copy: EPTAB Commissioner Bettye Matthews - Commissioner John C.Norris Commissioner Burt Saunders Commissioner Michael J. Volpe AL_ ea. comm. re_'di copy April 17, 1994 Chairman Tim Constantine flEEertij Collier County Commisssion Collier County Government Center APR jt Naples, Florida 373942 Dear Commissioner Constantine : Board of County Commissioners have enjoyed serving on the Environmental Policy and Technical Advisory Board these past three years. :eCre} f ti ly , I must resign my position for personal erv na reasons which do not a l l ow me the time needed to devote to this advisory board. Since I am currently serving EPTAB as its chairman , I wi l . do everything possible to make my resianati gin notadversely affect our ongoing work. I thank the Board of Collier County Commissioners for the opportunity to serve my community in this capacity. In the future , when my time permits, I wi l l look forward to similar service to Collier County . Yours truly , .:_ h=`e A. i a._ . cc: Commissioner Bettye Matthews Commissioner John Norris Commissioner Burt Saunders Commissioner Mike Volpe 1 Addendum to Minutes of May 12 , 1994 The EPTAB meeting of May 23 , 1994 was attended by Dorothea Zysko Robert Duane, Nancy Payton, Derek Hodgin, and Steve Means. Since there was no quorum no official business was transacted. An informal discussion was held by the attending members. Bill Lorenz said he would distribute the resolution and a scoring matrix pertaining to the selection of new EPTAB members. The names and resumes of three candidates was distributed. Members are encouraged to review the qualifications, and be ready to make recommendations at the next meeting. DRAFT: May 12 , 1994 APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF May 9, 1994 PRESENT: Gary Beardsley Nancy Payton Christopher Hagan Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Steve Means Derek Hodgin NOTIFIED: Dave Addison ABSENCE STAFF: Bill Lorenz Fred Reischl Barbara Burgeson Kimberly Polen David Weigel Steve Lenberger Barbara Cacchione Meeting commenced at 4 : 10 and roll was called. Dorothea Zysko chaired the meeting. The amended minutes from the April 25, 1994 meeting were approved with the following amendments: 1) Dave Addison should be added as an absent member; 2) Steve Means' name should be deleted from absent and placed under notified; 3) Item III . 1. should state that the North Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) Subcommittee shall be officially referred to as the NGGE Ad Hoc Committee; and 4) Item IV. 5.Paragraph 2 should read. . .copies of the new project plan flow chart. . . . An 'Announcement' section should be added to the agenda after the Approval of Minutes section. Any ad hoc committee status reports should be placed first under the Old Business section. Due to the fact that Barbara Cacchione must leave at 5: 00p.m. , her Item (IV.h. ) will be heard after Elections under the Old Business section. Dorothea Zysko was nominated and elected as Chairman and Derek Hodgin was nominated and elected as Co-Chairman. Page Two Barabara Cacchione made a presentation on clustering. She mentioned that it would be difficult for Staff to tell DCA how an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, pertaining to clustering, would affect an area(s) density(s) /intensity(s) when an area has not even been mapped. Bob Duane suggested that a NRPA should be incoporated into development criteria (LDC) , if applicable, and not be required to be mapped on the Future Land Use Map. Gary Beardsley commented by stating that Bob is comming from a planning perspective and that the GMP has been adopted by the County to include both NRPA and HPO. He also said that EPTAB can recommend to the BCC to adhere to the GMP. Bob made a motion to direct Staff to remove Policy 1. 3 . 1.a of the CCME and re-word the requirement to place the NRPA(s) on the Future Land Use Map after the NRPA(s) is adopted into the LDC. [Each NRPA would be placed on the Future Land Use Map in conjunction with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) ] . Also to direct Staff to create general language to amend the Future Land Use Element to provide for clustering which will be defined in each NRPA(s) . The motion was seconded. During the discussion several members mentioned that they were concerned about the timeliness especially when it comes to dealing with the State. Barbara responded by explaining it is more difficult to remove or change the GMP than it is to change the LDC. She also mentioned that the importance of a Land Use Map is to visualize the area(s) . Dorothea called for a vote to the motion, which was approved 6 to 1 (Gary dissented) . Barbara Burgeson gave a report on the status of the GMP Goals, Objectives and Policies that have been met and those that have not been met. She explained that the latest compiled information available is dated 1992 . Steve Means said he wanted to know from Barbara which specific GMP Goals, Objectives and Policies she felt were lacking in the LDC. Barbara responded by stating that without thoroughly reviewing the GMP she could only mention some of the policies she was most familiar with; for example, the native habitat protection requirements and the listed species management guidelines. Page Three Steve told the members that on May 4th the EAB directed Staff to notify the BCC and advise the commissioners to adopt listed species management guidelines. Gary believes there are some commonalities that do exist amoung the various projects' management guidelines for the various listed species, which could become County guidelines. Several EPTAB members discussed the fact that the agencies (FGFWFC/USFWS) approve and/or permit listed species management guidelines on a site specific basis, so how does one expect the County to adopt specific listed species management guidelines that will apply to every site? Barbara mentioned that Staff only requests technical assistance from the agencies for projects that have documented evidence of listed species and/or which physical evidence of listed species habitat is observed. Staff passed out David Maehr's resignation and a flow chart for the NRPA Establishment, Approval and Implementation. The letter drafted by Derek Hodgin regarding the Inlet Management Plan Review was approved by the board and forwarded to the BCC chairman. Staff and Gary gave a brief status report of the North Golden Gate Estates ad hoc committee. Since there was not a quorum available, the remaining items under the Old Business section will be discussed during the next EPTAB meeting. Bob noted that Dave Addison has been absent several times. Other members mentioned Dave has not been present because his mother has been very ill. Dorothea said she would call him regarding his absences. The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 45p.m. ACTION ITEM: Staff is to direct Staff to remove Policy 1. 3 . 1.a of the CCME and re-word the requirement to place the NRPA(s) on the Future Land Use Map after the NRPA(s) is adopted into the LDC. Also to direct Staff to create general language to amend the Future Land Use Element to provide for clustering which will be defined in each NRPA(s) . [Both directives are to be included in an Executive Summary that is to be presented to the BCC] . ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: May 9, 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4 : 00 p.m. I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - April 25, 1994 IV. Old Business a. Elect Chairman/Co-Chairman b. LDC shortcomings - Project Plan Review Environmental staff to be present from 4 : 00-5: 00 p.m. c. Discussion of Dave Maehr's time away from EPTAB to attend grad school d. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) e. Derek Hodgin's letter to the Board (Inlet Management Plan review) f. Development of workplan for EPTAB (Where is EPTAB going?) g. Bill Lorenz - Program Budget (Action Item) (copies to EPTAB) h. Barbara Cacchione presentation (pending) V. New Business VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment DH: jl\6541 _or 2 sre rt S Ra"o4T Pf}C t<Ers PRese)A-7 'r"a ernms o N 5/7/91. :RPM B/170.6 /i 81)12 cesors) TI t te.vG/Qo�?'f M r`1T a aor DF C64_1_ie-ie Cori G DV SA ENT: NOTE: ALL OBJECTIVEb/POLIIES ARE 100% COMPLETED UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED CONSERVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj ./Pol. Imps. Department Number Status Responsible Obj . 01/01 50% complete Pol. 01/01/01 Pol. 01/01/02 Pol. 01/01/03 Pol. 01/01/04 Pol. 01/01/05 Pol. 01/01/06 Pol. 01/01/07 50% complete Pol. 01/01/08 Obj . 01/02 Pol. 01/02/01 Pol. 01/02/02 Pol. 01/02/03 Pol. 01/02/04 Pol. 01/02/05 Obj . 01/03 50% complete Pol. 01/03/01 75% complete Pol. 01/03/02 Pol. 01/03/03 50% complete Pol. 01/03/04 50% complete Obj . 02/01 25% complete Pol. 02/01/01 50% complete Pol. 02/01/02 50% complete Pol. 02/01/03 50% complete Pol. 02/01/04 50% complete Pol. 02/01/05 50% complete Pol. 02/01/06 Pol. 02/01/07 Obj . 02/02 Pol. 02/02/01 Pol. 02/02/02 Pol. 02/02/03 Pol. 02/02/04 Obj . 02/03 Pol. 02/03/01 Pol. 02/03/02 Pol. 02/03/03 Pol. 02/03/04 Pol. 02/03/05 Pol. 02/03/06 Obj . 02/04 75% complete Pol. 02/04/01 Not Begun Pol. 02/04/02 75% complete Pol. 02/04/03 75% complete Obj . 02/05 75% complete Pol. 02/05/01 Pol. 02/05/02 Pol. 02/05/03 Obj . 03/01 Pol. 03/01/01 50% complete CONSEIVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj . /Pol. Impl. Department Number Status Responsible Pol. 03/01/02 Pol. 03/01/03 Pol. 03/01/04 Pol. 03/01/05 Pol. 03/01/06 Obj . 03/02 Pol. 03/02/01 Pol. 03/02/02 Pol. 03/02/03 Pol. 03/02/04 Obj . 03/03 Pol. 03/03/01 Pol. 03/03/02 Pol. 03/03/03 Pol. 03/03/04 Pol. 03/03/05 Obj . 03/04 Pol. 03/04/01 Pol. 03/04/02 Pol. 03/04/03 Pol. 03/04/04 Obj . 04/01 Pol. 04/01/01 Pol. 04/01/02 Pol. 04/01/03 Obj . 04/02 Pol. 04/02/01 Pol. 04/02/02 Pol. 04/02/03 Pol. 04/02/04 Pol. 04/02/05 50% complete Pol. 04/02/06 Obj . 05/01 Pol. 05/01/01 Pol. 05/01/02 Pol. 05/01/03 Pol. 05/01/04 Pol. 05/01/05 Obj . 05/02 Pol. 05/02/01 Pol. 05/02/02 Obj . 05/03 Not Begun Pol. 05/03/01 Not Begun Obj . 05/04 Pol. 05/04/01 Pol. 05/04/02 Pol. 05/04/03 Pol. 05/04/04 Obj . 06/01 75% complete Pol. 06/01/01 75% complete Pol. 06/01/02 75% complete Pol. 06/01/03 75% complete Pol. 06/01/04 75% complete CONSEkdATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj . /Pol. Impl. Department Number Status Responsible Pol. 06/01/05 Pol. 06/01/06 Pol. 06/01/07 Obj . 06/02 Pol. 06/02/01 Pol. 06/02/02 Pol. 06/02/03 Pol. 06/02/04 Pol. 06/02/05 Pol. 06/02/06 Pol. 06/02/07 Pol. 06/02/08 Pol. 06/02/09 Pol. 06/02/10 Pol. 06/02/11 Pol. 06/02/12 Pol. 06/02/13 Pol. 06/02/14 Obj . 06/03 Pol. 06/03/01 Pol. 06/03/02 Pol. 06/03/03 Obj . 06/04 Pol. 06/04/01 Pol. 06/04/02 Pol. 06/04/03 Pol. 06/04/04 Pol. 06/04/05 Pol. 06/04/06 Pol. 06/04/07 Pol. 06/04/08 Obj . 06/05 Pol. 06/05/01 Pol. 06/05/02 Obj . 06/06 Pol. 06/06/01 Pol. 06/06/02 Pol. 06/06/03 Obj . 06/07 Pol. 06/07/01 Pol. 06/07/02 Pol. 06/07/03 Obj . 06/08 Pol. 06/08/01 Pol. 06/08/02 Obj . 07/01 Pol. 07/01/01 Pol. 07/01/02 Obj . 07/02 Pol. 07/02/01 Pol. 07/02/02 Pol. 07/02/03 Pol. 07/02/04 CONSEkVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj . /Pol. Impl. Department Number Status Responsible Obj . 07/03 Pol. 07/03/01 Pol. 07/03/02 Pol. 07/03/03 Pol. 07/03/04 Pol. 07/03/05 Pol. 07/03/06 Pol. 07/03/07 Pol. 07/03/08 Pol. 07/03/09 Obj . 08/01 Pol. 08/01/01 Pol. 08/01/02 Pol. 08/01/03 Pol. 08/01/04 Pol. 08/01/05 Obj . 09/01 Pol. 09/01/01 Pol. 09/01/02 Pol. 09/01/03 Pol. 09/01/04 Pol. 09/01/05 Pol. 09/01/06 Pol. 09/01/07 Obj . 09/02 Pol. 09/02/01 Pol. 09/02/02 Obj . 09/03 Pol. 09/03/01 Pol. 09/03/02 Obj . 09/04 Pol. 09/04/01 Pol. 09/04/02 Obj . 09/05 Pol. 09/05/01 Obj . 10/01 Pol. 10/01/01 Pol. 10/01/02 Pol. 10/01/03 Pol. 10/01/04 Pol. 10/01/05 Pol. 10/01/06 Obj . 10/02 Pol. 10/02/01 Pol. 10/02/02 Pol. 10/02/03 Pol. 10/02/04 Pol. 10/02/05 Obj . 11/01 Pol. 11/01/01 Pol. 11/01/02 Pol. 11/01/03 Pol. 11/01/04 CONSERVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj./Pol. Impl. Department Number Status Responsible Pol. 11/01/05 Pol. 11/01/06 Pol. 11/01/07 Pol. 11/01/08 Pol. 11/01/09 Obj . 11/02 Pol. 11/02/01 Pol. 11/02/02 Pol. 11/02/03 Pol. 11/02/04 Pol. 11/02/05 Pol. 11/02/06 Obj . 11/03 Pol. 11/03/01 Pol. 11/03/02 Pol. 11/03/03 Pol. 11/03/04 Pol. 11/03/05 Pol. 11/03/06 Pol. 11/03/07 Pol. 11/03/08 Pol. 11/03/09 Pol. 11/03/10 Pol. 11/03/11 Pol. 11/03/12 Pol. 11/03/13 Pol. 11/03/14 Pol. 11/03/15 Obj . 11/04 Pol. 11/04/01 Pol. 11/04/02 Pol. 11/04/03 Pol. 11/04/04 75% complete Pol. 11/04/05 75% complete Poi. 11/04/06 75% complete Pol. 11/04/07 Pol. 11/04/08 Poi. 11/04/09 Pol. 11/04/10 Pol. 11/04/11 Not Begun Pol. 11/04/12 Pol. 11/04/13 Obj . 11/05 Pol. 11/05/01 Pol. 11/05/02 Poi. 11/05/03 Pol. 11/05/04 Pol. 11/05/05 Pol. 11/05/06 50% complete Pol. 11/05/07 Pol. 11/05/08 Pol. 11/05/09 Pol. 11/05/10 CONSEKVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Obj ./Pol. Impl. Department Number Status Responsible Pol. 11/05/11 Pol. 11/05/12 Pol. 11/05/13 Obj . 11/06 75% complete Pol. 11/06/01 75% complete Pol. 11/06/02 75% complete Pol. 11/06/03 Pol. 11/06/04 75% complete Obj . 12/01 Pol. 12/01/01 Pol. 12/01/02 Pol. 12/01/03 Obj . 13/01 Pol. 13/01/01 Pol. 13/01/02 Pol. 13/01/03 75% complete Pol. 13/01/04 Pol. 13/01/05 Pol. 13/01/06 Pol. 13/01/07 Obj . 13/02 Pol. 13/02/01 Pol. 13/02/02 Pol. 13/02/03 Pol. 13/02/04 Pol. 13/02/05 Pol. 13/02/06 Pol. 13/02/07 Pol. 13/02/08 Obj . 13/03 50% complete Pol. 13/03/01 25% complete Pol. 13/03/02 25% complete Pol. 13/03/03 25% complete Pol. 13/03/04 25% complete Pol. 13/03/05 25% complete Poi. 13/03/06 Pol. 13/03/07 25% complete Pol. 13/03/08 Not Begun Obj . 13/04 Pol. 13/04/01 50% complete Pol. 13/04/02 Pol. 13/04/03 Obj . 14/01 Pol. 14/01/01 Pol. 14/01/02 Pol. 14/01/03 . .,...11A V= 6-94 FRI 11 :20 --- P. 01 j It 1/ ‘ itit t )11 4 0 It CON .1., NTS 2396 13ti 1- - et,North Naples, Florvio 11940 47,,Ati f4‘ Phone 5a Fax(81 77 A '-/ 4 1 v ) , AT& 0 0 1 / 1 Z• 0 1 num um nn 1 in nn mon AV / =/)j ii, ; 1 . TOP C OF FitillOC ENT: 1 t oi 4 4 = ....III im....imminuon I . iltoletom ii, 004#4141 e. Onee n trkDaCAr— Al 6 r ,........_ _ TIME SENT: .Ors. am ''. NUer Of PAW'S Foiled IN 0IFilbBPAIMMEHTAL SEIPACES ir, _ 1 laar 41001 DATE: 5.---4/9 ..— ACTION: ollE. 1-91.101011 ,:: II Gary L Boardsloy C.-Ci61- r;IC) .64rY1c6 . I INFO: .._ ' 41 /11 4 CA or/5 uc,.1 1, . _ h.._ .vAorneepor or if OP -flAP " i / 0 .00- e •i•e5/40019 e P4ile "Atees r 44414W / / 1i e".04,4te-iimPippexix7p4 A _ke: -.1 4.#4,Apixi. ,wpfaiwrig "'pew werldi 404-10.3 s , 404 , 1214L, 'or 1 0 Ifrfi.bv el >dee A - 0 eitievi$0,-,4011 aiw- eit 0 i g 4?:1- eP e e t t g I 3-0017) if this FISH transmission is not cons , lets _ mor prop/arts r hood. .ALM . _....... . A I 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO EVALUATE THE CONCEPT OF CLUSTERING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED AS NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS AND TO DIRECT STAFF ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. OBJECTIVE: On April 12 , 1994, a representative of the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board (EPTAB) requested the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to amend the Growth Management Plan to provide for the concept of clustering development in the Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA's) located within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation of the Future Land Use Map. Staff was asked to evaluate this request and bring it back to the BCC for further discussion. CONSIDERATIONS: The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation applies to those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore allowable land uses are of low intensity. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1 unit per 5 gross acres. A staff interpretation, issued December 3 , 1990, stated that clustering development within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation would not be permitted. Objective 1. 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element requires the establishment of NRPA's in order to protect endangered species and their habitats. Policy 1. 3 . 1 a. provides that the NRPA's be identified as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map and that guidelines and standards for development be established to maintain the resource. One method staff has been asked to evaluate is clustering development in the NRPA in order to promote conservation. As an example, if a NRPA located within the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation were to be designated encompassing 1, 000 acres, the maximum permitted density would be 200 dwelling units each unit located on a five acre tract. If clustering were permitted on 50 acres for the 200 units the remaining 950 acres would be left undeveloped. Clustering within the Agricultural/Rural Area can have both positive and/or negative impacts. Clustering development can leave more land in open space with less impacts on a majority of a site. However, development on a portion of the property can create negative impacts if the density or intensity of use is to high. In addition, to the size of the NRPA, the number of units to be clustered is a major factor that must be considered in making a determination if clustering is appropriate. If you were looking at designating a NRPA that was 5, 000 acres in size, the potential would be there to cluster 1, 000 units which could promote urban sprawl and leapfrog development. The negative impacts of sprawl are the inefficient patterns of development not well served by public facilities and services such as fire protection, schools, parks, etc. The demand would be for a level of service which approaches that expected in a more urban area rather than the rural area. At this point in time the BCC has directed staff to prepare one NRPA - Clam Pass. This would not be an area appropriate for clustering due to the fact that it is under public ownership. Without knowing the extent of the area to be designated as a NRPA or the location, the maximum intensity of the clustered units can not be determined, nor where they could be located on the site or the suitability of the land use. These are all questions that should be part of the justification for the amendment. Until other NRPA's are identified by the Board of County Commissioners it is difficult to provide the information needed to support the amendment. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of staff time to prepare an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. There are only 2 staff initiated amendments and no amendments from the public in the 1994/95 cycle. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The clustering concept in the NRPA could be designed to further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use and Conservation & Coastal Management Elements of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to consider the concept of clustering in the NRPA's and to amend the Future Land Use Element when those NRPA's have been identified where clustering would be an appropriate method to promote conservation of the resource. PREPARED BY: DATE: Barbara A. Cacchione, A. I.C. P. Chief Planner, Long Range Planning REVIEWED BY: DATE: Donald W. Arnold, A.I.C.P. Acting Site Plan Review Director REVIEWED BY: DATE: Richard Clark Acting Community Development Services Administrator 110 d A WILDLIFE FEDERATION FLORID 7/i%(. 'Io/i:na ,V444 • —74 Southwest Florida Office 5051 Castello Drive, Suite 228, Naples, Florida 33940 Phone(813) 843-4111, Fax(813) 643-5130 E.F. (FRAN) STALLINGS, Ph.D., Director / May 4, 1994 To: Interested Parties From: Fran Stallings Subject: Florida Wildlife Federation position on a Manatee Protection Plan for Collier County The Southwest Office of the Florida Wildlife Federation has reviewed the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP)prepared by the Collier County Natural Resources Dept. with primary input from the Collier County Marine Trades Association (CCMTA). One of the outstanding deficiencies in this plan�that beaut 90 %to the State of Qorida,this basis alone the plan is unacceptable to us unacceptable To be acceptable, whatever plan is formulated must have an implementation strategy and {• consist of specific actions that will be taken by County Government to effect a higher level of protection than currently exists. We suggest the following five actions as the basic components for an acceptable Manatee Protection Plan(MPP): (1). Establish a manatee preserve in of this aThousand ao scheduled to come into public Goodland and Everglades National Park. The bulk ownership as a result of the land swap now underway d eithebetween National Wildl fe Refuge the U. S. Government. Current thinking p that it will become a part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Management goals and policies could logically be focused on the American crocodile, sea turtles, manatees, and on the landward fringe of the mangroves, black bears. This option has been well received by Federal, State and local governmental staff as well as.the environmental community. We recommend the establishment of this area as a reserve with the following two conditions: A. That a fourth management goal be included,namely that the area also be managed to enhance the productivity of the local fisheries. K.FULLER,IIi MANLEY MAIN OFFICE:2545 BLAIRSTONE PINES DRIVE MMASidnt MA!LW3 ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 6870.TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32314-6870 B. That Public access in a manner compatible with management goals be guaranteed. In fact, the Florida Wildlife Federation will not support the "preserve"preserve option unless public access is allowed. At this time we are not aware of any responsible environmental group or governmental entity that would seek to prohibit public access. Therefore we believe this issue to be irrelavent and that it does not represent a barrier standing in the way of an effective manatee protection plan. (2). Establish a series of idle and slow speed zones in areas of heavy boat traffic frequented by manatees. The current speed proposals go a long way towards meeting this requirement provided that they are made mandatory rather than optional (3). Establish a meaningful marina siting policy. A scenario that might work is as follows: A. Establish all areas currently zoned for marinas as automatically acceptable for marina construction subject to applicable permitting requirements. B. Many areas of the County are obviously unsuitable for marinas by almost any standard. Set aside these areas as "prohibited" zones for marinas. C. The remaining waterfront would represent a zone where marinas are not allowed under current zoning, but where the potential exists to rezone a particular site for a marina. For this category of waterfront we would suggest an additional level of review similar to that required for an area designated as "Outstanding Florida Waters". In conversations with a member of the CCMTA the representation was made to us that the current rezoning process is sufficiently rigorous along with the various permitting requirements to meet this need. In order to better evaluate this option we would suggest that County staffprepare a detailed justification showing how the rezone process along with the attendant permitting process provides the needed degree of protection. (4). Establish a mechanism to insure a much higher level of enforcement of existing regulations, especially those relating to boat speeds. (5). Provide better marking of channels and shallow areas containing seagrass in order that boaters may avoid shallow areas where they are likely to run aground and destroy aquatic vegetation. Summary: We have heard the option mentioned of having Collier County enact a MPP that obviously does not meet State standards and then fight it out with the State. This option is almost guaranteed to add at least a year to the process and provide a major impediment to marine interests standing by to construct new or expanded marina facilities. Additionally, this approach is inefficient and will probably add more controversy rather than resolving issues. The goal of the Florida Wildlife Federation is to resolve this matter quickly and efficiently in a way that provides a higher degree of protection to the manatees and that promotes safe and responsible boating. On this basis we recommend that the Collier County Board of Commissioners convene a formal workshop and bring all the players together at the same table so that the issues can be laid out and hopefully resolved (marine interests, environmental organizations, Collier County Natural Resources Dept. staff; Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection stall; and other appropriate groups). Only in this manner can a worthwhile plan be developed in an efficient and expeditious manner that will provide the needed protection and at the same time allow a reasonable and productive use of our coastal waters by commercial and recreational marine interests. Thank you for your consideration of our position. We stand ready to work cooperatively with you on a factual and positive basis to resolve these issues. 're wkWILKISON & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 28 April 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Davis, Chairman- Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, EPTAB members, Bill Lorenz, Collier C s my Natural Resources Department 4IW 1-6' FROM: David S. Maehr -,,, SUBJECT: EPTAB membership Please accept this letter as formal announcement of my resignation from EPTAB. For the last few weeks I have tried to convince myself that I could juggle this responsibility with several new ones including my enrollment as a full time graduate student at the University of Florida. With many challenges still facing our advisory board and the County, I leave this group reluctantly. Having served as past chairman, and vice chairman I feel a particular loyalty to EPTAB by virtue of our many shared frustrations and occasional victories. We all live and work in a county where prudent environmental decisions and visionary leadership are rare. Knowing that you all value the benefits that our unique Collier County landscape provides us, I am sure you will continue to make progress. It has been a pleasure serving with you. I encourage you all to press forward with the NRPA program. Do not allow the constant distractions from diverting you in this challenge, and do not forget the image of the County as one whole unit- like the satellite image that should be hanging on all of our office walls. But, also, be pragmatic. We cannot go back in time, yet we can make the best of the special places remaining in the County and the growing concern of the public over these places' declines. Expend your energies where they they can be most effective and where you can be most efficient. Finally, prevail upon our commissioners to restore a balance of environmental representation on EPTAB. Perhaps now would be the time to encourage the County to pare EPTAB's membership back to 9, if not 7 as originally designed. Our occasional gridlock very likely resulted from our large number. While my new responsibilities will take me away from the County for extended periods, do not hesitate to call on me if I can be of assistance to you. Thank you. 3584 EXCHANGE AVE.,SUITE A,NAPLES, FL 33942 813-643-2404 813-643-6752 FAX 813-643-5173 HORACE A.WILKISON,P.L.S. DAVID S.WILKISON,P.E. • JAMES N.WILKISON,P.L.S. Recycled Paper® ^, DRAFT: A it 25, 1994 � V �/` APPROVED: 97,14,1:i, giver ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF April 25, 1994 AMENDED PRESENT: Christopher Hagan Gary Beardsley Nancy Payton Derek Hodgin Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Mike Davis NOTIFIED: David Maehr ABSENT: Steve Means STAFF: Bill Lorenz Dick Hartwell David Weigel PUBLIC: None I. Meeting called to order. II. Roll was called by Dorothea Zysko who chaired the meeting. III. Approval of minutes. 1. Minutes from the April 11, 1994 meeting were approved as amended. Gary Beardsley asked that the minutes be amended to substitute the word 'subcommittee' to ad hoc committee. Derek Hodgin did not receive his copy of the minutes again. Staff will check his address on the EPTAB mailing lists. 2 . Announcements: Mike Davis resigned from EPTAB. Bill Lorenz announced that David Land also resigned. 3 . A brief discussion followed about EPTAB replacements. Bill Lorenz stated that replacements are handled at the Board office. Gary Beardsley suggested that a new chairperson be elected at the May 9 , 1994 EPTAB meeting. IV. Old Business. 1. Robert Duane gave a brief presentation on the April 12, 1994 BCC meeting about "clustering" . 2 . Gary Beardsley requested that Dave Maehr time away from EPTAB to attend grad school be a topic of discussion at the next EPTAB meeting. EPTAB MINUTES, t. ,IL 25, 1994 PAGE -2- 3 . Chris Hagan gave a brief presentation on the NGGE Ad Hoc Committee meeting and Kimberly Polen's memorandum. The next ad hoc meeting will be held on May 6, 1994 , 7 : 30 a.m. , at the same place. 4 . LDC shortcomings: Barbara Burgeson is still unavailable to meet with EPTAB. EPTAB requested Bill Lorenz to contact Dick Clark and request that she attend the next EPTAB meeting. 5. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) . Bill Lorenz stated that Board gave direction to staff only for Clam Bay. Clam Bay would only become a NRPA when a management plan would be completed and presented to EPTAB for review and then to the BCC. Gary Beardsley requested that copies of the project plan flow chart be given to EPTAB members. Bill Lorenz stated that EPTAB would come back to the Board for authorization on a new NRPA. However, Bill Lorenz stated that Tim Constantine said that he did not want staff working on any NRPAs without the Board's approval. Bill Lorenz suggested that EPTAB could write a letter to the Board about starting a new NRPA. The priority list will be discussed at the next EPTAB meeting. 6. Inlet Management Plan: Derek Hodgin gave a presentation on who is involved in putting together an Inlet Management Plan. Gary Beardsley would like EPTAB to review at least one Inlet Plan and then decide if they need to review others when they become available. Bill Lorenz explained that the Beach Renourishment Committee controls the Inlet Management Plans and Maura Kraus represents staff in attending their meetings. Gary Beardsley gave a motion to have EPTAB review one plan. Derek Hodgin will write a letter to the Board's chairman asking Capital Projects to present a Inlet Management Plan to EPTAB. David Weigel, County Attorney, suggested that EPTAB address this request in a BCC public meeting. Gary Beardsley's motion was amended to send a letter to the Board with justification for wanting to review the Inlet Management Plan. Motion passed. EPTAB MINUTES, 1. IL 25, 1994 PAGE -3- V. New Business Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB see the NRPA program budget for FY 94/95. Bill Lorenz said he would give EPTAB the program package for the budget. Robert Duane requested that generic language is needed in the LDC addressing the clustering issue. Mr. Duane said that he would help Barbara Cacchione by drafting this language in order to get this into the current cycle. Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB be involved with the process concerning the updating of the Growth Management Plan. Bill Lorenz will ask Barbara Cacchione to make a presentation to EPTAB involving the ELM III Act. VI. Adjournment: This meeting was adjourned at the end of discussions. ACTION ITEM: Bill Lorenz to give EPTAB program package for budget. RH: j1\6534 ^ F' -0. W v v .r V hi t*1 D N d to a 0 3> ,Dry L rZty Q t3i>" in !'1 V- p.?2 '� ZmZz -4 ZDVfri D-IVI �m O M 1.7 EZ -0 m 70 z r o 3 D f 10 y Z 10 m H < o 1 it to N ^ --I o bl Q v v td v a Q. d-4 ,3 M ti bd H liN •ii? ZDV 'O Z� P p :x 73 � fZ -4 El 2 yC 3 a rr1 z < O /--� ; o ti z o=Z� cf O ` 0 i R. 3> Ci , z ,� z Q -13 -D el g M ri g 1 -0 . O y X1 3' H- aQ h 1) D 3 _ - '' .0 P -+a 3 (` 03 i 70 'pX t' '9 ,y�--�D a. IMO ri H H�' ,� A ti 3 0 et m 1zM X 3 Q Z fet MO 8 I- = / y h 41/ 1 i 3 In z -H D DZD H -Ir a z A A a A O WILKISON & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ROUTING ASSOCIATES DATE: ' r �'r CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ACTION: (;,,„-+` ..,r 28 April 1994 �` MEMORANDUM INFO: TO: Mike Davis, Chairman- Environmental Policy Technic EPTAB members, Bill Lorenz, Collier C my Natural Resources Depa�trent FROM: David S. Maehr �its G' SUBJECT: EPTAB membership Please accept this letter as formal announcement of my resignation from EPTAB. For the last few weeks I have tried to convince myself that I could juggle this responsibility with several new ones including my enrollment as a full time graduate student at the University of Florida. With many challenges still facing our advisory board and the County, I leave this group reluctantly. Having served as past chairman, and vice chairman I feel a particular loyalty to EPTAB by virtue of our many shared frustrations and occasional victories. We all live and work in a county where prudent environmental decisions and visionary leadership are rare. Knowing that you all value the benefits that our unique Collier County landscape provides us, I am sure you will continue to make progress. It has been a pleasure serving with you. I encourage you all to press forward with the NRPA program. Do not allow the constant distractions from diverting you in this challenge, and do not forget the image of the County as one whole unit- like the satellite image that should be hanging on all of our office walls. But, also, be pragmatic. We cannot go back in time, yet we can make the best of the special places remaining in the County and the growing concern of the public over these places' declines. Expend your energies where they they can be most effective and where you can be most efficient. Finally, prevail upon our commissioners to restore a balance of environmental representation on EPTAB. Perhaps now would be the time to encourage the County to pare EPTAB's membership back to 9, if not 7 as originally designed. Our occasional gridlock very likely resulted from our large number. While my new responsibilities will take me away from the County for extended periods, do not hesitate to call on me if I can be of assistance to you. Thank you. 3584 EXCHANGE AVE.,SUITE A,NAPLES, FL 33942 813-643-2404 813-643-6752 FAX 813-643-5173 HORACE A.WILKISON,P.L.S. DAVID S.WILKISON,P.E. • JAMES N.WILKISON,P.L.S. `a DRAFT: 25, 1994 fta6h APPROVED: 50)4017 fr''°;? ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF April 25, 1994 PRESENT: Christopher Hagan Gary Beardsley Nancy Payton Derek Hodgin Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Mike Davis NOTIFIED: David Maehr ABSENT: Steve Means STAFF: Bill Lorenz Dick Hartwell David Weigel PUBLIC: None I. Meeting called to order. II. Roll was called by Dorothea Zysko who chaired the meeting. III. Approval of minutes. 1. Minutes from the April 11, 1994 meeting were approved as amended. Gary Beardsley asked that the minutes be amended to substitute the word 'subcommittee' to ad hoc committee. Derek Hodgin did not receive his copy of the minutes again. Staff will check his address on the EPTAB mailing lists. 2 . Announcements: Mike Davis resigned from EPTAB. Bill Lorenz announced that David Land also resigned. 3 . A brief discussion followed about EPTAB replacements. Bill Lorenz stated that replacements are handled at the Board office. Gary Beardsley suggested that a new chairperson be elected at the May 9, 1994 EPTAB meeting. IV. Old Business. 1. Robert Duane gave a brief presentation on the April 12 , 1994 BCC meeting about "clustering" . 2 . Gary Beardsley requested that Dave Maehr needs time away from EPTAB to attend grad school. His replacement will be a topic of discussion at the next EPTAB meeting. EPTAB MINUTES, APxIL 25, 1994 PAGE -2- 3 . Chris Hagan gave a brief presentation on the NGGE Ad Hoc Committee meeting and Kimberly Polen's memorandum. The next ad hoc meeting will be held on May 6, 1994 , 7 : 30 a.m. , at the same place. 4 . LDC shortcomings: Barbara Burgeson is still unavailable to meet with EPTAB. EPTAB requested Bill Lorenz to contact Dick Clark and request that she attend the next EPTAB meeting. 5. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) . Bill Lorenz stated that Board gave direction to staff only for Clam Bay. Clam Bay would only become a NRPA when a management plan would be completed and presented to EPTAB for review and then to the BCC. Gary Beardsley requested that copies of the project plan flow chart be given to EPTAB members. Bill Lorenz stated that EPTAB would come back to the Board for authorization on a new NRPA. However, Bill Lorenz stated that Tim Constantine said that he did not want staff working on any NRPAs without the Board's approval. Bill Lorenz suggested that EPTAB could write a letter to the Board about starting a new NRPA. The priority list will be discussed at the next EPTAB meeting. 6. Inlet Management Plan: Derek Hodgin gave a presentation on who is involved in putting together an Inlet Management Plan. Gary Beardsley would like EPTAB to review at least one Inlet Plan and then decide if they need to review others when they become available. Bill Lorenz explained that the Beach Renourishment Committee controls the Inlet Management Plans and Maura Kraus represents staff in attending their meetings. Gary Beardsley gave a motion to have EPTAB review one plan. Derek Hodgin will write a letter to the Board's chairman asking Capital Projects to present a Inlet Management Plan to EPTAB. David Weigel, County Attorney, suggested that EPTAB address this request in a BCC public meeting. Gary Beardsley's motion was amended to send a letter to the Board with justification for wanting to review the Inlet Management Plan. Motion passed. EPTAB MINUTES, APRIL 25, 1994 PAGE -3- V. New Business Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB see the NRPA program budget for FY 94/95. Bill Lorenz said he would give EPTAB the program package for the budget. Robert Duane requested that generic language is needed in the LDC addressing the clustering issue. Mr. Duane said that he would help Barbara Cacchione by drafting this language in order to get this into the current cycle. Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB be involved with the process concerning the updating of the Growth Management Plan. Bill Lorenz will ask Barbara Cacchione to make a presentation to EPTAB involving the ELM III Act. VI. Adjournment: This meeting was adjourned at the end of discussions. ACTION ITEM: Bill Lorenz to give EPTAB program package for budget. RH: j1\6534 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: May 9, 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4 : 00 p.m. I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - April 25, 1994 IV. Old Business a. Elect Chairman/Co-Chairman b. LDC shortcomings - Project Plan Review Environmental staff to be present from 4 : 00-5: 00 p.m. c. Discussion of Dave Maehr's time away from EPTAB to attend grad school d. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) e. Derek Hodgin's letter to the Board (Inlet Management Plan review) f. Development of workplan for EPTAB (Where is EPTAB going?) g. Bill Lorenz - Program Budget (Action Item) (copies to EPTAB) h. Barbara Cacchione presentation (pending) V. New Business VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment DH: jl\6541 COLLIER ENTERPRISES 3003 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES, FL 33940/PHONE 813/261-4455 ENVIRONMENTAL, SERVICES ROUTING April 18, 1994 '(// 2/DATE: 'f 1 ,u, ACTION: tto Chairman Tim Constantine 3301 E. Tamiami Trail i. Naples, Florida 33962 Dear Chairman Constantine: t= • :; I3r: I have recently made the decision to leave Collier Enterprises and pursue various personal interests not possible within the company. Consequently, I will be leaving Collier County sometime this summer if all proceeds as I anticipate it will. Therefore, I must regretfully submit my resignation from the Environmental Technical Advisory Board (EPTAB). In naming my replacement, I would hope you would make every effort to select an individual who can represent the interests of agriculture and the rural landowner while still having a thorough understanding of the major environmental issues which face us. With my departure, there is no one remaining on EPTAB who can fill that role. Since I will soon no longer have the opportunity to help shape the future of the county I have grown to love, I would also like to take this opportunity to offer a few parting thoughts. Please do not infer that I am suggesting you and the other Commissioners do not share these following beliefs. You well may. However, in this, my resignation letter, I simply wished to emphasize their importance, not to suggest that any commissioner is individually wanting. One of my major personal goals over the past nine years with Collier Enterprises has been to build bridges between the agricultural and environmental communities. Too often there is bitter dispute, lack of understanding, and an inability to communicate between these two groups. As a result, neither the needs of the environmentalist nor those of farmers are met as optimally as they might otherwise be. The sources of the problem are fear, mistrust, sometimes selfishness, and a frequent unwillingness to recognize and understand the legitimate concerns of the other. This same problem seems to permeate increasingly our county in so many other areas: pro- growth vs. anti-growth;developers vs. environmentalist; old vs. young; rich vs. poor; retired vs. working. The same source of contention exists between these factions as well: fear, mistrust, selfishness, a failure to recognize and understand legitimate needs and concerns of others. While the solution is not simple, you, the Commission, can contribute significantly by always trying to act as a bridge between divergent views and only appointing people to boards and commissions who are committed to working to solve issues in mutually cooperative ways. We do not need demagogues, extremists, radicals. We do need bright people, sensitive to others, who will work cooperatively and in good faith to solve sometimes seemingly insolvable problems. REAL ESTATE, AGRICULTURE AND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Distribution • Page 2 What Collier County will be in a generation is in your hands today. Thus, each of you needs to define and articulate a publicly stated vision of what that Collier can and should be in order to guide your week-to-week decisions. Sometimes I feel that this publicly articulated vision is lacking in Collier County. (I do not feel the Comprehensive Plan meets this need. It is too large, complex, procedural to perform this role.) Yet none of us can govern or lead wisely if we do not have such a touchstone to which we can constantly return when rhetoric, emotions, statistics, and proposals fill the air. I strongly urge you, both individually and jointly, to work together to provide the public with this vision of what our County can and should be a generation from now. One final thought deals with the balancing of property rights and environmental quality. There is no one who has more strongly represented the rights and needs of property owners and farmers than I. I feel as strongly about that today as I always have. Yet in protecting landowners' rights and addressing their needs, we must never ignore protecting our natural heritage, both for our own quality of life and for that of our children and children's children. The key is insuring that the cost of any protection, whether it is absolutely essential or only discretionary, is equitably borne by all of those who benefit, not simply the last people who have not yet developed their land. To do otherwise sends a terrible message: develop or alter your land as quickly as possible or one day you will not be able to do so and will thereby have lost the economic value you now have. While regulation may be the most politically palatable way to achieve environmental objectives, it is more often than not the least equitable. Environmental quality is equally as public a good as a road or school. We do not ask those where the road or school is to be built to bear the full cost of these public goods. The same should be true when the environmental values to be protected benefit those beyond the boundaries of the land in question. In closing, I would like to express my best wishes to you as a Commission. You have a difficult and often thankless task. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. No one knows this better than you. While I may sometimes disagree with your decisions, I am grateful that each of you has made the commitment to serve the public as you have. Best regards. rely, David B. Land Copy: EPTAB Commissioner Bettye Matthews Commissioner John C.Norris Commissioner Burt Saunders Commissioner Michael J. Volpe • A COLLIER COUNTY 1994/95 PROGRAM PRIORITIES Department; Natural Resources PROGRAM PRIORITIES Relationship to Current Level Staff BCC % of % of Rank Tier Descri•tion Total Total FTE Personnel Dollars Dollars Base 0 0 0 1 Level I Service 5.0 56% $190,200 48% 2 Technical Assistance 4.0 44% $168,800 43% 3 Artificial Reefs 0.0 0% $34,000 9% Total ___ _____ 9.0 100% $393,000 100% • Page 25 STAFF RAI 1 PROGRAM PACKAGE SUMMARY 1994/95 BCC TIER: Program: Level I Services Department: Natural Resources - Estimated Program Cost: $190,200 Description of Program Package: The Natural Resources Department provides many general services to the public and other County Departments and agencies. These include responding to citizen inquires concerning natural resources, technical staff support to EPTAB, and support responses to the offices of the Board and County Manager. The program also includes general management and administrative functions such as strategic and annual work plans, budget preparation and maintenance and personnel management. The development and maintenance of a comprehensive natural resource data base is also included in this program. This element is responsive to Objective 1.2 and its attendant policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan requires the County to develop an NRPA Program and prepare habitat protection standards for various habitats. The Board has directed staff to put the Habitat Protection Ordinance on hold. On March 1, 1994 the Board directed staff to continue to work on the NRPA Program. Staff estimates that 3-5 NRPA's could be brought to the BCC for adoption in FY 94/95. Statement of Service Level: Funding this service level provides for the minimal administration of a Natural Resources Management Program and supports the intent of Policy 1.1.3 (CCME) which requires the County to have in place' an appropriately administered and professionally staffed governmental unit capable of developing, administering, and providing long term direction for the Collier County Environmental Resources Management Program. Statement of Personnel Impact: 5.0 FTE's will be needed for Level 1 Services. Statement of Revenue Impact: There is no direct impact, however, staff continues to monitor opportunities to receive Federal and State grants for natural resource programs. Page 26 ir ....- STAFF RANK: 2 , PROGRAM PACKAGE SUMMARY 1994/95 BCC TIER: Program: Technical Assistance Department: Natural Resources - Estimated Program Cost: $168,800 Level: Description of Program Package: Provide technical and logistical support to other County Departments/Divisions such as Transportation, Solid Waste, Capital Projects, Property Management and Project Review. The expertise provided aids in obtaining permits, evaluating projects, planning County projects, and performing technical tasks such as environmental impact statements, that would normally be sent out to consultants. Examples are: Livingston Road, Sabal Palm Road, Immokalee Airport Industrial Park, EMS site on Vanderbilt Drive, Marco and Everglades City Airport mangrove trimming and Collier County Landfill mitigation and expansion, Sea Turtle Monitoring and Inlet Management Plans. Statement of Service Level: The cancellation of the technical assistance effort will greatly increase overall County expenditures since outside consultants normally charge a fee significantly above in house costs. To date savings have been in the 40-60 percent range. Statement of Personnel Impact: 4.0 FTE's will be needed to meet projected work load. Statement of Revenue Impact: This program is expected to produce approximately $25,000 in revenue from charges made to other Departments/Divisions. These funds will be used as they become available to increase the NRD inventory of capital assets. These capital assets will be primarily those that support the field work required to provide the technical assistance. Page 27 STAFF RANK: 3 PROGRAM PACKAGE SUMMARY 1994/95 BCC TIER: Program: Artificial Reef Department: Natural Resources - Estimated Program Cost: $34,000 Level: Description of Program Package: The Natural Resources Department supervises the construction of artificial reefs in the offshore Gulf waters. These reefs have been shown to increase the marine productivity and as such have become popular sites for numerous fishing and diving trips. In this manner the program helps support the fishing and tourist industry of Southwest Florida. Annual grants from the Florida Department of Natural Resources pay for the reef construction. Statement of Service Level: If this program were eliminated, no more artificial reefs would be built. Existing reefs would not be maintained and their functional value would decline. It is envisioned that future funding for construction of the reefs will be from grant funds. Statement of Personnel Impact: None. (less than .1 FTE is allocated to the Artificial Reef program) . Statement of Revenue Impact: Grant funds will pay for the anticipated $34,000 construction costs. Page 28 April 27, 1994 The Honorable Timothy J. Constantine Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Collier County Government Complex 3301 East Tamiami Trail Administrative Building Naples, Florida 33962 Dear Chairman Constantine: By copy of this correspondence, the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners direct the Office of Capital Projects Management to provide our board with copies of the recently prepared Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan for our review and comment. This request is consistent with the function of the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board as set forth in Section Two of Ordinance Number 91-26. Please be advised that our board will focus it's review of the plan to natural resource elements and environmental impacts of proposed management activities. Our review will be timely and should not hinder the review process of the plan in any way. Please advise our board of the Commission meeting scheduled for this action so that we may provide a representative to answer questions if necessary. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Dorothea P. Zysko Acting Chairman Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board cc: Jerry Neal, Office of Capital Projects Management Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Division Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board Members ....„ __ . , ? TA g - i_2dteiu., B ,- 11. CW W4 q AAJ E 7,'7,4-73 it4 6L)11111-6A.),...-"burea-Q__ CzSerf I . iii_ -- --- - ---- ------- I . NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: EPTAB Members FROM: Kimberly J. Polen Environmental Specialist II DATE: April 21, 1994 SUBJECT: Notes from the April 21st North Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) Subcommittee Meeting Chris Hagan mentioned that the proposed Subcommittee report to be presented to EPTAB should include the following three main topics: 1) "Pre-Golden Gate Drainage" (approx. 1900 - when written documentation first appeared) ; 2) "Post-Golden Gate Drainage"; and 3) "Present Conditions and Future Plans" . Chris distributed a Memorandum, that contained a brief hydrology narrative, to each Subcommitte Member for their review and comment prior to expansion and inclusion into the Subcommittee report. Gary Beardsley distributed draft sections (i.e. Introduction, Habitat Alteration, and Vegetational Patterns within Golden Gate Estates) to each Subcommittee Member for their review and comment prior to inclusion into the Subcommittee report. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Subcommittee Members agreed to set the following tentative goals: 1) On May 23rd distribute a draft copy of the Subcommittee report to all EPTAB Members for their review and comments; 2) On June 13th all comments regarding the draft copy shall be due back from the EPTAB Members for possible incorporation into the final copy; and 3) On June 27th distribute a final copy of the Subcommittee report to all EPTAB Members. cc: EPTAB File Golden Gate Estates File APR-17-94 SUN _ P. 01 .. fir..,, ` ?4s l qq9 ;a pima Ail 1, ' Lower West Coast Planning Document /bL 14/ 1 �a L. lcs9rdiie �"V r L.a Surest North T jf/N S: j /4 PIO-. p4w77,6 keple .Via..33sa T ^ "J "Y-1.47 Modify Planning and Regulatory Strategies to Protect Water Resources= ii- and and the Environment 1 !'r t'�///� Outstanding t�Tatural Systems i Environmental protection and enhancement are key�elements of the District's "b9fa mission and one of the most significant issues of the LWC Water Supply :Plan. A special working, group of the Advisory Committee designated certain lands 'thin the LWC Planning Area as Outstanding Natural Systems((ONS). A map of't ONS lands in the LWC Planning Area is shown in Figure 21 ONS lands include both publicly and privately owned lands. Most of thJ lands within the ONS areas are relatively pristine and undeveloped, Environin4ntally sensitive land management practices have been in place for many of the privately owned ONS lands. The ONS lands as a whole appear to offer the greatest opportunity for preserving ecological integrity and biological diversity because they contain a wide variety of plant and animal species and communities, Environmental Scientists generally recon that these communities do not exist in isolated habitats, but rather they operate as components of the larger natural ecosystem. Efforts to protect the ecosystem as a whole also serve to protect the individual species inhabitg the ecosystem. Such efforts might be characterized as an ecosystems app�rrohc to environmentalrotection. Development of the ONS lands concept is one of tl*most significant results of this plan. Three strategies have been identified to implement the ONS lands conde The ONS map will serve as a planning tool in guiding compatible land uses and adjacent to ONS Lands. The ONS lands will also be used to target researCh Ion the relationship between ground water withdrawals and;wetland:1mmacts. Finally, the ONS map will be used to identify regional off-site m iitigation areas, These implementation strategies form the basis of the recommendations related to ONS. 5 (19) The District should encourage the incorporation of the ONS lands concept into state, regional, and local planning efforts recognizing the distinctions between ONSe and ONSm as described in this plan. (20) The OTSmap should be used to target the District's research preggAam on the imp :ta of consumptive uses on wetly, I I (21) The ONS map should be used to identify regional off-site mitigation ateas. Future GoverntintBoard Considerations; t - Comments on Local Government Comprehensive Plans in addition to other state plans. .. , . District budgetary processes, particularly for funding research In;stated k' APR lc' 1 2,4 areas. i r ; - j',.,;s (T ;,Rule development/adoption concerning mitigation banking: areas their � ! .,., ,,,_,..: U�,) usage.in water use contexts. .. /", "tfASrr ITPr APR- 17-94 SUN 18 :47 P. 01 L u� '' 670 , . " coo", ./ rig I f r/r' STATE OF FLORIDA 0 if/4 ,yei AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 2 7 4 0 CENIERVIEW DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE , FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9 . 2 1 0 0 LAWTON LHP.f LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY Secretary Governor March 24 , 1994 b E - - - •'- - - r c . ,v , ...9,,,,„.„ Ern , The Honorable Timothy J. Constantine ` ``" 413, Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tami.ami Trail East Naples, Florida 33962-4977 Re: Land. Development Regulation Challenge - Case No. LC-91-F-01 and Case No. LC-93-F-01 Dear Chairman Constantine: The purpose of this letter is to inform you about the current status of the above referenced land development regulation challenges. In response to letters previously submitted by The Collier County Audubon Society and Mr. Gary Lee Beardsley, the Department determined that the County had failed to adopt land development regulations in accordance with Collier County Comprehensive Plan Objectives 6. 1 and 11.6 and with Comprehensive Plan Policies 6. 1. 1, 6 . 1 . 2 , 6. 1. 3 , 11. 6.1. Policy 6.1. 1 is still outstanding from case no. LC-91-F-01, while the rest are from case no, LC-93- F-01. The. Department has completed its review of Collier County Ordinance 93-37, that was submitted by the County to fulfill the requirements for a land development regulation to implement the referenced objectives and policies from the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The review of the Ordinance was conducted in accordance with the procedures and criteria contained in Rule 9J- 24 . 005, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C. ) , and the standards set forth in. Rule 9J-24. 003, F.A.C. Our review has determined that with the ,eubmission of ordinance 93-37, the County's failure to adopt implementing land development regulations for Objective 11. 6 and olicy 11 .6.1 of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan is no longer an issue. EMERGENCY MAN,A.tI:MFNI • HOE S!NG AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •geSORIRCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT NPR- 1 7-94 SUN 1S :48 P . @2 Timothy J. Constatine, chairman March Z4, 1994 Page Two The Ordinance, however, does not address the portion of Policy 6. 1. 1 that requires development standards and criteria for xeric scrub habitats. Nor does it inventory, define and contain developments standards and criteria, based on the presence of dominant or indicative species, for xeric scrub habitats, marine, freshwater, transitional zone wetlands, hardwood hammocks, pine flatwoods and dry prairie habitats, as required by the remaining portion of the policy. On April 8, 1993 the County submitted to the Department a schedule for the adoption of a Habitat Protection Ordinance which the County believed would resolve the issues raised concerning the County 's failure to adopt the required regualtions. The Department has yet to received this ordinance. If the County has adopted the Habitat Protection Ordinance, or any other ordinances which would address the outstanding issues, the Department requests that any such ordinances be transmitted for immediate review by the Department to Robert Pennock, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This review is for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the required regulations have been adopted as required by the plan, and will not address the consistency of the regulations with the plan. Pursuant to Rule 9J-24. 004 (3) , Florida Administrative Code, the land development regulations submitted must include copies of any separate adoption or enabling legislation, and all copies of regulations and legislation must be certified as true and correct copies of th'e original by the County Clerk. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Tony Arrant at ;,904) 488-9210. Sincerely, Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning RP/rw cc: Stan Litsinger, Director Growth Management Department Mr. Gary Lee Beardsley Ms. Eileen Arsenault APR-17-94 SUN 16 :W3 P. @2 )igq I/ Lower West Coast Planning 1Mauruent 1 / ./ / 04.../. Il1104 f lin lii 1iilII�1i� t 9 . k�yiM0P41 ll "�'`� , . • a �•t+//• /// ' 1 t Iliw e • . 111 I 1111 10.4 liiiir, ‘,...41,11i. • • '7. /".11101110%. ..... .,X . _iv '''`,.— :, w/.'yk .�=,P L E E 1 00ii . , 1 Ai..,°. 1'4;1 1 j �t.. ffEign- r/. . .,,*., rip*-- ,1��� •r, I '° 6,L V �rlsA.� . ‘<!!.> !. �rt}: Ri r ! ( r/fir, J 11[0.+ .• 4 r,fri�� q 1411.4415 114111°1 III "M•44. 0 5 10 1 �.u. •�r • Spade Note e}. rf•H%i, ,i'`// •rr/''+%sa•r y/ The Outsta�Ong Natu►N 5yst ors SISy�n�was ' 1 . -00.j ►1/040$000.0.•0#000#1, / prepared at the direct. of_ . erVlteste toast Will %/�r;'1/�/ r!•; >;P Ffi:li:f/ /0 Water SupplyAlan Advlso CO tttee.T►+ map s +r, r 1• r! •�//r 1r/ was preparedto entlfy ur ms Which 111111 rerr/•rr/ r//�/!/ !/!! /!!should receive a higherle of Fart! rrtsintain 'i�%Frij +el;�/iii/ir<</+'�Ai/ :yrto r/ AA /// / ///nd protect the ecol i- ioR ottfirS�'' // l► .0000 Bill/00+11 A0l//from deleteeious imptcts n fr ry �rtetted 1,00;40/j jf/r j0r /r!l/v/fr/l/�+ water use,The Advisory Comm re sae k ed a r.,i � •/r!l,rlj r1r,Ai//llirr+'irrl4or//I% subcommittee topreparethe a !•rr ! 0000 o .$00,•#:l! /j 1/ I/ mm R 1. tt rIr rirrn .//�+ // composed o rept' ry h+es tram utl{ + �, I� j0!►il rr ¢0(/r+,,00:4,000.j'0 ;f0"O einQvir�onnmantal roupS 11_meagrC comma r 11 1 t lr!! //• lyfltr.Ejtr+tl°f0 ri,A/f A00r eig Cypress8a i the smNio FlDf�aa an '4!'911 rtllrrrr +pylr,r00,fo•lrrr//o/�0•/f/j F s Water ++tammrssion,11.5. eOI 1 //y. r//jlr/, 00,00// /rj rr/ lr! /r// /,r tiy/ Og , Oir lrr '4:..0,', 4!,,,,f,,,,,#41;,,#400,40.40••••$•004.4; Survey,Survey,and county governments. :4 ��IV ' .'•, !/0004: 1i�/rr 4000,1,144400,400r/0l /0////°!If/ r�a r� + /I,,.rd� rrlr, ,1.000 rj111#0,,004// r/ // / // r The I was wird by an of h aiNturie � 11:, •e 41 /! al / // // 00r// r1/ll// //r r/ aerie��to tows tSjwin rt 1 s. " ' � r�r► r,/fIlj+, II rj/r/j,///j l//trr / !,/j//j/AlArr/f. 1:40, aerial )arta It ba3ld Ont VrgetlktiRfi• le 4a!il1i r.0.'l .111114:10 �04 )/1r;/ 1 :4;44401010001;0001101004000404:0/0:0/ t�.: Z`JI 41. ,4010t. 440 / rri // r / r h red g( toter knowl a of the fryg►on,and 11•i( �r• •'. /�/ !% rr `'sir ii,,/0f/ r0 10 I I kited"i' nd h g to' r ,fi ;9 ! r.• .' l4..,r i e g 0y trot ing. a rpund t raphe Fr ,0004#r 'r04!00 0j ri/ !/ r,/ /f were ced together a widened r►r '.3 ! //r+lrr r!j rj/0000! 0400 0.010 !/ I/ del�neatedthroughthege consensuso�f{the ��;• r� ( rr,,,i;,-.001.00//Ir !A!r/At I' committee.Largeareas whit could be ruidend '• + . P . +' :r3•, ai/'./�"• 00�• r ►vr:.,,,10:' *Flo+i/lr/IlO y/%j0///Ol/,.Or' relatively pristine natural ewe t ted • . /: •j j / ! // withinLrle t}SbQtlrMary.�i0�ria30f r. ! I ++,0: Pfiir,$000 "0004°00 "00+R,."40Jttff lirlr//Ill/0000. /r Iuable activities were included. en mod by human /-!:!io00)404e rr{af!`001.000•,,00•••00.,,00 I The ONT�aS�areas identifiedwereirredtim►ns eh/ r.//000. 00,1..0000900.$+:1,r/....:. 0100%%/ /rr wetlands�d etotheirsensltivitytoPi roger • r///llr//l}l'j.,j/r:'*./i 1100 1.0/All/, chnogg�a c pp avere�and wile e comdorted .,-,000%001 j00/lr%;1101001001/0l•e AM be vet wetlands ants, °' ,14#0.4,00.,A,000044.04,:100/4?-;000:,y r! lr links between wetlands,in a w I noes ands rl/ ry/'°'10,00%r0`0':ir?0si�'+ were Included beta t were to smart 4.400‘,8•0,00,000•4000#40#0 ., 00. endangered Pecks• t e{ I uer en ttie •940. I, 0.00- map wises tca iy Or�� e�r LOWER WEST COAST ; !_ devebpmerntofthese areaf,nor t e halon killrj!r'r.`� Of any aero I areas Porn ttw snap n their STUDY AREA ',pi,.!,f./. existing level of protection. !�r1' The map Iderttifes tyros of ONS ds: • ONSe and ONSrn.The ONS& l ;anaodtareareasthat have been purchased for I Q 10 N D as1 esenation/conservatron purls kindsoare s natural ernsthrelt rte u mu 14°4 s r1 �i,r.,apnsiuRure. ,w mer supply. 0. I t.A,tl�lUlrt�iA�Mill ltiliY� u ace water management:1. the TAS. VA?1C11/PaRS> - ONSm lands are nati4e raanngqe Or ed pasture 11111 kAllDlt!MOM and their designation k not ed to Impact present uses and management practices. t7eemi(ATt*AL mums (Y Due to the scale of the726 inherent limitationsEifil of usi saris!p of ► Lttt 1> li1t11.7lXLE?FlJR!'OMagr}cufturailands err * Inaddition,c in nature t e a ec ;cepa tie lie outside ONS bo tempo ;on etyma:.415113401 C od d�Y•then IONS bo tv�y k.mer !wand b niefluntnatuural be emsfex vuae tersvpph�Ib^+rrY + y py: bar fdotr. /u/ panning purposes. jog ravlss+f by Mw data:sl.art Monnhtq 6apt. Oiv. 4OS r FIGURE 21. Outstanding Natural Systems in the LWC Planning Area. a 1l ( APR-13-94 WELI 8 :07 P. Di ENViRGb;„i .,JAL �' tier^ . G�/SEii E'' ik TROPIC�`At EN"�%1 ,. �I�tMENTAL DATE. , i 11 sal, 1:, ,:i ,L..,L. ..iy: .,,, r_______ al, 4'", if4,1,)4: .''.:. Al I t . °, =1111811-11111111111118111181111118111111111111111111E, tresifF FR '. 4'i' 7., NT. :;." - /, : ' :tie?: A :-=' �,k �., ----= tt Ulf 11 11 I 0 111111 1111111111101111 111L0::,% 11AC 2nrIa1:: -47.4170-1 _ ,V,?,4,0Aiii#5 0071 'T 1 tit: F.1 lirs. 111 :1,2 Number of p ; es rimed a, ' ' 417rvw 0 e, y:s .0.\• , ,,,,... . :..,,A, : rl ' 4 ; . • 0 ,, 130 i „or ., . i e L . !z ....7--)49/4/ ,„,. s,.. eq iy.,4 Ini PO , 40)15 a :9,:eri ftimovt ifilet.1 -Ae,'''.),-;i1._•,;,. ., 7. ."-44". i . 7', 4Iii -1. / ,i, .4* /( ,,7;131/15; s`i i n #., c , i26- .„4 , „9-075-41,Pie: , mi , ...1-1'1,--t?fire_ trist 4Pii tzettfride 7 i.0,;, 'I.-Ivo-0 d .. "11, . ,,,� ' ;, 4. ;,*-)040.. ,„ ' ' ., i-kt A' c,./7,411' ' , . 1 „ I')::1„,p1* :"Ve "`. . ,Atit y-„, • 4 40/ . 1. , , , , lf . ...... . „ 4-1 4 i;.,„ / 7 'Note-Please contact us by phone (813--263 :1.117-1) if this F transmission is not complete or property rPicei:oed. $ R.,algid P.per "C�� 1 9-r , nkd4 rte, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: April 11, 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4: 00 p.m. I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - March 28, 1994 IV. Old Business a. Status Report- Golden Gate Estates b. LDC shortcomings/Overview of Plan Review Procedure (Barbara Burgeson) c. Revisit NRPAs (priority list) V. New Business a. Listed Species Guidelines VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment COLLIER COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , I , 1) *1111111.11)1"\ \)//01( . 4.--.. lir -- 1 tr,---4,0,, i,!.. . • . • .• •� ' ( ,- •- . (1... . 1. ..: (s. .i.1) ) ,k,N stthq -1 0 i'"oal .( 4:-. 1 . • . , I (11k-s\ ‘..06%-r,4 'i) .\01 ) ...4- 11,1.1 i i At ,.. ' . ---. . -di jp:ry i :et-cc:4qt c ii a tr, / _..z.w K...t,, I , it..A. io ) c • 2. . 4,it , , , ...,---,.. .... ,_ . . - .- . ! c.„ I Mr! . f . •,,.. IS1!f grAff Vi ArAt'11-71 irlit--;:is;:_.Tir alpw,' ..w..• ii/3 FACSIMILE TO: M 1 't-C OAA i S LOCATION: FAX NUMBER: (043z.-11et i DATE: 1-1- 4,. CI It NUMBER OF PAGES: Z COMMENTS: R._C.L3VtS GAr S "ceLX ` ` (, l Lt. art, t„, -Pr qxt.t9 A.0 tto 0 FROM: N (eT TELEPHONE: (813) 744-8444 732--2-5c,r FAX: (813) 774-9222 Collier County Natural Resources Department, Building $rt 3301 East Tamimai Trail Naples, Florida 33962 APR- 6-94 WED 1ito0 :02 P. 01 vvr , 00-1 ( Ow 4 TROPIC.,. ENVIRONMENTAL lot. CONSULT ANTS 2396 l lcl _w , N.,;r.I1 n414/ 1 i r*PrO1 1 40011. 4fa r Phone & . ',,I;) 267.-0)77 EIUt111111111111111111111111111111111H1tIHI111HII11H1E 1.1 ' C OF FN /DUCIIMFNT: 0-197,0 1.....,....................................§ . . , , iiillTIME SENTR 2 Hrs. PM it Number of pages Faxed a i ComMentf... ..SEMEN: Ni4 41/d ' 0mm M i. 414041* fl r s 'i1Jweie4iThi 64'S w ,,,,,n, .44 .1,1iTo oioz147460, . . 44e144,"IAA4 a, o a d.)**40, . 414 'ti wi/ fl 4 $4*). Comil liohiee teehle_rojotedest w 0601. ** 11 44-il . IiAi)e,4fe j/ i' . 0 . HP," r' ewe :. hilt ""+ Aft e.n-yzo "` -' s ,off 'Note less ontact us bg phone (813-263-0877) if this 811 rensoys on is of comp) to or preper1g ret 'food, _04: tremAl DRAFT: M . .h 29, 1994 APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF March 28, 1994 PRESENT: David Maehr Gary Beardsley Nancy Payton Christopher Hagan Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Derek Hodgin ABSENT: Dave Addison David Land Mike Davis Steve Means STAFF: Bill Lorenz Martha Nebelsiek Kevin Dugan Kimberly Polen 1. Meeting commenced at 4 : 08 and roll was called. Dorothea Zysko chaired the meeting. 2 . Minutes from the March 14 , 1994 meeting were approved. 3 . Under Old Business: The North Golden Gate Estates subcommittee distributed a compiled bibliography. Chris Hagan gave a summary of the last meeting. 4 . Gary Beardsley restated the goal of the subcommittee to identify important resources in North Golden Gate Estates and identify what is being or not being done to protect them. 5. The next meeting was set for 0730 on Friday April 8 , 1994 in Conference Room C. Building H. 6. Gary discussed the USACOE position on the General permit allowing the clearing of 10, 000 sq. ft. 8 . Still under Old Business: The LDC short comings were discussed. Dorothea passed out the letter sent to Commissioner Constantine. Kimberly Polen pointed out the Objectives and Policies dealing with HPO and NRPAs as well as those dealing with management guidelines for listed species. 9 . A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the need for management guidelines. Consensus was that guidelines and development standards were needed, but no new regulations should be proposed that duplicate the existing regulations of other agencies. 10. Robert Duanc .wade the MOTION: EPTAB shoL__d not recommend that the county duplicate regulations of the other regulatory agencies. Gary second the motion and a discussion followed. Gary pointed out the mushy areas in existing guidelines and used the RCW as an example. The vote was called 4 members voted for, and 3 members, Nancy Payton, Gary Beardsley and Derek Hodgin opposed. The motion failed to carry because the EPTAB ordinance states 5 votes are necessary. 11. Bill Lorenz said staff will present listed species management guidelines at the next EPTAB meeting. 12 . A discussion ensued concerning the need for guidelines. Dave Maehr stated that the county should be responsible for providing the material as reference. Eric Heald was asked for his input, and suggested putting the appropriate plans together. 13 . Dorothea pointed out that the HPO is a non-issue, NRPAs are a non-issue and clustering is a non-issue. She pointed out that the LDC short comings have been discussed and except for certain language changes, there are no other issues. She made this a MOTION, Robert Duane Second the motion and stated he wanted to bring the issue to closure. The vote was called, it passed with Gary opposed. 14 . The Manatee Protection Plan was updated. 15. Bill Lorenz discussed the Clam Pass NRPA and gave a tentative schedule for work. 16. For the next meeting NRPAs are to be revisited. 17 . Meeting adjourned 6: 06. ACTION ITEM(S) : 1. Listed Species Management. 2 . Invite Barbara Burgeson to discuss development review 3 . Revisit NRPAs p°TT - 25 NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT . MEMORANDUM TO: EPTAB - North Golden Gate Estates Subcommittee Members FROM: 12 Kimberly J. Polen Environmental Specialist II DATE: March 29 , 1994 SUBJECT: EPTAB - NGGE Subcommittee Meeting The next NGGE Subcommittee Meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 8th, 1994 at 7 : 30 a.m. in Room "C" on the third floor of Bldg. H of the County Courthouse Complex. rof E,NV,RtivilE "Al SERVICES POUTlhi; /f°/9 j( r,A TE —w ACTION; I L TI I N .. Jai. ' - ARK T• BLE DEVE I PMENT R Wilt i►: ; ►i I,rvFo: PARTNERS FOR A BETTER FLORIDA . Ellen Hemmert ,ci February 1994 __________________ 994 -- INTRODUCTION • The Marketable Development Rights (MDR) proposal is embodied in the proposed 1994 Growth Management Equity Act. The Act would require the purchase and transfer of the appropriate number of MDRs for all increases in density of residential, commercial, and industrial property for private and public development. A MDR would be attached to the parcel after the local governments' decision to increase zoning and prior to construction. Ownership of MDRs does not ensure a decision for increased zoning by the local government. MDRs would be associated with parcels in the Urban, Interval, and Rural Areas of the State. Rural Areas are those currently zoned 1 unit per 5 acres or less dense, Interval Areas are those at 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 3 units per acre or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or less. Urban Areas are 3 units per acre or more dense or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. One MDR will be allotted for each unit of density. MDRs from the Rural Area could be transferred into all three areas. MDRs from the Interval Areas can be used only in the Urban Areas. A special consideration is the Rural2 MDR, which grants additional rights to rural landowners to bring their densities up to 1 unit per 5 acres. These special rights cannot be used for construction onsite, only transferred to Urban or Interval Areas. Sale of MDRs is a voluntary action of property owners. Landowners that sell their MDRs can later purchase and reattached MDRs to their property as long as a conservation easement, prohibiting reattachment, has not been recorded. MDRs can only be used in the county in which they were purchased. When a county has transferred 75% or more of its Rural MDRs, the Florida Administration Commission can qualify the county to purchase MDRs from state land acquisition agencies. Bonuses of twice the number of MDR will be granted to the seller of MDRs within an Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights that place a conservation easement on their property. These are areas designated for conservation, agriculture or acquisition. Bonuses of twice the number of MDRs will be granted to the user of MDRs in Rural Economic Development Centers. Each rural county may designate one Center from 100-640 acres for this purpose. It is anticipated that MDRs will be transferred by deed, be subject to ad valorem taxation, be recorded by the tax assessor of each county, and be part of the real estate market. • GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. What is the Marketable Development Rights Program? The MDR Program is a statewide program where existing development rights in the rural portion of each county are made transferable, at the property owner's option, to those parts of the county which are planned for new growth and development. 2. How would the MDR Program work? Any increase of density, above what is zoned at the effective date of the program, would require-the purchase of MDRs before construction. For instance, if a parcel was zoned for 5 units per acre and the owner wanted to build 10 units per acre he would need 5 MDRs for the additional units; if an owner wanted an additional 1000 square feet of commercial floor area they would need 1 MDR. The local process for zoning changes would be the same with the requirement for MDRs following approval for changes in zoning. 3. What is the purpose of the Marketable Development Rights Program? The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that: - the changes in value of real property which result from growth management are balanced among the owners of property which is suitable for growth and development and property which is less suitable for growth and development; - there is a balance or mitigation of "windfalls" and "wipeouts" which may result from growth management; -an effective means is created to conserve rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands through a market-based program; -there is enhancement of the effectiveness of public and private programs to conserve rural, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive lands through acquisition of fee or less than fee interests; and -there is mitigation for the negative effects of strict governmental restrictions as an alternative to judicial relief. 4. How will the number of MDRs be determined? Using existing densities, the State will be categorized for the MDR Program. The categories will be Urban, Interval, and Rural Areas within each county. Rural Areas are those currently zoned 1 unit per 5 acres or less dense, Interval Areas are those at 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 3 units per acre or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or less. Urban Areas are 3 units per acre or more dense or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. One MDR is associated with each unit of density. A special consideration is the Rural2 MDR, which grants additional rights to rural landowners to bring their densities up to 1 unit per 5 acres. These special rights cannot be used for construction onsite, only transferred to Urban or Interval Areas. Also bonuses are available for areas important for conservation and agriculture. Bonuses are also available for special development areas in rural counties. 2 5. Who will need MDRs? Any developer with an approved increase in zoned density or square footage will need MDRs. 6. How are MDRs transferred? MDRs are transferred when a landowner sells or gives an option to a developer, or other entity wishing to hold MDRs. This transaction is similar to a real estate sale and may be handled by the real estate industry. This can occur before or after a change in zoning. 7. Can a parcel be developed without purchasing MDRs? Yes, it can be developed at existing zoning. 8. Who can buy MDRs? Anyone can purchase MDRs. This includes brokers, developers, investors, farmers, etc. However, they can be used only in the counties in which they were purchased. There is a special provisions for a county in which 75% of the MDRs in the Rural Areas of that county have been used. 9. How are MDRs valued? The value of MDRs is determined by the private market, without government involvement; it is established between the buyer and seller. 10. Can MDRs be used anywhere? The MDR Program is required throughout the State. However, MDRs are to be transferred within each county. There is a special provision for counties in which 75% of the Rural MDRs have been attached to development parcels. 11. How many types of MDRs are there? There are 5 types of MDRs: Rural 1 - these can be used on any land in the county Rural 2 - these can be used in Interval or Urban Areas Interval - these can only be used in Urban Areas Bonus Rural 2 - these can be used in Interval or Urban Areas Bonus Rural County Economic Development Center - these can be used only in the Development Center 12. Is there a limitation on the possible subdivision configurations? No, the property owner must go through the existing process. 13. If a landowner sells land for public use, may the development rights be retained? Yes, the public agency would normally not wish to purchase the MDRs, but the landowner may either require that the development rights be purchased or retain them for future sale. 3 RURAL AREA QUESTIONS 14. What is rural land? Rural land is any land zoned 1 unit per 5 acres or less dense. 15. In Rural Areas, how are MDR's calculated? Rurall MDRs are those currently zoned on the property; they can be developed onsite or sold for use anywhere in the county. A special consideration is the Rural2 MDR which grants additional rights to rural landowners to bring their densities to 1 unit per 5 acres. These special rights cannot be constructed onsite and are transferrable only to Urban or Interval Areas. Bonuses are available to land designated an "Area Eligible for Bonus MDRs". (See following question) Example: A landowner who has 400 acres that is currently zoned 1 unit per 40 acres would have 10 Rural 1 MDRs that could be used to develop the property or could be sold anywhere in the county for development. (400 40 = 10 Rural 1 MDRs) In addition, he would have 70 Rural 2 MDRs that could be sold to Interval or Urban Areas to be more equitable for the fact that his land is in an area not as appropriate for development. (400 5 = 80 - 10 Rural 1 = 70 Rural 2 MDRs) 16. What if my land is within an "Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights"? Bonuses of twice the value will be granted to the seller of MDRs within an "Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights" that place a conservation easement on their property. These are areas designated for conservation, agriculture or acquisition. Bonus MDRs can be used only in the Interval and Urban Areas. Example: A land owner who has 400 acres that is currently zoned 1 unit per 40 acres would have 10 Rurall MDRs that could be used to develop the property or sell. In addition he would have 70 Rural2 MDRs to sell. If he was in an Area Eligible for Bonus MDRs and agreed to record a conservation easement over the property he would have 2 times or 160 MDRs which would increase the sales price. Only the 10 Rurall MDRs could be used or sold in the Rural Area. (10 Rural 1 + 70 Rural 2 = 80 x 2 = 160 MDRs). 17. Can MDRs be recaptured? Yes, MDRs can be reattached to property by purchasing the necessary MDRs in the market place. 18. Must a landowner sell all of his MDRs? No, the landowner can sell the MDRs associated with as much of his land as he wishes. 4 19. If an owner sells his property, may the MDRs be retained or vice versa? Yes, the MDRs and the land are independent pieces of real property that may be sold or retained separately. 20. Do I have to record a Conservation Easement to sell rural MDRs? No, it is entirely voluntary. The landowner could sell their Rural and Rural2 MDRs without recording a Conservation Easement. A Conservation Easement is only necessary to receive a bonus of twice as many MDRs. 21. Are lots for children exempt? For each house to be built on the property a MDR must be held in reserve. The MDRs used for children reduce the total number that can be sold from the property. 22. If land is in the Rural Area, what can a farmland owner who wishes to continue farming do with the land? Anything that can be done with the property prior to sale of the MDRs can now be done with the exception of development building. The landowner can continue to farm or expand agricultural operations. This could include new agriculturally related uses recognized under existing laws and regulations. If the use is agricultural then the construction of barns and other buildings necessary to that agricultural activity can be constructed. At any future time the landowner can sell the farm at its farm value. 23. If land is in the Rural Area, what can a farmland owner who wishes to develop do with the land? The landowner can develop, at existing densities, in accordance to existing laws and regulations. He can petition for increased density, which if approved, would require the purchase of MDRs from the Rural Area. 24. What is an Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights? An Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights is a Rural Area that has been designated as important for conservation or agricultural reasons. If the landowner agrees to sell his MDRs and place a conservation easement on the property, he will be entitled to twice as many MDRs. These additional MDRs can be attached to parcels in the Interval and Urban Areas only. 25. What is a Rural County Economic Development Center? Each Rural County (one that has less than 50,000 residents) may designate one Rural County Economic Development Center. This is an area of at least 100 acres and not more than 640 acres that is planned for a mix of uses in the local comprehensive plan. The purpose of this designation is to encourage the use of the county's rural MDRs in an area that is planned for growth. The Rural County Economic Development Center can be within city limits. MDRs attached to parcels within this designation will have twice the value. 5 URBAN AREA QUESTIONS 26. What is urban land? Urban land is land zoned at 3 units per acre or more dense or with a Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. 27. Does land in the Urban Area have MDRs to sell? No 28. How does the MDR Program work for commercial or industrial property? Builders seeking increases in use of commercial and industrial property will also be required to purchase MDRs. The following ratios apply: 1 MDR for 1000 square feet of commercial floor area 1 MDR for 1000 square feet of institutional floor area 1 MDR for 800 square feet of office floor area 1 MDR for 2000 square feet of industrial floor area 1 MDR for each 10 additional average week day vehicle trip ends for recreational, entertainment or attraction facilities 29. What can a developer or other entity do with unused MDRs? The owner of such rights can hold on to them for future use in another area of that county or sell them to another developer or broker. 30. As a potential purchaser of MDRs, how can a developer check their validity? MDRs can be verified at the County Court House in the Lands Records Office. Also the purchaser should undertake a title search. 31. Can MDRs from more than 1 landowner in the Rural or Interval Area be used in an Urban Area? Yes 32. Are adjoining property owners and citizens groups notified of a proposed transfer of MDRs? No, but adjoining property owners and citizens groups would be notified, through the normal process, for a change in densities. 33.Do public entities, such as school boards and local governments, need MDRs to develop public projects? Yes, just as public entities purchase land for projects, they need to purchase MDRs for increases in zoning or • square footage. 6 INTERVAL AREAS 34. What is interval land? Interval land is land zoned 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 3 units per acre or more dense or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. 35. Where can Interval MDRs be used? Interval MDRs can be used in the Urban Area 36. If MDRs are needed for increased zoning in the Interval Area where can these be purchased? MDRs for the Interval Area can be purchased from the Rural Area. • • 7 VAISINIESEzaMtittaMPF "---.• /0"-"\ -* ' • M** M.!.,: Ar7pWinvorM7417.R. Rf.1W)60;;:x.,,,:.:in e?..,..,.,..,, V.,;:.:].i-ii:-@a;.Wif:UWei:.:ii:::::.- -,k,izSV14:-:]-4:;:?..:.4:-.;&%U.,.5,,,, 0-, ..liimr:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„•,,,,,,,,........., 44,isi-•?-:;:,:::Ax•-- ----''''''' ';'4.-Vi:E/ P:'::--- --0-5-..a.:.::: Ww::';:f::•:*.:::::,::::MM::::•%ffMnMm e,:':'i:•':::::: ,]. ?: 40:iV,';:::i:i:',.:Mg-, 1::::::.::::•,-,x,AV,4:,::,-..,:•:•V<.: -,11/44,-,x; - ,:.:-.---',.::: :,------.:,- :: :::,,,, _ • : ,, x -:.-.-x.:-.:---• -'-.•.;a:'''.:-•.%ai:, ..,.• _ . .v.,SA :,,,x. :: ... ............. •.,..,.• III -!. 1 ;.,, _...:::::.] ],k .,.,..: law a , © r A .„........„,......,,,4sv,....,..,..„*.v :„ .:...„...... . .„...1::. ....,:„.„:„..tmt. ,,..:,„...... •;%,....... .:. :..:Xik;.:; ..,'-'''.''''' Vo'-'-':'...'"T'"''''''" - -;! ;.-igii.ZiaiM. cite .. .......,,,,,, . -0- ..& wo vii.,".".i:..c. :. , ... p -:: r. iii::- h : r U :-.... P .. ,.ft*.aro," •:.,:.x:.../..../.i?KXff,.4,rZs,*;:;:'-'.'M'<•Nrf:M':ii,'Ak::'k,. . %v....v., <,.<,:.x.r....:::-7•:',.., angoimmiv.mq11.0Rikw„ poima4 * -3-R5,-xvi:K:i,-,p,,,;: *;:.,:t, ,......., ,0„0/."........kr,m_,,..vmuniozeno ....„:•:K/7-,k.: Vnt: VOANIPAO;;::41 , -,f;;;;A".:S, ---- ,gigggoklger&Ogift 1Aig , . ;::::•ii:.111.11bitittiliallig#,..,A\algit . . .. • „,....i:i..:,:,:.:-.:,:mii..,uoi,iiauxiit.fEk,_- .....ii9,:iir,„ .. ... ....... ............... ........,.......,... .... .............. • ..... .. ...................,............... . ............. . ................ ..................... ... . . ... ... ...........„.........................................,...-........„.„. ...........„..... .. . ..,.......,........_..........................._.:_-_........._. ............._ ' 1 . --.:-.„...,.:' :-..•:.;:ii-:-::: :::,,,:;.:::.: :, .::- .-.-0::-:?:i.:.:,-,-.:i!:,x,:::-,::.-;:-,E7.::m.?: -..: :. -- :,.:-..-:.t.-.a-i:i:-::g-,?.:.:"..i.:.:::_:.:iii:.:]:]:a:,_:::,,:goi-:n-:.: :,:.--.:,i-:.•:.::::-: ::::_-..:..: ,. -„--. •:::::::.--:.,':'-::-::.,.i.::::0....-2.a,-,:-. ..:?:-...-:.-,--:,-,-,.. .,-.-- -.,.:-.4: ...... ......„.... ........................._ ..............„ t .. ....„... .. .....,...... ... ......... ..... .. ... .... . ) ID 9LA.112 IPICUCILII—H----!-:;:lisi--).P.':', ---') . „... JANUAUY----1114 .. . .,.... .:„.. .. .y. ,.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • ...,... .,. ..,,...- . ., _•- -. _•.• •. . • .,„ . _ -. . , ,-.. .-. ...... - . .. . TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from Co-chairs 1 - Executive Summary 3 Recommendations 7 LAND COMMITTEE Introduction 10 Marketable Development Rights (MDR) Summary 14 MDR Legislative Outline 18 WATER & ENERGY COMMITTEE Introduction 27 Proposed 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act 30 APPENDICE A. Partners Enabling Legislation B. List of Speakers C. A MDR Program For Florida - Charles Siemon & Wendy Larsen of Siemon,Larsen & Marsh D. Preliminary Statewide Future Land Use Map for MDR Proposal - Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council E. Water Markets: A Theoretical Review - Steven McDonald of Fishkind & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A Partners Enabling Legislation • • Partnere for a Better rorida • Advisory Council January 14, 1994 May markets rule! That recurring theme drove the Chiles/MacKay Administration and legislative leaders to create Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council. Now, Partners has a few proposals to let economic incentives help protect Florida's environment. Without proposing a single new subsidy, Partners proposes to ease water shortages and offers a new tool for growth management. We prove that when groups put aside differences and start thinking, good ideas emerge. That may be why the legislature assigned us the job of creative problem solving. Partners for a Better Florida was created by the 1992 Legislature. During our first year, Partners worked on streamlining environmental permits. Two basic ideas emerged from days of meetings and hours of negotiations. The first, a job siting bill, was passed into law. The other, a draft wetlands permit streamlining bill, was not recommended by Partners. It was adopted by the Legislature. Partners' second year has been devoted to the more creative pursuit of developing economic incentive models for environmental protection. The Legislature will now find itself with some very enterprising ideas on how to conserve and reuse water and how to keep the state growing while minimizing damage to natural Florida. The charge to get smart about new methods of protecting natural resources came from the Legislature, but history is also driving us toward new types of solutions. We have done much of what we can achieve with traditional methods; now we must turn to new approaches. Decades ago, attempts at controlling pollution were implemented through regulations. Often ignoring costs and sometimes creating more problems, pollution laws were the first wave of environmental controls. The outcomes were measurable. With water quality standards and treatment, rivers and lakes got cleaner. With air pollution controls, skies turned clear again. The second wave of environmental protection is reflected by government subsidies. No level of government can now afford the classic remedy of buying solutions to problems. The third wave of environmental protection calls upon market-based incentives to solve problems. Economic solutions are based on the idea that two persons driven by need and the desire to generate value will solve their problems through exchange. By creating markets with willing participants, win-win situations are created. It is helpful to think of an exchange with the public and the resource user on opposite sides. In a classic regulatory decision, the public's welfare is compromised by the resource user's need to impact the environment. The public usually yields to any person who claims an economic right to the resource. The public can only limit th.,"damage through permit conditions and regulatory oversight. The resource user pays transaction, capital and maintenance costs required by permits. This creates a loss for both sides. With subsidized environmental protection, the public may compensate the resource user for the benefit of not having the resource damaged or pay to restore damage which has already occurred. 1 107 West Gaines Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 • (904) 487-256S • Fax (904) 4S7-3014 In market-driven environmental protection, the goal is to have both the public and the resource user win. Public resources are given value prior to use. By attaching value to resources and then conducting transactions, the public wins. The resource user also wins because restrictions are absorbed in the base-line costs. Partners' solutions do not rely on tax breaks and loopholes to create business, nor on simple incentives. We avoid the easy route of education and voluntary action. We rely on a couple of market-based models — restrict and allocate; eliminating governmental barriers to market activity and consideration of a fee and rebate system. The first model recognizes capacity limits to pollution and supply limits to consumption. The right to pollute or to consume can be auctioned off or sold on a commodities market. The second model is based on removing regulatory barriers, using up-to-date technology, and sharing expertise. These models fit two of Florida's most serious environmental problems — land conservation and water protection. For land protection Partners is recommending Marketable Development Rights (MDR). By creating a market for development rights, traditional supply and demand pressures, rather than government action will determine the creation of value. An exciting benefit of the MDR proposal is a secondary real estate market for development rights. Partners' second proposal focuses on making the reuse of adequately treated wastewater more accessible. Additional use of a lower quality water for agriculture, residential irrigation, and other uses conserves water of drinking quality. Our work also included examining the potential for capitalizing the costs of piping reclaimed wastewater for irrigating farm fields and golf courses by a transaction fee on water. This type of program would bring new jobs. The Legislature asked for some new ideas for environmental protection without more regulations and new spending. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council is proving that Floridians can set aside difference, and learn to say, "Let's Partner!" Sincerely, Tom _Oc raf 41411 Tom Daly Eric Draper Business Chairperson Environmental Chairperson 2 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Partners for a Better Florida was established by Governor Lawton Chiles, Lieutenant Governor Buddy McKay, and the Florida Legislature to bring to the table Florida's business and environmental leaders, as well as state, regional, and local government representatives, to focus cooperatively on improving the quality of life in Florida, both economically and environmentally. Partners' legislative charge for year two was quite broad, covering a wide array of topics. Early in the year, the group began to focus on one of their directives, which was to examine market-based incentives and disincentives to create positive environmental quality improvements that are not being fully achieved by current laws and regulations. Several of their other topics were being studied by other groups: the Power Plant Licensing Task Force was reviewing the most used siting act; permitting, which Partners had worked on in year one, was in rulemaking by several Action Teams being overseen by the newly formed Department of Environmental Protection; the Pollution Prevention Council was completing their recommendations on prevention strategies during Partners' second year. Three working committees emerged soon after Partners began meeting. The Unresolved Issues Committee was chaired by Tom Daly and created, primarily, to look into two issues that were not concluded in year one. These were the role of local governments in environmental permitting and protection of upland habitat. The committee was not able to come to any traditional conclusion on these issues and evolved into the Land Committee, chaired by Jake Stowers. The Land Committee folded portions of the unresolved issues into its discussions and presents the bold Marketable Development Rights (MDR) proposal. This is a recommendation to the Governor and Legislature to establish a state-wide marketable development rights program as a "market-based" program to more evenly distribute the property value burdens and benefits of growth management among property owners in the state. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that: - the changes in value of real property which result from growth management are balanced among the owners of property which is suitable for growth and development and property which is less suitable for growth and development; - there is a balance or mitigation of "windfalls" and "wipeouts" which may result from growth management; - an effective means is created to conserve rural, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive lands through a market-based program; - there is enhancement of the effectiveness of public and private programs to conserve rural, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive lands through acquisition of fee or less than fee interests; and - there is mitigation for the negative effects of strict governmental restrictions as an alternative to judicial relief. 3 The MDR proposal is embodied in the proposed 1994 Growth Management Equity Act. The Act would require the purchase and transfer of the appropriate number of MDRs for all increases in density of residential, commercial, and industrial property for private and public development. A MDR would be attached to the parcel after the local governments' decision to increase zoning and prior to construction. Ownership of MDRs does not ensure a decision for increased zoning by the local government. MDRs would be associated with parcels in the Urban, Interval, and Rural Areas of the state. Rural Areas are those currently zoned 1 unit per 5 acres or less dense, Interval Areas are those at 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 3 units per acre or Floor Area Ratio of.25 or less. Urban Areas are 3 units per acre or more dense or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. MDRs from the Rural Area could be transferred into all three areas. MDRs from the,Interval Areas can be used only in the Urban Areas. A special consideration is the Rural 2 MDR, which grants additional rights to rural landowners to bring their densities up to 1 unit per 5 acres. These special rights cannot be used for construction on-site, only transferred to Urban or Interval Areas. Sale of MDRs is a voluntary action of property owners. Landowners that sell their MDRs, can later purchase and reattached MDRs to their property, as long a conservation easement, prohibiting reattachment, has not been recorded. MDRs can only be used_in the county in which they were purchased. When a county has transferred 75% or more of its Rural MDRs, the Florida Administration Commission can qualify the county to purchase MDRs from state land acquisition agencies. Bonuses of twice the number of MDR's will be granted to the seller of MDRs within an Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights that place a conservation easement on their property. These are areas designated for conservation, agriculture or acquisition. Bonuses of twice the number of MDR's will be granted to the user of MDRs in Rural Economic Development Centers. Each rural county may designate one Center from 100-640 acres for this purpose. It is anticipated that MDRs will be transferred by deed, be subject to ad valorem taxation,be recorded by the tax assessor of each county, and be part of the real estate market. The portion of this report devoted to the work of the Land Committee provides more detail on this proposal as well as a legislative outline. A report titled A MDR Program for Florida by Charles Siemon is included in the appendices. It provides background on this issue, a legal discussion of the history of development rights, and a review of other programs. The Land Committee is also recommending that a voluntary program be created that would provide relief from federal estate taxes for families with large agricultural holdings. This would apply in areas of environmental significance where the landowner would agree to a conservation easement over the property. The Land Committee also recommends reforming the state's acquisition programs to make them more flexible and less bureaucratic. They also examined the following issues with a market-based approach: 4 • - reforming the agricultural exemption program to specific areas where the percent of tax relief is related to the duration of a conservation easement. - creating Best Management Practices (BMP) programs with regulatory and/or tax relief to encourage more environmentally sensitive agricultural activities. - providing adequate funding and career planning for environmental regulation staff. The Water and Energy Committee was chaired by Phil Searcy and focused on the market approach to water supply. The committee examined how a natural resource, like water, would react in a market setting. —They also discussed alternative sources of water and focused on incentives and disincentives for the use of alternative sources of treated wastewater and water saved through conservation. This committee's primary recommendation to the Governor and Legislature is the proposed 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act. This proposal presents reform to several areas of existing legislation that are disincentives to the efficient use of reclaimed wastewater or water conservation. The proposal includes: - a requirement of new lawn irrigation systems to limit watering when sufficient rainfall has occurred. - changes that update policies related to what reclaimed wastewater can be used for; criteria for reuse feasibility studies, and promoting consistency between water management district and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permits. - provision for individual meters for new residences and commercial establishments to encourage water conservation through individual knowledge of consumption. - the opportunity for agencies to request assistance from the Public Service Commission for technical review of reuse feasibility studies. - requirements for local governments to adopt xeriscape landscaping ordinances. - provision for water management districts to provide grants and loans for projects related to water resource issues. - changes that conform Florida's standards for plumbing fixtures to the national level. - flexibility in the requirements for wet weather discharge from wastewater treatment plants to facilitate the use of reclaimed water. - provisions for aquifer recharge with reclaimed water. The committee also recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection require the water management districts to examine the need, availability, cost and source of funds for increasing the use of reclaimed water throughout the state. 5 The Water and Energy Committee also examined the following topics: - using "water markets" for resource allocation or agency funding. - several options for funding reuse and conservation projects as well as the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program. The options included self-funding, increased funding through the water management districts' ad valorem tax structure, and a water use fee and rebate program. - reviewing the funding structure of Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). - reform of the state's siting acts. - recommendations for pollution prevention. • The Partners full advisory council met six times in year two throughout the state. They heard from over two dozen speakers on a wide variety of topics. The committees each met nine times and reported back to the full council seeking guidance and direction. The committees heard from approximately 40 experts on topics specific to their interests. The work of Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council was distinguished by their willingness to hear each other,take advantage of each others strengths, and explore new approaches such as market-based incentives. This forum of business and environmental citizens, as well as policy makers, provided a fertile atmosphere to grow new solutions to old problems. The members also benefited from new faces with fresh perspectives. Hopefully, the bridges constructed between individuals and groups will continue the partnerships made during the Council's two-year tenure. While many members gave generously of their time, experience, and expertise, four members exemplified the citizen participation that has enriched Florida. Co-chairpersons Eric Draper and Tom Daly provided guidance and leadership. Committee chairpersons Phil Searcy and Jake Stowers brought valuable professional experience and practical knowledge to their groups. Partners would not have been possible without the vision of the Chiles/McKay Administration to explore new ideas or the gracious support of the Florida Department of Commerce. Ellen Hemmen 6 PARTNERS FOR A BE'I"t'RR FLORIDA • Staff: Ellen Hemmert — Executive Director Vola Horton — Secretary ! :Business A intments ro tal Appoin ! ppo I nmen men Tom Daly Ben Franklin, Inc. Eric Draper The Nature Conservancy Jack Wilson The Wilson Companies Sally Thompson Environmental Advocate Phil Searcy Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan John Hankinson Environmental Advocate George Berlin Turnberry Associates Peter Belmont Sierra Club Wade Hopping Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Maureen Harwitz Environmental Advocate Gray Gordon Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. Charles Lee Audubon Society William Board Monsanto Chemical Co. (retired) Jim Murley 1000 Friends of Florida Mary L. Rajchel Florida Phosphate Council Mary Kumpe Environmental Advocate Ted Schrader Lake Jovita Farm & Grove Marcia Ramsdell Conservation Foundation Carol Rist Environmental Advocate Local Government Appointments Legtsla a Appoin ttc tments ; Norman Bowman City of Gainesville Everett Kelly Representative Jacob Stowers Pinellas County George Kirkpatrick Senator Scientifie Experts Appointments Scott Benyon Rinker Materials, Inc. Ronnie Best Wetlands & Water Resource Research ry x ''''''/'''•''":,:':•:' ` Nonvoting Members .v:::':is r::• -'/. - .,... .. ... .:":!.'. : .. .... o✓:i�r.r.5:.u.y.'.,li":'.....:iir.,./. ..a. ::'.,-.:�.,.�xay...,,�4,.,'r::M a.. ...-„.......' .o.u... .....�-..... ...:�. ...:... : Greg Farmer/Charles Dept. of Commerce Linda L. Shelley Department of Dusseau Community Affairs Virginia Wetherell Dept. of Environmental Eric Smith City of Jacksonville Regulation Lisa Barr Brevard County _ • w.+/.:h:yy.•x•::+rMr.'+yy:! /!' !!!!Y::!;1. 'i!y,!!nr,:r,;;;s'^` i;.:1.f'C,\`?."'%!^.ht as:::!!i!'%/!:f//!!/!:•�\4Y:„.grlS!:�~...5 y lffr,.;�: ',•�..!,.:..y,y:, �..avrrw,.!..v>;. ,�m:•mY"„,......„ •::/1'. .:.z..T,,//$i... ::..7k: .o... - .:!/-'1,::.\- :: ./:. ,./::.:: . Jr!^.'y%:<': ::.:.:.. .,'/-........:..,.:.¢^:.t`,•.........r.......\. i.l::.:<:...::,J:..:->:•rr':�.+...... . ....:.::!:..r:•r..:�::-;:�ir:-:»:- ::-rw/....\-:?r?:,t''::::.;-::�::'r:•';.: 4/. ..-!•::-•' !-:x'J. ..r r:.:a::�:,,:.r:::::.:.:...,...............::..-�.`:'/°��:. :.��.:...:::::::,.. .:r4-::..!... �:.,•-•-•:::.\-,....,.:,,,..::::r,,,�.f: •y�.•.. •,\4, / :�-r.:•r::r+ :.:f . f%�'. .,1.,�.:..::::: ...... ,... : :•+ . r! bra\. r/!..: : /'/'! xrw':::,.:.y. ,,/ir•• :a;!.;:,:- ,,.T.<:::: ..,.x•:.�..:{.{./, �:/..T....r ' •::::.`•:;+\� ` ..; :l/'l':•\,r. <{. 1f 1:' c:!G•-rri.1 ,-i..•.,-::.itf/if•;rtit>s.•::,!.cii:::f::S;::•:,,.::..!....:.:4\- ..:rli•%•.. ..w�.!.r, .,..f.:. :4� .. . .:: /. %1..r..,v.:�/%. :��/ ?�i .rt!�. !. :.!Tx.T?,!.SC;f✓.:,/rrr/r'/ /+':r?:rlwf, :::�r!.{..,., r .hr :✓�Nf, r.!/-.!�.•,r.; f.J!� /...: ..r. w /!o,::.<;::�:`•:Zriii!\;u''!:;Z:>.!r.•.':`::'`:)+:.r!.<;::• ,: �`'� .r.!•:.�:.n.+.,;. ,f .,.�'n•:::.:.,,.\�\;; ry�,,,,��t'•;:;+:•:rfi'•J '4„ r.,-. / '.r ax^Y,n.Y>!�rr.,:i:!:,!:. ../.. >J/:.�.4.•:.:r,.,,r�•`.,o..�•:...,4\�!{. :`y;,o..�!.c...::.!.'//,•,./��lGr•.`!G' �!arrfSC+� "�/'�•::.;fiC� %J!<l.fr 1,�%f{<. �.`/! ..',a`5� /•+ry{t. .;:: +•:a•.yr I��.,Hr...r,S��Fr:r?:a ,/ '.,••. !•;.\, � �%J:�{.!,:. .,:2; .i/��.,... / ..� •\\wi;� i•, ry :!�`/./�r;,\�-��.'.�6.,�',+Y• �:�>\ :!' 4 �a // r•+y/ fir.?” '.'Cy. /,• :4T'; �.t. �( .4' >:;,,:' 4�- l:' iIct,':;�4 ?o. i.v` r:. •S. /r. f if j7/1,0474, j /:' � /.- / :r',- iFJ'.i'�' g`!•:. •`:.'44'RY.; s !:: •. .,:4,•• \: ,.,''•.....�'' , ,q, ' �' T, ! ;>'d',,v' !iw jl..^t'A,. Y�r`••.:',• ' l ti�4 yy..�y+'� r', ! ::::12 :.:..�+< \4:v..'.2•• d / J/}.d h.J :•:X' w:J.:.;r::-.�:f:ry! w:.24,:.'.'! ••..:•:?•:...�. ;!:.<:,� 4LS ,,,I..141(4,:::,-" ;•' 1 � • r '•%4 ///hr../.:ri•:!,.!•i.•:•l�i/( i�:�i?i:a:>:vn-i•r:<i,h4•:'f+i:i�i'.<{•.\�4 +rf.4' � � G:!ifik• ,/h,/.�:3::rh.�. •{/ +A Dennis Harmon Dept. of Commerce Laurey Stryker Dept. of Education Frank Carlile Dept. of Transportation Ben Starrett Dept. of Community Affairs Mollie Palmer Dept. of Environmental Bill Scaringe Dept. of General Protection Services Pat Propst Dept. of Labor Brad Hartman Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission ..:>:.:::..;.>.;.:.: ..::::::::.... . Wayne Alfieri Southwest Florida Water Jennifer Burdick St. Johns River Management District Water Management District Robert Christianson St. Johns Water Management Susan Couganhauer South Florida Water District Management District Jeremy Craft Department of Environmental Naomi Whitney St. Johns River Protection Duerr Water Management - District Chris Ferraro Department of Environmental Jim Mueller Florida Natural Protection Areas Inventory Richard Owen Southwest Florida Water Terry Pride Department of Management District Environmental Protection John Williams Public Service Commission David York Department of Environmental Protection APPENDIX B List of Speakers LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR PARTNERS FOR A BETTER FLORIDA Full Partners May 11 & 12 Eric Draper, TNC - Legislative Update Dennis Harmon, DOC - Job Siting Act John Mitchell, HNRC - Streamlining Section of Merger Bill Janeth Campbell, DEP - Pollution Prevention Council Barry Korb, EPA - Market Based Incentive: The Federal Role & Programs in Other States Marsha Elders, Intergovernmental Services - Project for an Energy Efficient Florida Bill Herrington, OUC - Pollution Allotments John Wiley, Monsanto - The Monsanto Experience Paul Bradshaw, Foley & Lardner - Environmental Permit Information System July 6 & 7 &ad Hartman, FG&FWFC - Satellite Mapping & Species Information Jim Mueller, FNAI - Available Data, Mapping Capabilities, and the Charrette Process Fred Bell, FSU Economics Dept. -The Economics of Market Based Incentives (Cancelled) Richard Owen, SWFWMD - The Water Supply Issue in Florida Ellen Hemmers, Partners - Overview of Partners' Legislative Charge September 30 & October 1 Janeth Campbell, DEP -Final Recommendations of Pollution Prevention Council Richard Donelan, DEP - Comprehensive Review of the Florida Power Plant Licensing Process November 16 & 17 Charles Siemon, Siemon, Larson& Marsh - Transfer of Development Rights Proposal David Burr & Wayne Daltry, SWFRPC - State-wide Future Land Use Mapping Project & Calculations of Approved Densities David Batt, Environmental Education Foundation of Florida - Presentation on Sustainable Florida Steve MacDonald, Fishkind & Associates - Water Markets: A Theoretical Review David Tippen, City of Tampa - City of Tampa Programs on Water Reuse, Conservation, Conservation Rate Structure, and Future Projects Robert Connors, City of Winter Haven - City of Winter Haven Programs on Water Reuse and Conservation December 16 & 17 Charles Siemon, Siemon, Larson & Marsh - Update on Proposal for Marketable Development Rights David Burr, SWFRPC - Update on State-wide Future Land Use Mapping Project Terry Pride, DEP - Agency Staff Funding Sara Fotopulos, FLERA - Update on Local Government Permit Streamlining & Legislation 1 nuary 6. 1994 Workshop / no speakers WATER & ENERGY COMMITTEE July 29 Buddy Blaine - Water Policy in Florida & Problems with Administrative Hearing Process Gary Lynne, UF School of Food & Resource Economics - The Potential for Regulated Water Markets in Florida (video) • John Shearer, Post, Buckley, Shuh, & Jernigan - Metro/Dade Reuse Project Doug Holmberg, Agriculturist- Water Use in the Horticulture Industry Charley Williams, IFAS - Water & Solar Efficiency in Cattle Operation Steve MacDonald, Fishkind & Associates - Description of Economic Markets and Relation to Water August 16 Steve Turner, FAU Small Business Development Center - Solar Use in Water Transfer John Clark, Advanced Water Technologies - Water & Energy Conservation in Irrigation and in Cooling Towers Naomi Whitney, SJRWMD - WMD Experience with Administrative Hearing Process and Thoughts on Incentives for Water Conservation August 26 Mike Metzler, Black & Veach - Rate Structure and Bonding Potential for Reuse & Conservation, the Metro/Dade Experience George Rodrigues, Dade County - Implementation of Reuse Programs John Williams, PSC -Role of Public Service Commission Naomi Whitney, SJRWMD; Susan Couganhouer, SFWMD; Wayne Alfieri, SWFWMD - Water Policy, Current Reuse Programs, Suggested Changes September 3 Workshop / no speakers September 10 Workshop / no speakers September 15 Workshop / no speakers October 19 2 David York, DEP - Statue of Reuse in Florida Naomi Whitney. SJRWMD; Susan Couganhouer, SFWMD; Wayne Alfieri, SWFWMD - Water Policy, Current Reuse Programs, Suggested Changes Steve MacDonald, Fishkind & Associates - Potential Water Markets for Florida and Other Market Based Incentives Related to Water December 6 Workshop / no speakers UNRESOLVED ISSUES COMMITTEE & LAND COMMITTEE • May M Ellen Hemmert, Partners - Review of Legislation Ellen Hemrnert, Partners - Update on Local Government Rulemaking Action Team Teri Pride, DEP - Siting Act Issue Em Mueller, FNAI - State of Habitat Information .. June 9 & 10 - Jim Mueller, FNAI - Available Data, Mapping Capabilities, and Brief Description of Charrette Map Updates Brad Hartman, FG&FWFC - Upland Habitats, and Species Information Laurie MacDonald, Biodiversty Task Force Member - Florida's Biodiversity Task Force Jeremy Craft, DEP - Ecosystem Policy at DEP Teri Pride, DEP - Personnel Policy & Salary Levels at DEP August 11 Diana Dartland, DEP - DEP's Role in Land Acquisition/Management Bob Pierce, Ausley, McMullen etal - Estate Taxes in Florida Greg Evans, American Farmland Trust - Protecting Agriculture in Florida Don Curtis, DOF - Forestry Incentive Programs Jeff Vowel, DOF - New Forestry BMP's and Permitting August 26 Linda Shelly, DCA - Planning, Permitting, & DCA (postponed) Steven McDonald, Fishkind & Associates - Market Based Incentives Brad Hartman, FG&FWFC - Game & Fish Commissions Process for Species Listing 3 APPENDIX C Charles Siemon & Wendy Larsen of Siemon, Larsen & Marsh Statewide Marketable Development Rights: A Report on a Bold Initiative for the State of Florida I. Statement of Needs In 1985, the Legislature of the State of Florida, responded to the challenge of "managing megagrowth" by adopting the "Growth Management Act of 1985." In so doing, the Legislature launched the State of Florida and its constituent local governments on a remarkable planning adventure called "concurrency" —a mandatory comprehensive planning program coupled with a statewide adequate public facilities requirement. One of the prime targets of the Growth Management Act was the sprawl pattern of development that characterized Florida's growth in the 60s, 70s and 80s— scattered, unplanned, low density development that degraded Florida's towns and cities. In adopting the Growth Management Act,the Legislature determined that Florida could no longer afford "business as usual' and that planning and concurrency would control Florida's destiny. Implementation of the planning/concurrency mandate has turned out to be something of a challenge. Some in Florida believe that the Act has gone too far and that the concurrency mandate is steering the State into an economic depression. Others are disappointed with the quality of the comprehensive plans and land development regulations that have been produced under the mandates of the Act and believe that its promise has not been met. Still others think that concurrency, at least as it is being implemented by some local governments, is working at cross purposes and is actually encouraging sprawl. The logic of the planning/concurrency imperative of the Growth Management Act is unassailable. A planned equilibrium between facilities demand and facilities capacity is essential to the preservation of a fragile environment and the establishment and maintenance of a desirable quality of life. Unfortunately, planning and concurrency under the Act, at least as they are being practiced in some local jurisdictions, have become largely negative and a substantial ordeal. Moreover, the results of planning throughout the state have created certain "windfalls" for some areas (i.e. creating substantial value by approving urban or other forms of desired development) and "wipeouts" for other areas (i.e. eliminating the opportunity for development due to the public's desired character of land). A fundamental concept which underlies the Growth Management Act is the pattern of growth and development in the State. "Preservation of our valuable and fragile natural and environmental resources depends on promoting concentrated urban development patterns and reducing low density sprawl. " Tut Fans.a.U,Uo Go.7 Priam. The Growth Management Act promotes a more compact and efficient urban form as a means of creating more liveable cities and to relieve development pressure on rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. The constitutional imperative that each property owner is entitled to a minimum economically viable use, however, conflicts with the desired pattern of growth and development rights are widely distributed by local government plans to lands which when developed are inconsistent with the land conservation and infrastructure efficiencies which are sought to be implemented under the Act. Unfortunately, the scope and distribution of these lands make it impractical to contemplate acquisition of development rights as a means of ensuring the emergence of a compact urban form in the State of FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 1 Florida. Moveover, implementation of the Growth Management Act has engendered a great deal of consternation, debate and litigation. The level of frustration is illustrated by Legislative initiatives at protecting "property rights" from the planning process. Positive strategies need to be developed which enable landowners and others to work within the existing growth management system to 1. promote the development of a compact urban form in the State of Florida; and 2. mitigate the negative effects of strict government restrictions. Marketable development rights ("MDRs") is a concept where the use rights permitted under local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations are made "transferable" from one parcel of land to another. In most situations, the purpose for making development rights transferable is to preserve some identified public interest or value which would be adversely affected by on-site development. MDRs 2}so can mitigate the sometimes disproportionate distribution of the benefits and burdens of public planning and regulation. In addition, MDRs can be effective in "guiding" development away from lands which are appropriate for conservation to areas where growth and development can be efficiently served. Without a MDR option, the owner of rural lands has no alternative but to,develop on-site, no matter how low the assigned densities are in order to realize a return on his or her development expectations. MDRs give the property owner an alternative to on-site development with the result that the owner receives an economic return from the sale of TDRs and the rural lands have been conserved. Transferable development rights programs provide an alternative to government acquisition of development rights, wherein private developers rather than the local government purchase the development rights from the owners of specified lands. The basic theory is relatively simple: instead of granting higher densities in areas designated for growth as free goods, the sponsor of the public planning and regulations allows higher intensity only where the developer has acquired development rights from the owners of land designated for preservation. In this way, the growth area landowner does not receive a "windfall" from the designation of his property for more intense use and the preservation area landowner is not "wiped out" by the limitations placed on the use of his property.---Put simply, MDRs are one way that advantages and disadvantages of a public policy decision in regard to planning and zoning can be balanced among affected landowners. The State of Florida's bold adventure in Growth Management should be accompanied by positively directed bold efforts to assist in ensuring that the goals of the Act are achieved. The State need not be a major player in this effort: it need onlyprovide the framework for allowing the effort to happen. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 2 H. A Statewide Windfalls and Wipeouts MDR Program for Florida A marketable development rights program is proposed to be as a state-wide, "market-based" growth guidance and windfalls-wipeout mitigation program in order to promote a compact development pattern and to more evenly distribute the burdens and benefits of growth management among property owners in the State. The rationale for the proposal for a state-wide MDR program is based on a number of principles: 1. growth management limits the total growth of the state to an amount which can be supported by the natural and built environment — the "carrying capacity" of the State; 2. development rights are allocated to rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands under local government comprehensive plans which absent constitutional use right protections would be appropriate for conservation or preservation; 3. the burdens and benefits of growth management, particularly in terms of land value, are distributed unevenly to landowners; 4. growth management designations of particular lands as more or less suitable for development affects the value of land — those lands designated for growth increase in value and those lands designated for limited growth or conservation may reduce the value of land; 5. the uneven distribution of benefits and burdens resulting from growth management create 'windfalls" and "wipeouts;" and 6. although the purchase of fee or less than fee interests in lands, the value of which is negatively affected by growth management, may mitigate such negative effects, it is unlikely that sufficient funds will be available to acquire fee or less than fee interests in all such lands. Advantages of a MDR Program There are manifest advantages from a state-wide MDR windfalls—wipeouts mitigation program: 1. promotes the conservation of rural lands and a more efficient, compact form of development; 2. increases the amount of rural land which can be protected from on-site development and conserved without public acquisition; 3. allows available public lands acquisition funds to be focused for acquisition of lands which are environmentally sensitive or otherwise particularly appropriate for public land ownership; 4. depends on market forces to balance the burdens and benefits of growth management; FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 3 5. does not require a significant bureaucracy to implement the program; 6. keeps planned density available for development; and 7. provides property owners with a choice between permitted on-site development and transfer of development rights. Conservation of Rural Lands Transferable development rights provides a means by which development rights which are allocated to rural lands can be "guided" to areas which are more suitable for on-site development and more efficiently served with public facilities and services. The constitutional entitlement to a minimum economically beneficial use requires that development rights be allocated to land which would otherwise be appropriate for conservation and preservation. MDRs would allow the owners of such lands to secure an economically beneficial use of their property without the adverse public impacts generated by on-site development. For example, the owners of agricultural lands would be able to realize the economic value of allocated development rights by selling MDRs without negatively impacting on the use of their land for agricultural purposes. MDRs also offer an alternative for owners of land which would involve extensive impact mitigation in order to be developed. By transferring the development rights allocated to such lands, the property owner is able to realize the economic value of his or her property without incurring such mitigation costs. Increase in the amount of Conserved Rural Land The acquisition of development rights from rural lands is another way of promoting a more efficient pattern of growth and development and mitigatingthe burdens of growth management. There are, however, insufficient funds available for land or development rights acquisition to conserve all of the rural landscape that could be or should be protected. The use of MDRs allows for the protection of rural lands which are not acquired. More Effective Use of Available Acquisition Funds The use of MDRs for rural lands conservation would be a complement to public land or development rights acquisition programs and would allow available funds to concentrated on critical resource lands. Market Based Program MDRs is a market based concept which responds to the reality of the market place. For example, in counties where there is relatively little development pressure (relatively little impact of growth management on property values) and therefore little likelihood that rural lands will be developed. In contrast, in counties where there is substantial market pressure for development, the market will use MDRs to promote rural land conservation and to balance the benefits and burdens of growth management. Limited Governmental Involvement The implementation of a MDR program requires relatively little governmental involvement and no need to create additional bureaucracies. MDRs can be tracked through existing property ownership records just like any other interests in real property. In addition, the use of MDRs would be implemented through existing planning and land development regulation programs so that no additional administrative FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 4 burdens would be imposed on local governments. Keeps Density Available for Development One of the problems with public acquisition programs is that it reduces the supply of land available for development. Land supply constraints can result in increased housing costs because of scarcity of available land. One of the advantages of a MDR program is that the dwelling units allocated to lands which are to be conserved are not eliminated from the market supply and as result help to reduce the impact of growth management on housing costs. AIDRs are Optional A MDR program gives a property owner a choice between on-site development and transfer of allocated development rights. If a property owner does not want to develop or transfer his or her development rights, then the program does not affect them. If a property owner wants to build on-site, a MDR program will net affect the property owners ability to develop on-site. If, on the other hand, a property owner wishes to transfer his or her development rights as an alternative to on-site development, the property owner has that clloic.. • III. • Strate ,ic Plan The establishment of a statewide MDR program to mitigate the windfalls and wipeouts of growth management requires a bold initiative — legislative enactment of the program on the basis of collective rather than self-interest. The key ingredients of a successful legislative effort are: 1. clear identification of the problems and solutions which are being addressed; 2. simple and straightforward legislation which addresses the identified problems and solutions, but nothing more; 3. consensus building before the formal legislative process is commenced; 4. preparation of explanatory materials, including graphic materials, which describe the proposed program. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 5 IV. The Hi�rory of TDRs There are no direct examples of MDR programs in place in this country, however, the closely related transferable development rights concept is useful in understanding how MDRs might work in Florida. The primary difference between TDRs and MDRs is that a TDR is generally imposed to mitigate a prohibition on on-site development. MDRs do not affect the right of a property owner to carry out permitted on-site development and simply offers an alternative to on-site development which a property owner may, at his or her choice, opt to pursue in lieu of the expense of permitting and mitigation of on- site development. A. General The concept of TDRs was first developed as a means of guiding growth and development to areas which are app ropria'e for growth and development and avoiding the usually harsh results of dowuzoning and as a means of ensuring that all property has an economically viable use, no matter how restrictive public ;:,olicy and regulations night be. The concept was originally developed as a means of protecting valuable resources such as farmland and historic landmarks and is now in use to maintain lural character and environmental resources. Under a TDR program, the owner of a parcel of land may develop his or her property (known as the sending parcel) as ordinarily permitted by the zoning ordinance, but has the option of taking the development rights allocated to the property and transferring them to someone else for use on another property (known as the receiving parcel) which is more suitable for development. In other words, the development rights allocated to what-is known as the sending parcel are'separated from the underlying title to the real estate and transferred to a receiving parcel, and the owner of the receiving property is allowed to develop that property to a greater extent than he or she otherwise could. (Where the owner of the sending`parcel also owns the -receiving parcel, he could use the development rights by just transferring them directly from the"sending"parcel to the receiving parcel,without necessarily conveying them to someone else.) The concept of transfer of development rights varies in its application according to the particular goals of the municipality, e.g., farmland preservation, preservation of historic areas, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, low- and moderate- income housing development. TDR programs will also vary in the terminology used to label them. Regardless of the specific application or term, all TDR programs separate development rights from a tract of land and permit those rights to be sold for use on another tract of land. TDR programs have a number of advantages when used for resource protection. First, they can lead to permanent restrictions on the development of the "sending" parcels and thereby reserve them for future resource-related or resource-compatible uses. Second, unlike purchases of development rights, TDR programs do not put the government in the position of being the permanent title holder to a large number of property interests. Third, they allow the landowner to continue to reap economic benefits from their property, through the sale of development rights, without selling off part of the land itself for development, and thus help keep urban and suburban development from creeping into rural areas or other important community resources. Fourth, they allow development rights from one property to be used to accommodate development in other parts of the community, rather than just permanently "banking" the rights as a purchase of development rights program would do. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 6 As a complement to other community efforts to manage development, the TDR approach also impart, an overall sense of fairness and a counterpoint to the "negative" c..aracter of resource protection programs which rely heavily on strict government restrictions on the use of land. By allowing the owners of "sending" parcels to benefit financially form the sale of their development rights, the burdens th?t. restrictive land use regulations may impose are somewhat alleviated. While very strict regulations can and have withstood legal scrutiny, regulations that are viewed as too restrictive have frequently contributed to a build-up of political forces in the community which ultimately block any progress at conserving valued resources. If done properly, TDR programs can satisfy the need for more positive and cooperative approaches to managing development. The first basic element of any TDR program is the designation of "sending" parcels and thr allocation of some quantum of transferable development rights to those parcels.' "Sending" parcels are those on which the community wishes to restrict development. TDRs can be allocated on a one-for-one basis,or on the basis of some mathematical formula which accounts for identified public or private values attached to the land from which the rights are transferred, the basic capability of the land to support development, and related factors. The second basic elenier:t of a TOR program is the designation of "receiver" sites and a determination cf the additional amount and type of development which will be permitted at those sites through the purchase and use of TDRs. 'Receiver" sites are designated in those areas of the community which can accommodate and are otherwise appropriate for additional development. The additional development could occur on a one-to-one basis, such as where acquiring the right to build one dwelling unit on the "sending" parcel yields the right to build one additional dwelling unit on the "receiving" parcel. It is also possible to provide a bonus for particular types of development on the "receiving" parcel which serve other community goals.' TDRs need not be restricted to accommodating residential development at the "receiver" site. It is possible to translate TDRs into other forms of development as well, such as by allowing TDRs to be used to achieve a bonus in the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed for non-residential development on a "receiving" site. The third basic element of a TDR program is the selection of a method of transferring rights from one parcel to another. In some programs, the local government or some other agency holds all transferable development rights that have been allocated, sort of in escrow, until a transfer has been worked out by the owners of the'sending" and "receiving" parcels. The rights are then transferred, with the owner of the "receiving" parcel paying the owner of the "sending" parcel for the TDRs. In other programs, the "sending" landowner retains ownership of the development rights and the public agency serves more as a broker between "sending" and "receiving" landowners, or the public agency actively purchases TDRs from "sending' landowners and resells them the "receiving" landowners. Still other programs involve less direct government participation, leaving the mechanics of brokering and transferring ownership of the rights in the hands of the private parties involved in the transaction. Under such a program, TDRs would be transferred by a deed, such as a deed for mineral rights, with the public agency merely monitoring the transactions and ascertaining that the applicant who proposes to use the TDRs to develop a "receiver" site actually owns the TDRs, and that the TDRs acquired by the "sending" landowner have not already been transferred to someone else. In spite of the logic of TDRs and the success of some communities in using TDRs to preserve For example, a 'bonus multiplier" could be applied to the number of TDRs that are being used at the 'receiver" site if those TDRs are being used to accommodate the development of low-to moderate-income housing. Where the use of one TDR might yield one additional market-rate dwelling unit, the bonus multiplier might allow each TDR to yield two additional low-to moderate-income units. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 7 important community resources, TDRs are still widely looked upon with suspicion. One reason that TDRs ace viewed as being unsuccessful is that the concept was often discussed and tried "ahead of its time." TDR programs have been clagued by a number of popular misconceptions, r+any of them fostered by those with a vested interest in "business as usual." Opponents of TDR programs, for example, routinely allege that TDRs are not just compensation. Of course, informed proponents do not claim that TDRs are just compensation, rarer that they are a remaining use of the restricted "sending" property, to be considered by a court in determining whether a minimum beneficial use of property is eliminated by a challenged regulation. Nevertheless, just compensation has been an effective "red herring" for the proponents of "business as usual." Another of the great misconceptions is that TDRs are valueless. While it undoubtedly is true that a TDR program with no viable receiving areas (for example, because increased density is otherwise available or there is no market for increased density in any event), it is also true that where demand for development products is strong and existing zoning limits density, additional density does and always will have value. There we innumerable analyses of the feasibility and income-producing potential of development that demonstrate that additional density increases profit. As long as the cost of purchasing adc!it:ona: d^raity is reaso"lab!e in light of additional profit to be made, there can be no serious doubt that TDRs have value. Still another shibboleth regarding TDRs is the claim that a TDR program creates a "windfall" for parcels of land designated as receiver sites. The theory is that a developer will have to pay for density twice, because the seller of vacant land will establish a sales price based on expected development densities and not on existing zoning. The reality does not support the allegation. Developers, who ultimately set the market for vacant land, price vacant land according to anticipated costs and revenues form development. If the probability of rezoning is high, then the developer is going to have to pay for the value of the land at the rezoned intensity. If the probability of rezoning is low, then the developer will be unwilling to pay for anything more than existing zoning? Claims that TDRs will increase housing costs because of increased land costs are illogical and not supported by experience. Indeed,expert opinion and common sense suggest that making development rights transferable, rather than simply eliminating them by downzoning, maintains the supply of development rights and thereby avoids an increase in land costs as a result of limited supply of dwelling units. Finally,it is often suggested that the implementation of a TDR program represents a "give-away" program for the owners of the resource sought to be protected. This suggestion, from those who have interests in receiver sites and would like to seek higher densities for free, rather than through TDRs, argue that the fact that a property owner happens to own a parcel of land that is declared to be particularly sensitive is an entrepreneurial risk that is part of living in an organized society. Most observers, however, support the use of TDRs as a means of mitigating the "windfall-wipeout" aspects of restrictive regulations. For example, if a parcel of land is zoned for four dwelling units per acre, then the cost of the land will reflect the permitted density and the anticipated revenue from developing at four dwelling units per acre. If on the other hand, the property is zoned for two dwelling units per acre and the only likely means of achieving four dwelling units per acre, then the developer is going to pay the landowner the value of the property at two dwelling units per acre (not four) and then purchase the additional density from the owner of TDRs. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 8 After twenty years of searching for a better system, there is no program other than TDRs (or land acquisition, which is woefully under-funded) that cars effectively and constitutionally protect sensitive resources and mitigate against the "windfalls and wipeouts" of public regulation. As this nation's resource base continues to shrink, and as the swings in value as a result of public land planning and development management continue to expand, the need for strict resource protection and mitigation strategies has never been greater. It is time to accept the concept of TDRs as a basic land management tool, and to focus on ensuring that TDR programs are well-designed and successful in preserving resources, providing mitigation opportunities, and engendering substantial numbers of transfers. In the final analysis,public land planning and management continues to confront the same issues that gave birth to the concept of TDRs some twenty years ago. After twenty years of trying, there is still no better, more practical vehicle for protecting important resources without imposing windfalls and wipeouts. B. Legal Issues Implicated by TDRs 1. TDRs and Property Rights The concept of transferable development rights is based on three underlying property rights principles that have been well-accepted by the courts: (1) That development rights are property rights which are divisible or severable; (2) That regulatory reform adjusts private development expectations (some property owners receive windfalls and some are wiped out); (3) That mere limitations on on-site use are not always enough to achieve a particular public objective;' and (4) That bonus densities are a valid regulatory approach to implementing public policies. It is well-established that property interests are divisible and transferable. Numerous court decisions have recognized that property ownership consists of a "bundle of rights" which can be separated from each other. Common examples of severable and transferable rights include water rights, mineral rights, air rights and easements. The transfer of development rights involves nothing more than separating one set of rights that accompany property ownership and transferring them to another property. It is also well-established that changes in land use regulations can result in substantial changes in value.' Public planning and zoning creates enormous value for those who are fortunate enough to be designated for development and wipes out the expectations of those who are designated for preservation or protection. The inequities of this situation are considerable. Nonetheless, the courts have recognized 3 For a discussion of other legal precedents for the underlying principles of the TDR concept, see Carmichael, "Transferable Development Rights as a Basis for Land Use Control,"2 Fla.St. U.L.Rev. 35,53-99 (1974). ` Perhaps the best explanation and discussion of the benefits and burdens of regulatory changes is found in Hagman & Misczynski,Windfalls for Wipeouts (1978). FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 9 the legitimacy of government regulations, within limits, which readjust private development expectations so that property values are dramatically reduced. Finally, the courts have also recognized that regulatory devices other than on-site land use restrictions can be used to achieve public objectives for resource protection. 2. The Judicial Reaction to TDR Programs Because not many communities have adopted TDR programs, court decisions interpreting and commenting on the validity of TDR programs has been few and far between. Nonetheless, important legal questions regarding TDRs have arisen and been addressed in a handful of cases both at the federal and state levels. The two key issues addressed below are: (1) the role of TDRs in analyzing whether a regulatory scheme constitutes a "taking" without just compensation; and (2) other legal issues including the uniformity of regulations, securities regulations and TDRs, and the "roll-back" tax implications of TDRs. (a) The Role of TDRs in Constitutional "Taking" Analysis Depending on a court's interp:etation of what constitutes a ''taking." the availal:ility of TDRs in a scheme of land use or resource protection regulations may be scrutinized as either*proffered,"just compensation" or as a mitigating factor to temper the effects of extra regulation on a protected area. The case law to date indicates that the latter approach is the proper interpretation. Two of the most important cases addressing the basic constitutionality of TDRs both arose in New York City. In Fred F. French Investing Co.. Inc, v, City of New York,' the plaintiff was a mortgagee for Tudor City, a Manhattan residential complex. New York City attempted to protect two small private parks within the complex from office tower development by rezoning them to a "Special Parks District." The rezoning permitted only passive recreational use by the public, thus prohibiting all future development of the two parks. The landowner, however, was allowed to transfer the parks' development rights, with the City's approval, to property zoned for high-density commercial use located within a designated 22-block receiving area in mid-Manhattan. Specific receiving parcels within this large area were not designated. The court determined that the rezoning constituted a deprivation of property rights without due process of law.' The court decided that there was no taking because there was no physical invasion by the government in the exercise of its eminent domain powers.' Given this finding, the question was not one of the necessity for "just compensation," but whether the land retained any economic value or potential for a reasonable rate of return after application of the government's regulations, such that there is no violation of due process. The court determined that by restricting the land to public-park use only, New York deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to derive a reasonable economic return from the land through any type of development. A necessary corollary was whether the availability of TDRs made any difference in the court's ' 350 N.E.2d 381(1976). But compare Corrigan v.City of Scottsdale,720 P.2d 528(Ariz. App. 1985),aff d in part,vac. in part,720 P.2d 513 (1986) (invalidating the regulatory program and finding a "taking"in spite of the inclusion of TDRs). 6 350 N.E.2d at 383-84. ' 350 N.E.2d at 386. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 10 determination of the economic value retained by the land. The court conceded that: development rights are an essential component of the value of the underlying property because they constitute some of the economic uses to which the property may be put. As such, they are a potentially valuable and even a transferable commodity and may not be disregarded in determining whether the ordinance has destroyed the economic value of the underlying property.' The court nonetheless determined that the severance of TDRs from the Tudor City parks "fell-short of achieving a fair allocation of the economic burden" imposed on the plaintiff.' Because the city never designated specific receiving properties, the possibility of the TDRs owner realizing an adequate return on the transfer of the development rights was fraught with too much uncertainty and depended too much on happenstance. Moreover, "acceptance of this contingency-ridden arrangement . . . was mandatory.«10 Thus, even though the development rights had not been destroyed, their severance from the underlying parks under these circumstances failed to "assure preservation of the very real economic value of the development rights as they existed when still attached to the underlying property."" Therefore, while upholding the general validity of TDRs, the court struck down its applicability to a specific parcel of land when the owner is faced with the opportunity of spending considerable resources in an unlikely attempt to find purchasers for its TDRs. The second New York case is Penn Central v. City of New York,12 in which New York City's Landmarks Preservation Act was upheld by both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Again, a key issue of the case was the role TDRs play in determining the constitutionality of land use controls. Penn Central owned Grand Central Terminal, a New York landmark registered under the Preservation Act and, as such, subject to special regulations restricting incompatible development on the site. Penn Central wanted to build an office tower over the terminal, but the City refused, determining that the plans were inconsistent with the historical context of the site. Penn Central sued the city, claiming that the landmarks regulations effected a taking without just compensation. As in the French case, the New York Court of Appeals held that there was no taking because there was no physical invasion of the property by the City. The issue thus was whether the regulation violated due process by depriving Penn Central of the ability to produce a reasonable return from the property." 350 N.E.2d at 384-87. 9 350 N.E.2d at 387-89. 10 350 N.E.2d at 388. " 350 N.E.2d at 388. 12 366 N.E.2d 1271 (1977),aff d 438 U.S. 104(1978) " 366 N.E.2d at 1276. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 11 • The court determined that Penn Central did have the capability to earn a return from the parcel, in large part due to the availability of transferable air rights. The existence of TDRs, in the majority's opinion, was a mitigating factor in the determination of the Landmark Preservation Act's validity." Unlike French, the development rights from Grand Central were transferable to several identifiable parcels owned by Penn Central in the vicinity of the terminal and suitable for office building construction." Moreover, Penn Central was not deprived of all possibility of producing a return as was the plaintiff in French; Grand Central Station still could continue to be used as a railroad terminal, as it had been used for decades prior to the passage of the Landmarks Preservation Act. Because the New York Court of Appeals determined that the regulation was not a taking, the court did not have to view the TDRs as possible "just compensation." The court concluded that [d]evelopment rights, once transferred, may not be equivalent in value to development rights on the original site. but that, alone, does not mean that the substitution of rights amounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Land use regulation often diminishes the value of the property to the landowner. Constitutional standards, however, are offended only when that ditainution leaves the owner with • no reasonable use of the property . . . If the substitute rights received . [with transferable development rights] provide reasonable compensation for a landowner forced to relinquish development rights on a landmark site, there has been no deprivation of due process.'6 Given that land use regulation "often diminishes the value of the property to the landowner," the court found that TDRs were valuable and sufficiently mitigated the loss of Penn Central's ability to build above the terminal itself." The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' findings regarding the validity of the Landmarks Preservation Act. Although disposition of the TDR question (that is, whether TDRs are just compensation for a taking) was not necessary to the Supreme Court's decision, the majority did comment generally on the concept. The majority agreed that Penn Central was not denied all use of its pre-existing air rights since they could be transferred to several parcels in the area." Moreover, despite the "far from ideal" design of New York's TDR program, at least in Penn Central's situation, "the rights afforded are valuable.«19 The Court went on to note that: While these rights may well not have constituted 'just compensation' if a `taking' had occurred, the rights nevertheless undoubtedly mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has imposed on appellants and, for " 366 N.E.2d at 1276. 15 366 N.E.2d at 1277. 16 355 N.E.2d at 1278. " 366 N.E.2d at 1278-79. " 438 U.S.at 137. 19 438 U.S.at 137. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 12 that reason, are to be taken into account in consideration of the impact of regulation." The Supreme Court's comment on TDRs does not amount to a blanket holding that TDRs will always mitigate a regulatory "taking of property without just compensation." The Court has long practiced a case-by-case approach to alleged "takings" questions, and is unlikely to hand down any such sweeping confirmations regarding the "takings" issue. Nonetheless, the finding that the TDRs had value in this case indicates that a properly conceived regulatory scheme which incorporates TDL.. as one component among many, and guarantees some residual economic return to the restricted land, could stand up to judicial scrutiny. The question remains, however, whether the value of transferable development rights could constitute "just compensation," in the Supreme Court's eyes, if indeed the government's actions destroyed all possibility of a reasonable economic return on or minimum beneficial use of the land ("the sending parcel"). There have been a handful of state court decisions involving transferable development rights programs (or the transfer of density from one part of a property to another part) since the Supreme Court's decision in Penn Central. These decisions provide additional support for the notion that the allocation of TDRs to a property on which development is restrictedcan mitigate the harshness of those regulations so as to preclude a finding that the restrictive regulations effect a "taking" of the property 21 • In City of Hollywood v: Hollywood. Inc.," a developer challenged the constitutionality of an ordinance that classified the beachfront portion of its 92-acre parcel differently from the remainder. The ordinance required that the developer either permanently dedicate the protected beachfront as open space in exchange for transferring density to another portion of its parcel, or develop the beachfront at the allowed density of seven dwelling units per acre. The Florida Court of Appeals upheld the density transfer provision." The court reasoned that the government's action was properly related to a valid public purpose,` and that the economic impact of the density transfer provision could well leave the developer in a better position than he could occupy otherwise." Under the density transfer provision, the developer could gain 368 units in the receiving zone, at a loss of only 79 units on the protected beachfront. The court further reasoned that the value of those 368 additional units would also benefit from the unobstructed oceanfront positions and views they would command after the transfer and prohibition of future development on the beachfront26 'D 438 U.S. at 137. `1 See e.g., Barancik v. County of Marin, 872 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1989); West Montgomery County Citizens Assoc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park&Planning Commission, 522 A.2d 1328(1987)(court invalidated a part of the process for transferring TDRs but the court had no trouble with the basic concept). 432 So.2d 1332(Fla. 4th DCA 1983). 432 So.2d at 1338. ' 432 So.2d at 1338. 432 So.2d at 1336. 36 432 So.2d at 1338. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 13 The decisive factor, in the court's eyes, was the fact that the transfer of density was voluntary.' Development on the beachfront, albeit restricted, was still permitted. The court conce l d that the provision giving 368 more units in exchange for permanent open space "smacks of carrot-and-stick," but noted that such is routine in the "zoning game" and encourages flexibility and creativity in promoting public land use goals.' The Arizona courts have also considered how TDRs relate to the "takings" issue. The City of Scottsdale rezoned a hilly and mountainous area such that above a particular percentage of slope, essentially no development was allowed. An owner of a parcel with land falling both above and below this "no development line" could transfer density from the conservation area to the other portions of her parcel zoned for development. In Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale,' the plaintiff owned land in the development area sufficient to absorb all of the transferred density credits from her land in the conservation district. Nonetheless, the landowner challenged the rezoning as a taking without just compensation. The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed. Considering only the mere enactment of the ordinance," the court found that it did not advance a legitimate state purpose because there was no substantial threat to public safety in its absence." Therefore, the rezoning was not a valid exercise of police power. In addition, the court held that the ordinance denied the owner of any "economically viable use" of the.conservation area 'property-.' Because both parties agreed that the regulations prevented any development in the conservation zone, and thus the land had no monetary value, the ordinance effected a "taking."" The court never considered the possibility that the TDRs could be a mitigating factor in determining that not all reasonable economic return or minimum beneficial use had been regulated away. In this respect, the court's decision deviated from the reasoning inherent in French, Hollywood, and the majority opinion in Penn Central. Mirroring Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Penn Central," the Arizona court defined the subject property differently than did the Florida court in City of Hollywood or the majority of the Supreme Court in Penn Central. In Corrigan, the court considered only the development rights restricted by the regulation, as opposed to any economic value of those rights when transferred to that part of the property where additional development could occur or any increase in value of the remaining developable land because of the possible increase in allowable density, and then searched for "just compensation" equivalent to the `taken" rights. Because the Scottsdale ordinance was held not to be a valid exercise of the police power, and thus '' 432 So.2d at 1338. 3 432 So.2d at 1338. ' 720 P.2d 528(Ariz. App. 1985),aff d in part, vac. in part, 720 P.2d 513 (1986). J0 The plaintiff never submitted a development plan for her parcel, so the ordinance could not be considered "as applied." 31 720 P.2d at 536-37. n 720 P.2d at 537,citing Agins v.City of Tiburon, 447 U.S.255(1980). " 720 P.2d at 539. x Penn Central Transportation Co. v.City of New York,438 U.S. 104(1978). FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 14 a "taking," the question became "whether fair compensation can be given by transferring development rights as is attempted in the ordinance presently before us."" The court held that transferable development rights do not constitute "just compensation" for property taken by eminent domain because the Arizona Constitution requires such compensation to be paid directly in money.' Bound by the language of the state constitution, the court determined that TDRs could not be "equivalent" compensation. The court did note, however, that "[i)f this were a valid exercise of police power there would be no need for any form of compensation."" The California Court of Appeals reached a seemingly contrary conclusion in Aptos Seascape Corp. v. County of Santa Cruz," a case factually similar to Corrigan and Hollywood in that coptiguous acreage under common ownership was subject to different zoning regulations, with no development allowed on a large portion of the property. The court in Aptos determined that a'provision allowing the transfer of development rights or "compensation densities" from the beachfront property to upland properties precluded a finding that an unconstitutional taking had occurred by the county's simple enactment of the ordinance.'° The court was hesitant to strike down the mere passage of the ordinance, even though no development could occur on the beachfront portion of the plaintiff's property,thus forcing the landowner to use the TDRs on its upland properties in order to recoup any loss. All of the above cases have validated the concept of transferable development rights in theory. The few court cases striking down a TDR scheme have invalidated the particular scheme because of problems in the way that particular scheme was applied in the case at hand. The key concern and focus of a court's inquiry in "takings" challenges is whether the landowner retains any reasonable return on or minimum beneficial use of her property after the regulations are applied.'0 A dichotomy then arises regarding whether TDRs are: (1) adequate partial or total compensation for a regulation's possible confiscatory impact, or (2) a mitigating factor that enters the analysis of whether the property owner retains a reasonable return on or minimal beneficial use of the property. If a regulation leaves the landowner with no possibility of a reasonable return on or minimum beneficial use of the property, then it is questionable whether TDRs could serve as "just compensation" for the "taking." The majority opinion in Penn Central, which had no quarrel with TDRs in theory, still concluded that it was unlikely that TDRs would constitute "just compensation" if a regulatory "taking" 'S Corrigan,729 P.2d at 538. Indeed, the City conceded such. 36 720 P.2d at 540. " 720 P.2d at 538(emphasis added). 36 138 Cal. App.3d 484, 188 Cal. Rptr. 191 (1982). 39 [O]ur conclusion rests on the premise that although development of the subject property is prohibited, the County's ordinances do permit the grant of compensation densities to Seascape on both its beachlands and uplands in excess of the basic densities which the zoning of those parcels would permit absent any consideration of the subject property. 188 Cal. Rptr. at 200. i0 Goldblatt v.Town of Hempstead ,369 U.S.590(1961). FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 15 had occurred. Under this view of TDRs, it is not yet clear whether TDRs in a mandatory program need only be of some economic benefit or, as Justice Rehnquist insisted in his Penn Central dissent, whether compensation (including TDRs) must be "a full and perfect equivalent for the property taken" and not "sinipiy an approximate compensation."" However, when a regulation leaves the landowner with some possibility of a reasonable return on or minimum beneficial use of the property, most courts are willing to regard TDRs as a factor mitigating the harsh effects of downzonings and other restrictions. Nonetheless, the TDRs must have value; that is, there must be a viable and readily identifiable market of the TDRs.'2 Where TDRs do have value, the harshness of the impact of restrictive regulations on the "sending" property will be mitigated, such that a court will find that the restrictive regulations have gone "too far"" and thus constitute a "taking" of the property. (b) Other Legal Issues (1) "Uniformity" of Regulations A zoning ordinance must treat similarly situated property alike, as mandated in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the terms of most state zoning enabling statutes. Critics - often attack TDR schemes onthe grounds that they are not uniform because parcels designated as receiving sites for TDRs are allowed extra density, whereas their neighbors, similarly situated, are relegated to the base densities allowed by the zoning ordinance. The appellants in the West Montgomery case presented a uniformity argument in their attack on Montgomery County's TDR program as applied to receiving sites. The court chose not to dwell on this issue, instead focusing on the procedural flaws inherent in the program. However, the court implied that if the ordinance had been procedurally correct, "uniformity" would not have been an issue." While the 'uniformity issue" will undoubtedly be raised with any legal attack of a TDR program, the fact that once TDRs are used, receiver sites are by definition no longer "similarly situated' should forestall any judicial deference to this argument. (2) Whether TDRs Are Subject to Securities Registration Laws Securities must be registered under federal and state laws, and any offering of securities for sale must comply with informational reporting requirements. If TDRs are securities, then the additional reporting requirements might make the sale or purchase of the rights so cumbersome as to preclude sufficient transfer activity necessary to justify a program. A New Jersey court addressed the issue whether Pineland Development Credits violated federal and state securities acts in Matlack v. Freeholder Board for Burlington County Residents.` The applicable test in answering this issue is "whether the (TDR) scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from " Penn Central,438 U.S.at 150(Rehnquist, J.,dissenting). 42 Compare French and West Montgomery County. " Pennsylvania Coal v.Mahon,260 U.S.393,415(1922). " West Montgomery,522 A.2d.at 1337. 4' 466 A.2d 83 (1982). FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 16 the efforts of others."' Using this standard, the court concluded that TDRs are not securities because a PDC is not based on the efforts of others nor is it a scheme that attracts the purchaser solely by the prospect of a return. Instead the attraction is the opportunity for increased usage of the land, and its purchase and use is personal to the buyer." (3) Whether Selling TDRs from the "Sending" Property Will Trigger "Roll-Back" Penalties under Preferential Taxation Statutes Nearly every state in the country has enacted legislation which grants some form of property tax relief to the owners of agricultural land. Such programs provide for the assessment of farm property at its current "use value" (that is, its value for the current agricultural use) rather than at its "market value" (which is based in part on speculation as to potential future uses of the property, such as non-farm residential development). Because the current use value of agricultural land is typically lower than its market value, especially in areas facing non-agricultural development pressure, the landowner gets a decrease in his or her property taxes. As an additional incentive to keep the land in agricultural production, preferential assessment programs often include a "roll-back" penalty where the landowner pays back the difference, for some specified number of years, between the taxes paid under use-value assessment and die taxes which would have been due under market-value assessment. The local _ government therefore recoups some of the,foregone tax revenues if and' when agricultural land is converted to other uses. If the landowner decides to withdraw from the program, or if the property otherwise becomes ineligible for use-value assessment, then the landowner is generally required to pay a "roll-back" penalty equal to the difference between the taxes due under market-value assessment and use-value assessment over a pre-determined period of time. Severing transferable development rights from the property is not an event that would disqualify the property from being assessed at its use value. As long as the property itself continued to be devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest, or open space use within the definitions set forth in the statute, the property should continue to qualify for use-value assessment. The sale of TDRs from the property is not the same as developing the property. The sale of transferable development rights does not render the use of the underlying property "nonqualifying;" rather, the use of the underlying property would remain the same. In addition, the sale of TDRs from the property does not amount to a rezoning of the property to a more intensive use. Therefore, neither of the events which triggers disqualification and the payment of roll-back penalties occurs when TDRs are sold from the property. As the above discussion indicates, a property owner who sells TDRs from his or her property should not fear that the sale of TDRs will disqualify the underlying property from being assessed at its use value rather than its market value. Therefore, the property owner can continue to enjoy the financial savings that come from use-value assessment, while at the same time earning money from the sale of TDRs from the property. C. The Experience with TDRs The following are three examples of successful TDR programs. '6 466 A.2d at 93. " 466 A.2d at 93. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 17 (1) New Jersey's "Pinelands Development Credit" Program New Jersey's transfer of development rights program, known as the Pinelands Development Credit (PDC) program, has experienced a high level of success. Since the program began in 1981, transfers of development rights have occurred every year. The biggest factors inhibiting the program's success are: (1) a lack of infrastructure in many receiving areas which is adequate to support development at the densities allowed by using PDCs, and (2) an unwillingness on the part of landowners and local authorities in many receiving areas to encourage developers to take advantage of the PDC program, due to their reluctance to accept developments at the densities allowed by using PDCs. Nonetheless, the PDC program is proving itself more successful every year. • (a) Why and Ho.. the Program Was Adopted The New Jersey Pinelands or "pine barrens" consist of one million acres (1,700 square miles) of forests, farms, and cedar swamps located between Philadelphia and Atlantic City. Below the surface of the Pinelands is the Cohansey Aquifer, which is estimated to contain seventeen trillion gallons of some of the purest water in the world. The Pinelands support a variety of flora and fauna and wildlife species, - as well as an active agricultural economy primarily based on the cultivation of cranberries and. blueberries. There are 52 municipalities in the Pinelands. The year-round population of the Pinelands is about 450,000 persons, with the densities in individual municipalities ranging from l0 persons per square mile to 4,000 persons per square mile. The Pinelands remain largely undeveloped. Except for encroaching urbanization at the boundaries of the Pinelands spreading outward from Atlantic City and metropolitan Philadelphia, development pressure in the Pinelands traditionally has been minimal. In order to protect this pristine environment, Congress established the Pinelands National Reserve in 1987." In 1979, New Jersey's Governor Byrne created the Pinelands Commission, with responsibility for review and approval of development in the Pinelands. That same year, the New Jersey legislature passed the Pinelands Protection Act, which endorsed regional planning for the area and suggested using the transferrable development rights concept (later to be known as "Pinelands Development Credits" or "PDCs") as a way to accommodate development in the Pinelands and to protect the Pinelands' agricultural and environmental resources. The State adopted the Comprehensive Management Plan ("CMP") for the Pinelands in 1980. (b) Basic Structure of the Program The New Jersey Pinelands CMP created a land use regulatory scheme which divided the Pinelands into a range of designated "management areas," limits residential development in undisturbed, environmentally sensitive areas, and directs growth into a more compact pattern within designated growth areas. The Pinelands Development Credit program, established by the CMP, allocates PDCs to landowners in designated resource protection areas where residential development is restricted in order to protect agricultural and environmental resources. PDCs can be purchased by developers to gain bonus residential densities in the designated growth areas. The"sending" areas for PDCs consist of roughly 74,000 acres of land in "Agricultural Production Areas," 35,000 acres of land in "Special Agricultural Production Areas," 296,000 acres of land in "Preservation Areas," and an additional 1,700 acres of land in "In-fill Areas," all described and " See Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 18 designated in the CMP.'9 PDCs are allocated to landowners in these areas according to a formula based on the capability and suitability for development of different types of land in the different management areas.JO In order to sell a PDC, a landowner must obtain certification from the Pinelands Commission regarding the precise number of credits allocated to the property. This is done with a "letter of interpretation," for which the landowner makes a formal application to the Commission ' Upon the landowner's request, the Pinelands Commission will inspect the property, determine the amount of the parcel which falls into each of the various categories, and determine the PDC allocation. Until that time, the exact PDC allocation for a particular property is unknown. The "receiving" areas for Pinelands Development Credits consist of the "Regional Growth Areas" 49 Agricultural Production Areas include land that is in active agricultural use me adjacent lands which are suitable for expansion of agricultural operations due to their high-quality soils. Special Agricultural Production Areas include las ds in active cranberry and blueberry cultivation Preservation Areas are lands intended to be left in their natural state or preserved to the greatest extent possible. "In-fill Areas" are places within the Preservation 'Areas where a subdivision pattern had already been established, people had bought lots, and some land was already developed, and which were allocated PDCs because their development rights had vested or because of hardships ascribed to the new restrictions contained in the CMP. S0 Allocation of PDCs to Sending Parcels Preservation Areas: Uplands, undisturbed but approved for resource extraction - 2 PDC/39 acres Uplands, already mined - 0 PDC/39 acres Other Uplands - 1 PDC/39 acres Wetlands - 0.2 PDC/39 acres Agricultural Production Areas & Special Agricultural Production Areas: Uplands and areas with active agriculture, including berry bogs - 2 PDC/39 acres Uplands, undisturbed but approved for resource extraction - 2 PDC/39 acres Uplands, already mined - 0 PDC/39 acres Wetlands, in active agricultural use - 2 PDC/39 acres Other Wetlands - 0.2 PDC/39 acres Where the parcel is smaller than 39 acres, the owner is allocated a fraction of a PDC based on the allocation formula. PDCs are not allocated to parcels of 10 acres or less which are already improved with housing that is not farm-related or are already improved for commercial, industrial,resource extraction, intensive recreation, landfill,or institutional uses. Where larger parcels contain such uses, they do not have 10 acres (or any greater area that the use occupies) counted as part of the total parcel area in calculating the number of PDCs. S' Since the program began in 1981, 152 letters of interpretation have been requested, resulting in the allocation of 500.07 PDCs. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 19 designated in the CMP. These are primarily areas where development has already occurred, or which are close to existing development. Regional Growth Areas cover about 77,000 acres of land in the Pinelands. Local plans and regulations for each Regional Growth Areas must accommodate the base densities for the area, as set forth in the CMP, in order to accommodate additional growth and to relieve development pressures facing other parts of the Pinelands." In addition, where the developer is using PDCs, local plans and regulations must zone these areas to accommodate at least a 50 percent increase in density over the base density established in the CMP. ' The bonus density of a parcel using PDCs cannot exceed the upper limit of the density range of the municipal zoning ordinance where the property is located. PDCs can be transferred anywhere within the seven county jurisdiction of the Pinelands, including across municipal and county boundaries. • n Under the Pinelands Protection Act,all municipalities are required to revise their master plans and land development ordinances to conform to the policies and standards set forth it the Comprehensive Management Plan. Counties are required to bring all of their land development plans, and trans ortztion plans, into conformity with the CMP. Of the 52 municipalities in the Pinelands, 49 have been certified as having brought their master plans and land development ordinances into conformity with the CMP. Two of the seven counties which have land in the Pinelands remain uncertified. Although counties and municipalities are allowed to design their own zoning ordinances, the ordinances must conform to the policies and standards of Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. Accordingly,local governments in the Pinelands must adopt land use regulations which implement the PDC system, such as by recognizing the allocation of PDCs to lands in the Preservation Areas, Agricultural Production Areas, and Special Agricultural Production Areas. 53 Residential Density Ranges in Regional Growth Areas Under the Pinelands Development Credit Program: Predominant Housing Type Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre Base Density Bonus Density (with credits) Single-family Detached <.5 .5 .5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 Single-family attached and townhouse 6 9 9 12 12 Local ordinances must present the allowable residential densities in the designated Regional Growth Areas as a range, with the low end being the abase'density for that area and the high end being the maximum allowable density with the use of Pinelands development credits. The CMP suggest that each municipality be zoned to accommodate a bonus equal to 50 percent or more of the base density for developable lands within the Regional Growth Areas. Once the allowable base densities and bonus densities are stated in the local ordinances, the local government's role in the PDC program rests on the review and approval of development. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 20 One PDC yields four dwelling units in a Regional Growth Area.' Based on the allocation formula for the sending areas, there are an estimated 6,300 PDCs available in the Pinelands, which have a potential bonus density yield of 25,000 residential units." Enough Regional Growth Areas are designated to accommodate up to 135,000 dwelling units; 88,000 of these come under the allowable base density, with the additional 47,000 to be allowed only if the developers use PDCs. Sales of PDCs occur on the open market, using legal instruments like a regular sale of property. All PDC transactions are registered with and recorded by the State Pinelands Development Credit Bank (hereinafter "State PDC Bank"), which began operation in 1988.m At the closing of a transaction, the State PDC Bank issues a "certificate of ownership," which identifies where the PDC originated-and who is the current owners' Also at closing, a landowner selling PDCs must record a restriction on the deed to the sending parcel which limits future use of that land to a range of uses set out in the CMP and local zoning ordinances. The CMP allows a different range of uses for each management area; the allowable future uses include conservation, low-intensity recreation, and limited agricultural uses, but not residential development. The deed restriction must restrict use of the land in perpetuity as of the date of the sale or conveyance of the PDCs. The deed restrictions are stated as being specifically and expressly enforceable by the Pinelands Commission. The procedure for redeeming PDCs in a Regional Growth Area is not complex. A developer first S' Because fractions of PDCs may be sold and developed, one-fourth of a PDC can yield one dwelling unit in a Regional Growth Area. " The number of available PDCs is not fixed,however. Several other factors may influence the availability of PDCs; these include changes in the boundaries of agricultural areas which presently uncertified municipalities may make, the designation of additional agricultural areas by municipalities, and changes in the allocation formula. 56 Before the State PDC Bank began operation in 1988, however, there was no formal, centralized procedure for recording transfers. n The State Bank is also authorized to buy and sell PDCs, thus allowing it to stimulate the demand for PDCs. The State legislature has appropriated $5,000,000to the State Bank for start-up administration and for the purchase of PDCs. The Bank's statement of purpose, as it relates to buying PDCs, is fairly broad and essentially leaves it to the Bank's discretion to decide when to purchase PDCs and for what reasons (e.g.cases of hardship, a parcel being particularly desirable for development, or just to stimulate transactions and promote the program). To date, however, the State Bank has not purchased any PDCs. The only government body that has bought and sold PDCs has been the Burlington County PDC Exchange, which has bought about 90 PDCs and sold them at public auction. The Burlington County Board of Chose Freeholders adopted a bond ordinance in 1978 in The County established the Burlington County Conservation Easement and Pinelands Development Credit Exchange as a county agency authorized to purchase and sell PDCs. The Burlington County Exchange uses tax dollars to purchase PDCs from County residents and then sells them at a fixed value of$10,000each. This practice was challenged in Matlack v.Freeholder Board for Burlington County Residents, 466 A.2d 83 (1982). The court held that the County had the authority to purchase and sell PDCs and thus create a market for them, and held that the County had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in designating 510,000as the fixed purchase price of a PDC. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 21 submits a development plan to the local government and to the Pinelands Commissions` The Commission issues a "certificate of filing" to the developer, indicating that the application for development is complete. After the certificate of filing is issued, the municipality either approves or denies the development plan. If the project is denied approval, the process ends and the PDCs cannot be redeemed. If the municipality approves the project, and the Pinelands Commission assents to that approval, then the development can proceed with the PDCs redeemed in the form of bonus dwelling units. The developer's intent to use PDCs must be made known to the municipality and the Commission at the preliminary development approval stage. If a development is phased, a proportional number of PDCs must be used in each phase. Before final development approval, the developer must show proof of ownership of the requisite number of PDCs (such as the "certificates of ownership issued by the State PDC Bank). The use and approval of PDCs does not create any significant additional procedural delays in the application review and approval process. (c) Progress to date and factors influencing progress of the program One PDC equals four development rights. As of mid-1992, some 474 PDCs (or 1897 development rights)have been scheduled for use and are either approved or are pending, 165 PDCs (659 development rights) have been severed from sending properties and 80 PDCs (323 development rights) have been purchased by developers. In the Preservation Areas, 3575 acres of land have been preserved through the transferring away of PDCs. In the Special Agricultural Production Areas, 603 acres have been preserved. In the Agricultural Production Areas, 1698 acres of land have been preserved. Therefore, as of June 30, 1991, PDC transfers have resulted in the long-term preservation of nearly 6,000 acres of agricultural and environmentally sensitive land. However, about 87 percent of the available PDCs have not been sold or used. In addition, there are several new projects now in the development review process which will be using PDCs. The State Pinelands Development Credit Bank, in operation since 1989, has been very important in generating activity for the program through its educational and marketing efforts. The PDC system is clearly capable of preserving agricultural and open space land in the Pinelands. The linchpin is whether there is a demand for the increased densities which PDCs provide in the Regional Growth Areas. This depends not only on the market for new development in southern New Jersey, but also on whether the infrastructure (especially public water and sewer systems) is in place to support such levels of development in the Regional Growth Areas. Ample receiving sites exist in the Regional Growth Areas. However, many of these sites lack the infrastructure needed to support the densities of development allowed with the use of PDCs. In such areas, developers have had little incentive to try and use PDCs. In addition, some builders have refrained from using PDCs because in many areas there is an adequate inventory of existing unbuilt lots to meet the local demand for new residential development increases in the Regional Growth Areas and the infrastructure is in place to support it, the Pinelands PDC program is likely to become more successful. ss The Pinelands Commission has 30 days to decide whether to conduct an independent review of a proposed development. This determination involves an informal review of the development plans. Every development in the Pinelands approved by a municipality undergoes such an informal review by the Commission, whether or not the project involves PDCs. After the informal review the Commission notifies the developer either that she can rely on the municipality's development approval, or that the development will be "called up" for formal review by the Commission. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 22 Subtle development politics also may be operating at the local level to hinder the use of PDCs. In most communities, the larger residential developments which could use a large number of PDCs are subject to discretionary review and approval by local officials, leaving the door open for local officials to reject a project that they think has a density that is too high. This may be exacerbated by the fact that, under the CMP, the use of PDCs would allow the developer to achieve at least a 50 percent increase in density above the allowable base density. By allowing densities that are significantly higher than what would otherwise be allowed without PDCs, the Pinelands program may actually be discouraging the use of PDCs, rather than stimulating a demand for them. 2. Montgomery County, Maryland TDR Program - Montgomery County's TDR program has achieved enough success and notoriety to become considered the most successful TDR program in the nation for preserving agricultural land. Concerted local government efforts to protect the rural character of a large portion of the County and to fully educate all the probable players in a TDR program were critical elements in the program's success. These governmental efforts, combined with development pressures strong enough to support a market for transferable development rights, gave rise to a mix of private and public forces that has sustained the success of Montgomery County's TDR program. • • • (a) Why and how the program was adopted The goal of the Montgomery County program is to preserve the County's prime agricultural areas and other rural open space in the face of strong suburban growth pressure in the Washington metropolitan area. Throughout the 1970s, preparatory studies and task force reports outlining the necessity to go beyond traditional zoning and land use techniques to preserve agricultural land and rural open space laid the foundation and provided justification for the implementation of a TDR program. These efforts culminated in the adoption, in 1980, of the County's Functional Master Plan for Preservation of Agriculture and Rural Open Space. The TDR program was then adopted through an amendment to Montgomery County's zoning ordinance.' The County's Agricultural and Rural Open Space Plan identified an "Agricultural Reserve" consisting of 110,000 acres of prime farmland, which the Plan determined to be the " critical mass" necessary to sustain agricultural operations in the County. Upon adopting the TDR program, the County amended its zoning ordinance to classify the lands in the Agricultural Reserve as the "Rural Density Transfer Zone," and downzoned those lands to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 25 acres.' A study done in conjunction with the Agriculture and Rural Open Space Plan concluded that, based on " Before adoption of the TDR program, the County initiated a pilot program in and around the community of Obey, located in the east-central part of the County. This greatly helped the County's efforts in educating and convincing the populace that a TDR program could indeed work. The Obey pilot program was in effect for about nine months before the TDR program was instituted county-wide. 63 The County previously had zoned agricultural and open space lands for two-acre to five-acre lots. This density did not, however, significantly curtail new subdivision development and the conversion of farmland; the County had approved residential subdivision plans in rural areas showing four-acre to 15-acre lots. The downzoning was upheld by the Circuit court for Montgomery County in 1983(in an unreported decision) against a claim that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 23 national and regional averages, 25 acres is the minimum needed for a viable farm.°1 (b) Basic structure of program The TDR "sending area" in Montgomery County is the Rural Density Transfer Zone. Landowners are allocated one TDR for every five acres of land, minus one TDR for each dwelling unit already existing on the property. The TDRs can be applied only to designated receiving areas within other zoning districts in other parts of the county. TDRs can be used only for residential development. Each TDR is worth one additional dwelling unit above the base density allowed in the zoning district. Without TDRs, development can only occur up to the base density set forth in the zoning ordinance. Receiving areas for TDRs were originally designated on a case-by-case basis throughout the county's Area Master Plans. Having land designated as a TDR receiving area required an amendment to the applicable Area Master Plan, which would then specify an optional bonus density available to developers who used TDRs on identified properties. By 1987, seven areas had been so designated to re:eive TDPs. In April 1987, however, the Maryland Court of Appeals invalidated this procedure for designating TDR receiving areas.62 • . • In response, the County passed an amendment to the zoning ordinance in June 1987 which created new TDR receiving zones, to be indicated on the zoning map, and outlined guidelines for the County Zoning Board regarding allowable optional densities for sites where developers wish to employ TDRs. The County also amended its zoning map to delineate the new TDR receiving zones (called "transferable development rights zones"). The County uses the same criteria for designating the new TDR zones as it did for designating receiving areas through the Area Master Plans: (1) the ability of planned public facilities to serve the area; (2) the compatibility of the proposed optional TDR density with the density and uses planned for surrounding areas; and (3) the ability of the land to accommodate the optional 61 It should be noted that the TDR program is only one of a package of county and state programs designed to preserve agricultural and land and rural open space. In addition to its TDR program, Montgomery County implemented a Rural Cluster zone to encourage conservation of open space in areas of the county where subdivision development has already eroded parts of the region's critical mass of farmland. Within the Rural Cluster Zone, there is a base overall density of one unit per five acres. A developer, however, can choose to cluster housing on lots of 40,000 square feet in return for retaining the remaining acreage (approximately 60 percent) in open space or for agriculture use. In addition, Maryland has a State Farmland Preservation Program which Montgomery County farmers are free to join. This program encourages voluntary agricultural districts and initiates state-funded purchases of conservation easements. 62 West Montgomery County Citizens Assoc. v.Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission, 522 A.2d 1328 (Md. 1987). As discussed previously,the court held that the process was flawed in that it allowed. increases in density(which the court considered to be a zoning decision) by following planning procedures rather than the state-mandated procedures for zoning decisions. In addition, the text of the zoning ordinance had imposed no upper limit on the density in a receiving area, leaving this decision to the planning process as well. The court noted that the county should have taken the additional step and designated TDR receiving areas and allowable densities in the zoning ordinance itself and on the zoning map. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 24 density.' The transfer of development rights occurs as part of the regular subdivision approval process. The developer files a preliminary subdivision plat with the Montgomery County Planning Board for approval. To take advantage of the optional TDR density, the subdivision plat must employ at least two- thirds of the total number of TDRs permitted on the property. Once the preliminary plat is approved, the developer then files a detailed site plan for approval by the Planning Board. Following site plan approval, the developer prepares a record plat. Prior to record plat approval, the developer must prepare a "Transfer of Development Rights Easement" document for the sending parcel, and a "Deed of Transfer of Development Rights" serving as the private parties' contractual agreement to buy and sell a particular number of TDRs for a particular price. The easement document restricts future residential development on the sending parcel by the number of development rights transferred away. The document conveys the easement to the county as the grantee. It is perpetual and runs with the land. When the developer records the easement document and the deed of transfer, the record plat is approved by the Planning Board and duly recorded. the transfer is complete when the developer records a "Transfer of Development Rights Extinguishment" document after recording the plat. The extinguishment document shows that a TDR has been used on a specific property in a receiving area and is no longer available to be transferred. • • (c) Progress to date and factors leading to success of program There have been an impressive number of transfers to date. Over 5,200 transfers have been approved (that is, with easements accepted and recorded). This translates into more than 26,000 acres of farmland which have been preserved. At the same time, there are transfers in various stages of the process leading to final development approval. The success of the program can be attributed to a number of factors. First and foremost, the County is experiencing pressures for residential development which are strong and constant enough to create a viable private market for both the sale and purchase of development rights. Moreover, as the Agriculture and Rural Open Space plan notes, Montgomery County is fortunate to have a relatively wide variety of receiving areas spread throughout its boundaries, ready to absorb the extra density without straining the demand for public services. Second, density increases on receiving parcels must be at least two-thirds of the maximum density with TDRs. This ensures that receiving areas develop to a sufficient density to sustain market demand for TDRs and to avoid spreading a few TDRs across a large number of receiving parcels. Third, when the County decided to embark on a TDR program, it did so in an extremely intelligent manner. The TDR program was thoroughly planned in advance. Reports and studies identifying the most critical areas in need of preservation were undertaken and later used to pinpoint the boundaries of the Rural Density Transfer Zone. Studies also determined that 25 acres was the minimum necessary to sustain a viable farm. Therefore, the downzoning of agricultural land was based on reasoned analysis and could not be attacked as arbitrary. ® Because the Court of Appeals outlined this very modification as appropriate in its opinion, see West Montjomery,522 A.2d at 1331-32,it is unlikely that the newly-amended zoning ordinance and the TDR program could be successfully challenged in court again. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 25 Fourth, the program is not mandatory. Landowners in the Rural Density Transfer Zone still have the option to develop up to the density of one dwelling unit per 25 acres. They do not have to sell their development rights, even though the program contains strong incentives for them to do so by allocating transferable development rights at one development right for every five acres. The program also inciudes other incentives for using TDRs in new residential developments. The use of TDRs in a development project can advance the project in the County's system for establishing priorities for extension of and connection to public water and sewer facilities, under the County's Ten-Year Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan.` Fifth, the County undertook extensive educational efforts at the beginning to thoroughly explain the program to both buyers and sellers alike. Public meetings, brochures, helpful staff members, and more all contributed to an informed citizenry, so necessary to a program's success'in its infant stages. As experiences in other communities have shown, it is very important to have the public understand the nature and mechanics of the TDR program from the very start. Sixth, the County government, backed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, has devoted itself and its staff wholeheartedly to the success of the program. It did not simply pass a TDR ordinance and let it go at that. Instead, the local government played an active role to facilitate the program by demonstrating the potential for success through a pilot program and by' educating the affected population. The creation and funding of a County Development Rights Revolving Fund further testifies to the county's commitment to the program. The Fund, intended to stimulate market demand for the program, has not been used because interest has been so strong. Finally, the program is made simple and streamlined by its integration into the existing subdivision approval process. 3. East Everglades Severable Use Rights Program In 1981, Metropolitan Dade County,Florida, adopted a "Severable Use Rights" (SUR)Ordinance which put into place a TDR program to protect the resources of the East Everglades. The program is designed to transfer development rights from the environmentally-sensitive East Everglades region of Dade County to lands which are located within the County's "urban services boundary" and more suited to development. Even though the East Everglades program is well-designed, it has not been as successful as originally anticipated. The principal reason for this is the fact that developers in Dade County (outside of the East Everglades)generally have little difficulty getting rezonings to increase the allowable densities for a proposed project. As a result, developers have felt little need or desire to purchase SURs from landowners in the Fast Everglades. (a) Why and How the Program Was Adopted The East Everglades cover 252 square miles of land in western Dade County, east of Everglades National Park. The land is primarily undeveloped and, although it contains some agricultural land, much of the area is under water during most of the year. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, despite the fact that most of the land had very little development potential, land development companies sold 10,000 to 15,000 parcels in the East Everglades with a size no larger than five acres. The Everglades (including the East Everglades and Everglades National Park) are a major recharge area for the Biscayne Aquifer, s. In this plan, particular developable lands are designated for automatic provision of water and sewer services and are ranked in priority categories 1 through 6,with category 1 having the highest priority. Lands designated in categories 4 through 6 upon which TDRs are used to increase density are automatically changed to category 3 upon approval by the Planning Board of a preliminary subdivision plan using TDRs. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 26 which provides the sole source of drinking water for the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County. The principal goal of the County's TDR program is to protect the aquifer from encroaching suburban residential development. This, coupled with the immense public costs that would he required to lay out special infrastructure throughout this wet area and to provide other urban services to the outlying areas, provided the motivation for managing growth in the East Everglades. (b) Basic Structure of the Program A major planning effort which began in 1978 — the East Everglades Resource Planning Project - - culminated in the identification of six different "management areas," each with unique development and environmental characteristics and different capabilities to support additional development, as well as a series of recommendations for managing development within the East Everglades. Based on these recommendations, Dade County passed two ordinances in 1981 to control growth in and to preserve the East Everglades: the Zoning Overlay Ordinance and the Severable Use Rights Ordinance. The Zoning Overlay Ordinance cut the base density for the entire area to one dwelling unit per 40 acres, with no grandfathering of building rights for vacant parcels, whereas prior to the ordinance the East Everglades had been zoned at one dwelling unit per five acres. The Zoning Overlay Ordinance also prescribed the permitted and conditional uses allowed in each "management area,"" and performance standards for the placement of fill, road design, agricultural practices, and other aspects of development. The accompanying Severable Use Rights Ordinance provided for the transfer of SURs from parcels in the East Everglades to other, developable locations in unincorporated Dade County. The SUR Ordinance also set forth the base allocations of SURs to parcels in the East Everglades, provided a special allocation procedure for existing substandard or "grandfathered" lots, established the procedural requirements for transferring SURs, and set forth the various density bonuses granted to a developer who used SURs in the designated "receiving" area. The entire East Everglades area, with its six "management areas," constitutes the SUR "sending" area. The number of SURs allocated to a particular parcel depends on the size of the parcel, the management area in which the parcel is located, the degree of development potential of the land in each management area, the level of reasonable expectations a property owner may have to develop the land.' 65 Dwelling units at a maximum density of one unit per 40 acres), agriculture, recreation, and conservation are the only uses permitted as of right; dwelling units may be established at densities up to one unit per five acres or one unit per 20 acres, but only as conditional uses subject to strict conditions. SURs were allocated to the various management areas as follows: Management Area Base Allocation 1 (altered wetlands, 1 SUR per 5 acres agriculture, and agriculture with existing structures) 3B (agriculture) 1 SUR per 12 acres 3C (transition area) 1 SUR per 40 acres 2A, (Shark Slough, No SURs allocated 2B, saline everglades, FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 27 The wetter and more remote the land, the fewer SURs allocated to it. If a particular parcel is not large enough to be allocated one full SUR, then it is allocated a fraction of an SUR.6' The "receiving" area consists of all developable land in unincorporated Dade County which lies within the "urban development boundary" delineated in the Comprehensive Master Plana` SURs can be "redeemed" in the designated receiving in exchange for density bonuses for residential, commercial, or industrial development up to particular limits established in the SUR Ordinance.' Once the developer proves that he or she owns some number of SURs,'° a developer can use those SURs to obtain these bonuses as a matter of right; approval of the use of SURs takes place as part of the County's regular site plan review for the development project. Even though using SURs entitles a developer to the increased densities, the development must otherwise be consistent with the other standards and requirements in the zoning ordinance. ' The process for transferring SURs is not complicated. SURs can be retained by the owner of the sending parcel, sold to a second party, or transferred to a parcel in a designated receiving area. SURs are transferred by means of a legal contract outlining the additional densities that the developer is eligible 3A, tree islands, and wet prairies) Because the agricultural land in Area 3B has limited development potential (development is possible but only at very high private and public costs), fewer SURs were allocated for Area 3B than for the agricultural lands with existing structures in Area 1. In order to provide maximum protection for the aquifer recharge system,wetlands (Areas 2A, 2B, and 3A) were allocated no SURs. These lands have water at or above the surface for three to nine months during the average year, and therefore could not be said to have any realistic development value for residential or traditional agricultural purposes. The transition area (Area 3C), which is contiguous to the developed Area 1,was allocated only one SUR per 40 acres in order to discourage development there. 67 However, the SUR Ordinance established a one-year "grandfathering' period in which the owners of existing parcels which were not large enough to qualify for a full SUR could "register"the parcel and receive one full SUR. 66 Compared to the number of SURs available in the East Everglades, this is a very large receiving zone. Dade County has 1,973 square miles of land and 24.9 square miles of water, for a total of 1997.9 square miles. While the receiving zone includes only the unincorporated areas of Dade County,this area is substantially larger than the sending zone, which includes only eight percent of Dade County's total land area. 6' For residential developments, one additional residential unit is allowed per SUR. Where the developer uses SURs in a single-family residential district, the SUR Ordinance allows a decrease in the minimum lot size and frontage, and an increase in the maximum lot coverage, from what the zoning ordinance otherwise requires. Where the developer uses SURs in a multi-family residential district,the SUR Ordinance allows a slight increase in the number of units per acre, floor area ratio, and building height. These bonuses allow an overall density increase of about 20 percent in residential districts;however, they do not allow for the construction of a type of housing that is not otherwise permitted in the district (e.g.,no townhouse developments in single-family areas). For commercial and industrial developments, an additional floor area ratio of 0.015 per acre is granted for each SUR used, up to a maximum lot coverage of 45 to 50 percent (depending on the zoning district). 70 To be entitled to the allowable bonuses, the developer who uses the SURs must show to the County that; (1) be or she is the bona fide owner of each SUR being used; (2) the SUR has not previously been used to secure a development bonus; (3) an instrument of conveyance or the use of the SUR has been recorded in the chain of title of the sending parcel; and (4) such instrument restricts the use of the sending parcel to non- residential uses. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 28 for and the restrictions on the sending parcel after the SUR is sold. Once an SUR is severed from the sending parcel, no development is allowed, even though existing structures may remain. As with all other transactions of interests in land, an abstract at the County's public records office describes the property and the parties in all land transactions and notes any restrictions on the sending property, including the sale of SURs, the sale of mineral rights, oil leases, or any other transaction affecting the title to the land. Even though the development rights are severed from the sending parcel, the landowner retains all other rights not previously sold, and can use the land for agricultural and/or recreational purposes, provided that the use meets all applicable standards in the Zoning Overlay Ordinance. (c) Progress to Date and Factors Influencing Progress'of the Program According to Dade County public records there have been only approximately seventy five transfers in the East Everglades to date. Thus, in terms of the land conserved and the water resources protected as a result of SUR transfers, rather than the various other regulations that have been applied in the East Everglades, the effect.has been minimal. Even though the mechanics of the program would seem to set up an uncomplicated and smooth-running process for transferring SURs and to creata adequate -- incentives for landowners to sell SURs and for developers to buy SURs,a combination of factors appears to have undermined the incentives thaf do exist and have left the program with,little inertia, First, adoption of the SUR program occurred in the midst of rather turbulent local politics of the late 1970s and early 1980s, a time of drought and then severe floods, which maintained a high degree of tension and a low degree of cooperation between local landowners, County officials, the South Florida Water Management District, and environmental and recreational interests. The tension did not just grow out of the adoption of the SUR Ordinance; it also grew from the County's decision to adopt much more strict regulations on development in the are and not to commit large amounts of public investment to the drainage and flood control measures that landowners in the East Everglades wanted in order to accommodate and support additional development. This lack of a sense of cooperation may be keeping local landowners, as a symbolic gesture, from participating in the program. Second, perhaps because of the political climate and controversy surrounding adoption of the program, the County does not appear to have made an ongoing concerted effort to distribute special information or to conduct any educational programs regarding the use of SURs. Due to this lack of communication, many people are probably aware of the SUR program, but still may not understand the restrictions, benefits, or mechanics of the program. Third, and perhaps most important, developers in Dade County have little incentive to purchase SURs. Outside the East Everglades, developers were generally able to achieve the densities they want by getting the County to rezone property. The densities achieved by rezoning can be higher than the developers would receive if they used SURs. The penchant of Dade County officials to liberally grant rezonings has been criticized by the press and by the courts." This apparent lack of commitment by County officials to a rational system of managing growth in Dade County has thus undermined the T' See Sanchez., 'Twilightzoning the use of land,'Miami Herald,October 6, 1984;Machado v.Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629(Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1987)(striking down rezoning inconsistent with comprehensive plan); McGaw v.Metro. Dade County, 13 Fla.L.Weekly 1704(Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1988) (same). FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 29 potential effectiveness of the SUR program.'2 '2 The SUR program also may be set up in a way which gives County officials little incentive to actively promote the program. Once a developer proves ownership of the requisite number of SURs to the Planning Department, increased residential density and increased floor area are obtained by right,without a public hearing and special review by the Planning Commission or county Board of Supervisors, as would occur with conditional uses, rezonings, and variances. As a result, local government officials lose some of their discretion in approving or rejecting proposed developments that are more intensive than what would otherwise be allowed. County officials may be discouraged from actively promoting the purchase and use of SURs because they want to retain more control over individual development proposals. FLORIDA: A MDR PROGRAM Page 30 APPENDIX D Preliminary Statewide Future Land Use Map for MDR Proposal By: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council STATEWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP & COUNTY ACREAGE Preliminary Report Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council INTRODUCTION Following the preparation of the Local Government Future land Use Maps in the Southwest Florida Region, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) staff generalized these maps into a Southwest Florida Future Land Use Map. The staff of the regional planning council considered this a valuable tool for regional planning as they examined what local governments had planned for the region as a whole. In the fall of 1992, the SWFRPC was contacted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to investigate the potential for the creation of a Statewide Future Land Use Map, also based on the local government plans. It was proposed that the state's Regional Planning Councils could undertake the task with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council providing the overall coordination and preparation of the final map. An agreement was finalized for the map preparation on December 17, 1992. Thanks should be given to Mr. Ed Mierzejewski and the Center for Urban Transportation Research for their financial and technical support, to Mr. Ben Starrett and to the Department of Community Affairs for their technical support, and to each of the State's Planning Councils for the preparation of the draft maps. Special thanks is given to Mr. Thomas F. Daly and the Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council for their interest and support. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS The land use classification system for the Statewide Future Landuse Map was decided through a series of meetings between the above mentioned parties. Since each of the State's 457 Local Governments had adopted future land use maps that were different, the first task was to create a general land use classification system that could accurately reflect each local map and provide meaningful statewide information. Based on the review of the various maps, the following classification system was selected: a. Agriculture 1 unit per 5 acres and less b. Estates 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 1 unit per 0.9 acre c. Single Family 1 unit per 1 acre to 5.9 units per 1 acre d. Multi-Family 6 units per acre and greater e. Industrial f. Commercia/Office g. Mining h. Exiting and Future Preserves/Conservation i. Major Water Bodies j. Military 1 OTHER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS 1. MOBILE HOMES— Densities up to 7/acre, with trip generation comparable to multi- family, consider as single family. 2. RV PARKS-- Densities up to 20/acre, with trip generation comparable to hotel/motel, consider as multi-family. 3. Scale was the next issue of concern. The conclusion was that the scale of clarity should be Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) at 1" = 2 miles. This eliminates the need for designating most "mixed use" areas, since only the dominate land use can be portrayed at the quarter section — or even quarter/quarter section. - DRAFT MAPS Each RPC had different levels of mapping capabilities and computer equipment. Some RPC's use maps on paper at the FDOT scale, others use AutoCad created flies, ARC/INFO or other GIS coverage. The SWFRPC utilized ARC/INFO running on an IBM RISC 6000 Workstation to assemble the statewide map. COUNTY TOTALS During the preparation of the map, many state and regional agencies contacted the RPC concerning progress of the effort. The Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council saw very rough drafts of the map and realized that statewide acreage would be a useful for their considerations, especially during the discussions concerning a proposal for a Statewide Marketable of Development Rights (MDR) Program to protect rural lands. The SWFRPC was asked by Partners to produce county acreage. The attached table presents these numbers along with three calculations of total potential units envisioned by all local governments. When reviewing these numbers please also use the following considerations: 1. Due to the need for infrastructure and right of ways, overall acreage may need to be adjusted downward by a factor of about 20%. 2. Due to the overall scale of the map, small Landuse items of less than 20 acres in size will not be included. 3. Due to the fact that local maps were generalized, there will be a certain amount of residential units allowed within the Commercial/Office category. 4. Jackson County figures for the single family category were reduced due to potential over estimation. 2 RURAL, INTERVAL AND URBAN AREAS MAP To further assist Partners the RPC was asked to produce a conceptual map to show Rural, Interval and Urban areas as envisioned in the MDR proposal. To do this, the Statewide Future Land Use Map was further aggregated as follows: Rural Areas Interval Areas Urban Areas Agriculture Estates Multi-family Mining Single Family Industrial Existing and Future Commercial/Office Preserves/Conservation 3 n N r 03 �0p to 0 0 0 M N CO N M 0) of 0) t0 N M 0 C) m 0)4c el -- I F- n n 1OM d0 t0 et N .1 CO O ID N 0 10 go e'1 yto O0 e100 m PN Of e'l 01 N N 0 et N t0 C) 94 .- OD n M d C) el 0 W N gt 1 ill d M el eel N ee el M 0 N el f FL N M m )0 00 M O CO r M M O M to .4 40 t0 M 01 0 4- 00 n t0 m n N r N N 0 el r to N m co 00 N 0 O n r N .1 o O N .0 1d 11) • d t0 U5- 05 00 CO CO m C) 0 0) 0) n m _ 0 .- 0 N C) N co (.1 i 0i otei l0 0i O N tti n Nf N t1i O CO iti N d 4 O )n I! 1") f7 d W C) N n n 0 M 10 {A V L''" to r LO 11f 0 M M r to r r 0) r m d O O N O O O O 0 ONO O 0 r O 0 N t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O el et 0) d N ttO N 000000001% 000000 0 0 00 400000000 I O O m m N r 0 s t4 CO M it) t+ N M CO M M M< 30 Cl 0 0 n 0 N 11e^ 0 0 N 0 "'0 5 0 r' N V 01 U) M 0 O 0) co. 00 0 co co d 0 MoT d 0 n .- o N , o 4 N N 0 N M Cl N 0 N N m- n 0 r ) Mtn c14- 1.0 %. 40 N • 10 0) N O r N 3 0 j 4-` N M d ee4m rM CN O M r r .1 . N I Ci i - . d N M N r 0 - .• U . o i ONn 00 N, ^ 0 r N Ma o r A r 0) . 0 0) N ' ,.N m M n.: eD M N t0 n r m a O CO O O.N .00 t0 N t01 N 0 0) 0) tip )tl 10 0 t0 0 O C I M 0 M d n M N N 0 0 r 1% N et O 30 M M CO 0 0) d d P) m .O 0 C I m .- C) ,- 0 O N -e'1 V d O n .-' ae0 t0 if N o r 0i .- : c@ e), r N' M r 1 O O 1 I - "I Q Nt O O O M f0 : m 'W' r r 0 U) n N - �� a 0) d -.O t0' .-0) O N O m -� 1V V r m 0 0). m M d us Ci O% n O: r n m m 0 d Cr) m M m m O i 0 d r N O 0) of .- - O T n N 10 n t0 n d .- O 0 :!) e- >. 4 a M d M e- N -.0; 0 .r of r co .- 30 0 r M :.:4 .-.;. 02 r d: d N. - - 1 11.1 LiJ ff I r M m 0 d 0) M CO N -0 m �M m ID� -; 0 O) N - Q tom.:. r O) t0 m 0 -'T N CC N 0 0 0 - N I r N M M r nm N- N CO 0 CO .- m N) d N M 0 O V 1 e) CO 0 N d N N O 0 r N m C) n et M 10 - '•f T O d N 45tO m M .= m N -. C. 0 r 0) N N 4- ui 0 N n C) N m 'i:'r :N N 00 0 N 10 )0 30 a 1 ; co N M: m CO d 0 N 00 0 M 0 M 01 )0 ) N N f9 N r N r r r r .- r . = i Q1 a m 0 0 C) N ri0 C1 N N' O) N r O' r 0 a 0 O N ie. 0 0) 0 d AN I -.1 Ito to N 0 n 0 n W .- 0 N N. 0 0 d 00 0 N N S d W M 10 M 0 N M n 30 18 .ot.. 30 d N l0 t0 r M I {Y O (0 d 01 )O M sID C) N 0) 0 co ri Oi ei IQ, d N< 0 M f0 0 _"N M r .- N r i- 1 to m Si i0; m >0)--: 30 N M- O U)- r 'n` M -0 r N O N M_. m M 4 % r 40 - 'C, n d M r: 0 'M�: 0 0 N M 0 O V N M n 0) 'al -..0 0 n d 0) d m r I N m d r' m N O Mg r '- r n M 0 01 '..0 CO CO et C) -.m W N CO r n -O N I M CO N m. 0 0:: 00 .- N C) 0 '::NOV .-. 0 0 0 0 ..0`.. 0 t0 W 0 0 to CO N 00 0 CO N N O n 00 a0- N -0 C -'0 V d n - 0 N :0 at O) n V )O r- at M N r e- M N r N r 09 M r N N N :N- r el N N M 40 I i I i t 1 R l a l it 6 iao a o o m 1 tr 0 n 5 (3 _ _ 1 1 1 g .s ` n. •.. 00 a v. _D 7:: n. �Op et y1 `I O� a C N "1 N O E' �O �O M N M �O h e► t� V of O M 4 ; 2 AV '.A oho e •y gI p pp p� �p pp .. pp .. .. ... �D C� O 'V ' — N O -. 0' N N O .p N r N .- O. fO O. 'O E O tn� p .O 00 .. n Y cA .. .-. 00 N 6 A 00 �kn. eft v .. :o h }� .. r h O N s�pQ N 0. pO O V. M ,.. N •77 N b ^ `p t N O •;,!f; Si' 00 Y f 2 A .o .. N A .^. OO h O •O Plr� P'1 VI .r M .-' !•! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO V 0 & 0 0 0 0 0 'V V' 0 00 el. e7 .. h In M N ...i N t` C a0 O 0 a- O O O O O I` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 03 C • •• of i .S 00 N N N Its 1 44 N'; ‘p �`7 :N tr app m Q 8 A V ;.., Oe O 00 > �O t :4. K}` !w Orol ' .A M t w e `ei v� N .N.� ..- - N ..e N a .. N .A.. N .+ vi. is h N M h M t` N e7 h e7 O e ti Oo -- ' g a A -n"'' --'1'....1-4-:, M A A .0 M .. A M .... v)' H H 00 a O C e•� t\ u M v� .-.: 00 a .-e .�.. ,� .-1 Ye A e► M N p�pp Os O. v) by 00 N 0. O e1 n � O � N 4 s N e —' 00 N ) 0 of vi 4 e7 b ''V N ... N- Q 0 0 N 0 00 V N N t!0 cO tV El 1 V ''..—'...----°• h `O '° N M M "-' ec' N of tZ it.' 4 en v' R M (el F.! �s �. P-..-.....-.. ` ONo� 00 r"..-. -' O GO :'O� Q N v a h ...... b we e N O� A .,, .:,, .A.. O , E N - = h a et a eh h .. N h ^ h 000 $ . M V C. Ca i W 0 Q ' %p t` o ,o r .. .. p h N a ., A a ^ t. O h O SC WI v) O O N NO ' 0 v) -00 ^ O VO' ''ve S N A M - O tri M Q O. h MO h ,O h 'R v) N N O .......1'.: oo es oo n h. -vi .0o t: so sO �0 0o a e1 .v9 s vi. e1 `o q .. v: en O v: h e'7 '00 N O ... e7 'I N '0 a M N- a `0 O -:AO 4 co v) •R O. co N of 00 00 N - M a M .. We- N 00 N : M N N N N N :a ^ h ... a a N V a LL N - ... ... .. C 0 0' 0 h N 0 S'0 pp N 0 0 :0 0: N 0 N -'0 -N 0 0 vi O N v) 00 N O` M N i O 'C 00 A '.D 00 A w `Q ��Opp -� Oo e! O ' 00. of N O e3 ... et 000 N O `O a O a 4D .r .O .n 00 v) N 'O in ••. a ,..(:. v) N al �O h in 00 et M % e^i 0 N e� .. N 0 00 a ti .. 0"' r v) .. 00 V N O 4o 'V N .....r. co r a M N 0 V)- N '0 N 'A "N ctsO. N 00 0 0 $ h N -O L. ec.. : 00 v000 'q. e8`!. ..'4)....-vw eZ v� 8o en e: •� .. �t •o s m 0 N .M4.. '0 ems') ~ & 00 .D N - N R .A. 0A) N '0 Q 00 v") `00 'V el L. 00 v o ^ 0 - o C + o h r v w = p yy o0 0 r e S •'e x a r, :o a .4 t c r b : E a M C v v Y e o t a a & a a a a o a sa .m L h r c Q N of '� N t` .- N eA v� �f s V1 ... pq .r m-.. h .__ I `Y O yr O P'1 O t �. `1 $ 4 A - A A 4 '0 - •0 1 A • H gci -'C ' ' fet eteNr ' tt rtN N Cr O O 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 O ' r-- h h C 0 •a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 opo > „= • a) .0 w A rGN 0.1 1 C '�" M •� .Y4 c f 3►: H NO 00 t0 - 47 Q 4� >® '. N 7 ' .. ..r } ... ® " �a is U I i N N' 0 ... a et .-. ... in C 0 et i % i • ..3 • . L. t 0 Vi h O, 00 vs co t. & N. 00 N et .–r 0 N O ON "0 p CY1. ao a: e1 o ''oS r .• q. 4.1A4.1... %0 A 00 00 Q C 0 t- 04) e7 C 0 C .! o E v E V ►• o `a E Z Nas o w e,, z N �an ,.1� V A .7 N 0 i 00 a h 0 O e cam. o . v ...• S .. 1.:;.,. A te' benCCVI V h a V - .r N N Ns N E O N .. N 00 N t` N e•i et' ON -I- ... , O N R N td Vi vs 0 O, h Ps O, C canC 4C'.. '0 I N O �, N W >_ .'+ 'O O' ea w N f P O �O h I i a ^� N .2 ri'N .'eV 'C 0' '0 ^ 0 en — e7 a N N ,12 h � s0 ON �D w en• O VI ,t.-141r O C...) ci' R i ,o ,,,. 4,1 LI) �' ; 0O. Ooers ee .. R ri = .-e A N el N h_ 0O 0, t` O O 0 ..r r.-.11i3 Qv C C- = f � ,, 0 00 w h N I _ eV 00 As e7OA N pelf V 'O yp tpo 00 y.,p 0 y O "" N C C N 0 , V 00 `1 . 00 t' e'!, '..= O`^.w .I= 00 "-' .�0 .Qom.. ail r, O ;el L.� O O 0 O O ' ' i. 0 h -N r' .'iO est .O e,- ..0 -N 00 s0 --N '0-: ... �C+ 00 E ,«_ e! ..N en N N O -O en et 0 %O f- e► en ca0N O G] 2 O 2 .L.L. N it 3 2 co 2 1 ' i ee s v " to .M uM a 3 c ° t a w o C i : < � < a < a 7 V 2 a •-° .a a 4 Q •0 .0 -. v E- f a a to & to CAA t% t% E-- > 3 3 F D F j F F 7!1MeV. i" .M J ‘ ,004011112tor"iiial 2 . .., _ _. _ .. k. k' *a*--_ • ' • �" ef:',..,.'' y r • p 1, 1-4 E j .tr' F... . t } , i • i � f : 4. ems • r x-" 1 _ ,... ,.' - - 1...i.::),::LT.j • N.',-: - t ":" . Ott) Q ` / O 4 \. jfj , _ . \ i ____3' • �- 'Li .r o �: : � ;1'4Q .______-1 ••'4—.4' 0 1 i ---___„4• Cf) ;....4 1.. •( f ----------71\ ;.-4 ,--, 0-, 4D w �/ '.....it P"."4 r /H 7 APPENDIX E Water Markets: A Theoretical Review By: Steven McDonald of Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Water Markets: A Theoretical Review by Steven McDonald, MAE Fishkind& Associates, Inc. October 19, 1993 With the seemingly vast supply of resources, individuals have no means of connecting their minute consumption with a greater total problem, thus we have a problem of A. INTRODUCTION understanding the scale of the issues. Additionally, the majority of individuals simply do not have the. expertise or knowledge to The primary purpose of this understand the nature of our paper is twofold. First, it is my problems, thus we can not attempt to identify some of the understand the scope of the issues. relevant thoughts and issues Lastly, our difficulties with regarding water allocation and efficient resource allocation also • economic � market incentives. 1 stem from our command and control emphasize "some' since there are form of market (i.e. political market) numerous considerations that must b which these resources are be examined before a complete y conclusion can be made regarding tended. Much debate and analysis the development of some form of indicates that economic markets provide better mechanisms for water market or economic market mechanism. Second, based on the efficient production and allocation of goods and services. Conversely, identification of relevant issues, it is command and control economies or my intention to examine the markets have been proven to be applicability of economic incentives inefficient in practice. As James for water allocation and the creation of a water market or market Buchanan observed, "government anizations are rafional mechanism on a theoretical basis. maximizers following their own Further research would provide the endo, rather than passive necessary analyses to support or i agenda, between the reject the conclusions of this legislature and the people." 1 assessment. Therefore, those resources that can As a society, we continue to be allocated through economic have difficulties allocating public markets will be better served. resources efficiently for several reasons. Foremost, our vision as individuals is limited by scale and scope. 1 Miller.Jon,'On the Economics of Western Local Water Finance:The central Utah Experience'.Land Economics,August 1993,pp.299-303 Second, individuals can be excluded from the consumption of a good or service. Consider my earlier example. The provider of my meal can exclude me from eating what I B. ECONOMIC CORE may want or need if I do not pay him or her for the consumption of that meal. Further, I can exclude others from eating my meal once I have Prior to embarking on gained ownership or possession of it. discussions of 'water markets', it is ' necessary to develop several Public goods have complete economic concepts. Foremost, there opposite characteristics of non-rivalry are two basic goods and services and non-exclusion. For example, that exist and our society consumes; when I drive to and from work on a economic and public. Economic publicly provided road, I am goods and services represent the consuming a public good but not in a vast majority of those things manner that . precludes other individuals actively seek and trade. individuals from consuming the same Public goods and services do impact good. Thus, individuals are not rivals most individuals on a daily basis, for the consumption of public goods. however, we do not actively pursue Individuals may have to wait while the consumption of these goods in others use public goods, however, the same manner as economic my consumption does not preclude goods and services. their current consumption. Additionally, it is impossible to Economic goods and services exclude others from consuming have two distinct characteristics of public goods based on some criteria. rivalry and exclusion. These Consider my example of the road, it characteristics are necessities for may be the case that funding for the economic goods and services. The road comes predominately from one characteristic of rivalry simply implies area, however, it would be that when one individual consumes a impossible to excluded individuals good or service, other individuals can from other areas from using the road. not consume the same. For example, if I eat a meal at a restaurant, no other individual can eat that same meal. Thus, individuals are rivals for the consumption of economic goods and services. 2 The second fundamental Since public goods do not concept involves how these goods have the characteristics of economic are dstributed. Based on these goods, command and control characteristics of economic and markets are theorized to provide the public goods, two market structures best allocation of these goods for the exist; economic and command and benefit of the public. There are control. many factors, however, that can interfere with the maximization of As the term implies, economic public welfare. _ markets provide the mechanism for the allocation of economic goods and The accomplishments of services. These. markets operate economic and command and control under forces that determine the markets is mixed. By far, most types and quantities of outputs experts would agree that competitive based on individual demand. These economic markets; 1) provide for the forces are based on rational behavior efficient allocation of goods and (i.e. maximization of individual services, 2) establish the market welfare) of consumers and are value for goods and services, and 3) subjectively measurable. This provide a forum for participation by rational behavior drives the efficient all individuals. All of which can be allocation of goods and services concluded to be in the interests of within economic markets. the public, thus economic markets are valuable mechanisms in our The nature of economic economy. markets range from perfectly competitive where public welfare is However, not every economic maximized to monopolies where market is efficient or in the best public welfare is at its least. Given interests of public welfare. In those our desire to maximize public cases, a combined economic and welfare, our emphasis on economic command and control system is markets is placed on achieving as applicable. One of the best close to perfect competition as examples of this is public electricity. possible. Electricity has the characteristics of an economic good but is shadowed The allocation of public goods by forces which result in a natural and services must occur in command monopoly. In other words, if and control markets (i.e. political unregulated, the public welfare would markets). These markets are be lost at the gain of the producer of characterized by centrally planned electricity. As a result, publicly types and quantities of outputs. The provided electricity must be types and quantities of output controlled by government as well as planned are assumed to maximize economic forces to maximize public public welfare. welfare. 3 Additionally, many experts This fact has a profound would agree that there are needs for impact on the applicability of command and control markets to economic incentives for the simulate similar accomplishments allocation of water resources. In achieved by economic markets. particular, a significant majority of Without some command and control Florida's population resides on the markets, our society would be worse coastal regions of the State. These off than with the existing inefficiency intensive demands on the water of command and control markets. supply in those areas therefore The success of maximized public create problems of. contamination welfare from command and control and salt water intrusion. As Florida's markets, however, is not universally population continues to grow, these guaranteed. problems will also become more prominent. Additionally, the massive water drainage projects in the Everglades area has diverted a significant amount of fresh water needed for a densely populated South Florida area. C. WATER RESOURCE ISSUES Other than location, our current allocation system also contributes to some of our problems. There are two basic types of The discussion of alternative payments for water to include a mechanisms for the allocation of resource and distribution payment. water resources stems from current The current method for paying for and projected water problems. water resources as a whole (i.e. These problems are currently protection of water as a resource) is characterized by; 1) pollutant a resource payment through Water contamination, 2) salt water intrusion Management District ad valorem of fresh water sources, and 3) taxes. Two problems exist with this increasing consumption. In general, resource payment. First, in an these problems relate more to the economic context, this form of location and intensity of public payment for a resource is similar to a demand and not a demand and 'sunk cost' in business. In other supply issue as experienced in words, it is a one-time cost that is not regions in the Mid-west. Thus, affected by the amount of that maximization of the efficient use of resource that is used. water versus conservation of water use is the appropriate goal. 4 Consumers of water therefore do not Further, the next mechanism take into account the cost of water for payment for water involves a , charged thorough • water distribution payment from municipal management districts when suppliers. While these suppliers do consuming water. charge based on consumption, two problems exist with this system. Additionally, there is a large First, the charge for water discrepancy between per full-time consumption through municipal equivalent population payments by supplies only recoups the cost of county which relates nothing to water treatment and distribution not the consumption and an appropriate total cost of water (Water charge for its protection. For Management Districts are example, Dade County contributes commissioned with the responsibility roughly $15 per FTE resident and of collecting for the protection of Monroe County contributes around water as a resource). Thus, the $33 per FTE resident to the South problems with the current resource Florida Water Management District. payment are inherited. These contributions are simply a function of the relative tax value per Second, since municipal person in these areas and not water suppliers base the price of water consumption. Thus, consumers do consumption on capital replacement, not relate these ad valorem taxes to economies of scale create specific, individual water undesirable pricing. For example, • consumption which does not provide those areas with large populations incentives for the efficient use of are sometimes able to take water. advantage of economies of scale and are able to capitalize plant and equipment costs over a significant population base, thus the price per County Per FTE gallon consumed is low relative to areas with smaller populations. Dade $15 Therefore, the price of water in areas Broward 17 with intensive demands is lower than Martin 31 areas with non-intensive demands. Monroe 33 This is counter intuitive to solving our Palm Beach 25 water problems. For example, the Orlando Utilities Commission is able to capitalize costs over a much larger customer base than Lakeland and can take advantage of economies of scale. 5 Thus, residential consumption of The water I consume may 10,000 gallons has a price of $8.63 ultimately be re-used by another at OUC and $11 .60 at Lakeland consumer, however, once I have Utilities. As a result, per capita made use of water in any fashion, it consumption in the OUC service must be reprocessed before another area is 171 gallons per day and 135 consumer can use it as a finished gallons per day in the Lakeland good. For example, if I choose to service area. Therefore, in the area use my water allotment to irrigate my where twice as many people are lawn, you could argue that the water _ drawing water from the ground and simply drains back to its source and placing more burden on the system, can be used by another consumer, there is less incentive to use water thus people are not rivals for its efficiently. consumption. However, because of the contaminants it picks up in my lawn or on the road, it must be processed before another consumer can make use of it. . Therefore, the • water I originally consumed is not the D. Water Markets same for a second consumer. Additionally, consumers can be excluded from the consumption of Can economic incentives water if they do not pay for its use. solve current problems? The answer The simplest means of exclusion to this question is best solved by involves municipal suppliers shutting discussing whether water has the off the supply. In cases where water characteristics of an economic good. is self-supplied in large quantities Recalling the definition of an (mainly agricultural, commercial, and economic good, is water power generation uses), the consumption rival and exclusionary? exclusion from its use would have to Consumers are clearly rivals in the arise from water management district consumption of water. Once I monitoring. Since these users consume a gallon of water, it can not combined represent 96% of fresh simultaneously be consumed by water use in Florida, other potential someone else. Consumers are rivals non-controlable sources are for the consumption of water. insignificant. • 6 In general, water does have What would a full resource the characteristics of an economic payment be per 1,000 gallons of good and could be allocated in an water? If you add all of the water economic market. However, given management district budgets and the relationship of water to our assume that they are 100% under- health, safety, and welfare, any funded, and divide this amount by market will have to be continuously the total fresh water use (excluding regulated. The advantages of an agriculture), a charge of roughly $.75 economically oriented pricing system per 1,000 gallons would fund water will, however, result in the more resource needs. efficient use of water as a resource. • E. Conclusion Water clearly has the characteristics of an economic good and is a viable candidate for economic incentives to maximize its use. The single largest problem with water as a resource is that consumers are not currently paying the full price. While water management district taxes are aimed at re-couping this full cost, this method falls short since there are no incentives for the efficient use of water. A system utilizing prices for the processing, distribution, and replacement costs of water would better allocate water resources in Florida. 7 Excerpts from the 1993 Act merging the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources that relate to Partners for a Better Florida. Section 34. Section 373.441, Florida Statutes, is created to read: • 373.441 Role of counties, municipalities and local pollution control programs in permit precess.— (3) Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council may recommend more specific guidelines to the Legislature to further direct the local permitting rules. The Legislature authorizes the appointment by.the Governor of two additional voting members to the council, one representing the interests of counties and one representing the interests of municipalities. Section 42. In addition to the permit streamlining process created by this act, the Legislature recognizes that market-based incentives and disincentives may create positive improvements in the environmental quality of this state which cannot be fully achieved by the streamlining of the permitting process alone. The Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council and the Department of Environmental Regulation are directed to review and analyze the potential role of market-based incentives and disincentives in the streamlined environmental protection program for this state and to issue a report to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives by January 1, 1994. The report shall include: (1) Recommendations for improving or expanding any siting acts. (2) Short-term and long-term recommendations to achieve environmental protections through techniques other than permitting, which would reduce or obviate the need for regulation, including the identification of new and emerging technologies to enhance and improve environmental quality. (3) The feasibility of linking tax exemptions or credits to compliance with short-term and long-term state and federal environmental policies and programs, including the identification of specific tax exemptions or credits that could be applied. (4) Recommendations for improving or enhancing environmental protection, including natural systems protection. The Legislature authorizes the appointment to the Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council of the additional voting members representing environmental interests, one each by the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. RECOMMENDATIONS LAND 1. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends to the Governor and Legislature the Marketable Development Rights (MDR) proposal as embodied in the legislative outline for the 1994 Growth Management Equity Act. (This is described in detail in the Land Committee portion of this report.) 2. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends to the Governor and Legislature that the state's land acquisition programs be reformed to be more flexible and less bureaucratic. This reform should include recommendations to: 1) improve planning and coordination, 2) review less-than-fee alternatives to purchase, 3)consider other incentive packages, and 4)provide adequate funding for long-term management. This should be considered for land acquisition programs at all levels of government. 3. Partners for a Better Florida recommends creating a voluntary program that would provide federal estate tax relief and other incentive programs for property owners with large agricultural ownerships. This is intended for property in select areas, in exchange for conservation/agricultural easements on the property. WATER 4. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends to the Governor and Legislature the proposed 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act, which removes nine legislative barriers to the use of reclaimed water and encourages water conservation measures. (This is included in the Water and Energy Committee portion of this report.) 5. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection direct the state's five water management districts to include, as part of the Water Management Plan of October 1994, an analysis of the potential for the use of reclaimed water and other conservation measures within each district. This work is to include an analysis of the cost and source of funds for these programs. This analysis should include: 1) location of current and future wastewater treatment facilities, 2) current and future quantities of potential reclaimed water, 3) current and future potential sites for application of reclaimed water, 4) a general estimation of the cost for the types of projects envisioned and, 5) identification and recommendation of adequate sources of funds to facilitate solving problems related to reuse and other conservation measures. 7 ENERGY 6. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council is in support of the following recommendations regarding the comprehensive review of the Florida power plant licensing process : (a) improve the efficiency and quality of the process and (b) improve the balance between economic and environmental considerations. Both of these goals are included in the legislative charge to Partners. Partners recommends that the Legislature, and agencies with jurisdiction, strongly consider the following specific recommendations: 1. include features of the 1993 Jobs Siting Act which specify (a) non-mandatory hearings, (b) simplified time lines, (c) "a just in time" appointment of a hearing officer, and (d) the addition of a public information meeting. 2. bifurcate the Public Service Commission's "needs" determination process into (a) validating that the additional capacity is needed, and (b) determining the soundest way to fill that need. 3. incorporate the competitive bidding process among applicants including non-utility generators. 4. increase incentives for energy conservation, including "decoupling" the existing linkage between increased sales and increased profits. 5. establish an integrated resource planning process which emphasizes least cost energy resource alternatives and provides meaningful opportunity for public input. 6. provide assurance that Florida takes full advantage of its environmentally benign renewable energy resources. POLLUTION 7. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council supports the Florida Pollution Prevention Council's 1993 Final Report in concept and encourages the regulated community to work proactively with the Legislature in formulating implementing legislation. AGENCY FUNDING 8. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council acknowledges that, according to the Department of Management Services 1992 Career Service Salary Survey, the average salary for employees in state agencies is approximately 21 percent below the average salary in other governmental entities in the state. Partners recommends that the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission employee salary levels be brought up to the levels for comparable positions within non-state government agencies to help ensure consistency and continuity in the implementation of Florida's environmental programs. Partners recommends that the legislative appropriations committees and appropriate substantive committees work with the Department and the Commission to identify the costs and funding sources to accomplish this goal. 8 Partners also recommends that the Legislature authorize the Department of Environmental Protection to retain any savings gained through the merger and reorganization of the former Departments of Environmental Regulation and Natural Resources, or through any other cost-saving measures, to be redirected within the agency for staff retention and training. Finally, Partners encourages the Governor and the Legislature to promote, establish, and fund a step system of pay, based on quality of performance, within state agencies. This system should provide for step increases based on a matrix of factors such as quality of performance, longevity, increases in job responsibility, professional certification, and continued education and training. EDUCATION • 9. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council, in recognition of the important role education plays in developing the link between environmental and economic issues, supports the environmental education activities of the Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education and the Environmental Education Foundation of Florida, Inc. which expand public awareness of the benefits of cooperative efforts to promote environmental protection and economic development as set forth in s. 403.0612(7)(f), F.S.. Partners encourages and recommends that the Environmental Education Foundation of Florida, Inc. and the Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education continue to work with the Legislature, the Executive Office of the Governor, and appropriate agencies to develop such programs. Partners request that the Council and Foundation incorporate into their programs, an increased awareness of the potential benefits of market-based incentives and disincentives as a means of addressing Florida's environmental problems. PERMITTING 10. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends that legislation be initiated that would provide the means for Environmental Resource Permitting decisions to be made based on an overall ecosystem benefit perspective. DIRECTION TO CO-CHAIRPERSONS 11. Partners for a Better Florida Advisory Council recommends that its Co-chairpersons represent the Marketable Development Rights Proposal in the 1994 Growth Management Equity Act, the 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act, and other recommendations to the Governor and Legislature through the 1994 session. 9 LAND COMMITTEE The Land Committee, chaired by Jake Stowers, was charged with finding market-based solutions to issues related to enhancing opportunities for appropriate economic development, protection of environmentally important resources, and preserving the viability of Florida's agricultural economy. This committee evolved from the Unresolved Issues Committee. The Unresolved Issues Committee, chaired by Tom Daly, was created prior to Land Committee to look into two issues that were not concluded in year one. These issues were the role of local governments in environmental permitting and protection of upland habitat. While this committee was not able to come to any satisfactory conclusions on these issues, their work included important discussions on several topics. These included an ecosystem mapping approach to planning the state's future as well as extended discussions on the role of local governments and the Department of Community Affairs in directing future development. These discussions led to the work of the Land Committee. The Land Committee folded portions of the unresolved issues into its discussions. The committee focused on a proposal to establish a state-wide marketable development rights program as a "market-based" program to more evenly distribute the property value burdens and benefits of growth management among property owners in the state. This approach would elicit the development market to channel future growth into urban areas while maintaining rural areas for agricultural activities, flood protection, aquifer recharge, wildlife protection, and ecosystem management. Two important principles were central to this proposal; voluntary participation by owners of development rights and maintaining the role of local governments in land use decisions. Partners was not alone, in 1993, in studying the issues of property rights and ecosystem management. The whole concept of ecosystem planning and management was being explored by the newly formed Department of Environmental Protection and other entities such as local governments and private organizations. This "systems" approach was being examined as a new way to approach many of the state's existing programs such as land acquisition, land planning, mitigation banking, and resource protection. The issue of the rights of private property owners was also being reviewed by individuals and groups around the state during 1993. These included the 1993 Legislature and the Governor's Property Rights Study Commission. Because the members of Partners came from such diverse backgrounds, their meetings provided a natural forum to discuss the relationship of these two topics and consider comprehensive remedies to the problems they represent. While the committees primary recommendation is the Marketable Development Rights proposal, several other incentives were reviewed. Marketable Development Rights Program The MDR proposal is embodied in the outline for the proposed 1993 Growth Management Equity Act which is included in this section of the report. This proposal would require the purchase, transfer, and use of the appropriate number of MDRs for all increases in density of residential, commercial, and industrial property for private and public development. A MDR would be attached to the parcel after the local governments' decision to increase zoning and prior to construction. Ownership of MDRs does not ensure a decision for increased zoning by the local government. MDRs would be associated with parcels in the Urban, Interval, and Rural Areas of the state. Rural Areas are those currently zoned 1 unit per 5 acres and less dense, Interval Areas are those at 1 unit per 4.9 acres to 3 units per acre or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or less, and Urban Areas are 3 units per acre or more dense or Floor Area Ratio of .25 or more. 10 MDRs from the Rural Area could be transferred into all three areas. MDRs from the Interval Areas can be used only in the Urban Areas. A special consideration is the Rural 2 MDR which grants additional rights to rural landowners to bring their densities up to 1 unit per 5 acres. These special rights cannot be constructed on-site and can be transferred only to Urban or Interval Areas. Sale of MDRs is at the voluntary discretion of property owners. Landowners that sell their MDRs can later purchase and reattach MDRs to their property as long a conservation easement, prohibiting reattachment, has not been recorded. MDRs can only be used in the county in which they were purchased. When a county has transferred 75% or more of its Rural MDRs, the Florida Administration Commission can qualify the county to purchased MDRs from state land acquisition agencies. Bonuses of twice the number of MDR's will be granted to the seller of MDRs within an Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights that place a conservation easement on their property. These are areas designated for conservation, agricultural or acquisition. Bonuses of twice the twice the number will be granted to the user of MDRs in Rural Economic Development Centers. Each rural county may designate one Center between 100- 640 acres for this purpose. It is anticipated that MDRs will be transferred by deed, have ad valorem taxation,be recorded by the tax assessor of each county, and be part of the real estate market. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that: - the changes in value of real property which result from growth management are balanced among the owners of property which is suitable for growth and development and property which is less suitable for growth and development; - there is a balance or mitigation of "windfalls" and "wipeouts" which may result from growth management; - an effective means is created to conserve rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands through a market-based program; - there is enhancement of the effectiveness of public and private programs to conserve rural, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive lands through acquisition of fee or less than fee interests; and - that there is mitigation for the negative effects of strict governmental restrictions as an alternative to judicial relief. This proposal is explained in more detail in the legislative outline of the next section of this report. A review of existing programs and the legal literature involved in the overall concept of development rights is provided in the appendices of this report. During discussions about implementing this proposal, many concerns were raised about the amount of land in each of the MDR categories, the allocation of existing and future land use densities, the differences between very rural counties and those with large urban areas, the level of information available to guide the success of this 11 concept, etc. Fortunately, over the past several years, many state and private groups have been gathering data related to these concerns and preparing to display it in map form, through geographical information systems. Partners was able to hear presentations from water management districts, regional planning councils, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, local governments and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) on the availability of this information. It was most helpful in working through the practical implementation possibilities for the MDR proposal. To get at the most pertinent combination of this information, Partners contracted with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council to prepare a conceptual map of the Urban, Interval, and Rural Areas described in the MDR proposal. This is provided in the appendix of this report. OTHER INCENTIVES The committee found a natural nexus between protecting the environmental values found in rural parts of the state and protecting the state's agricultural economy. This was particularly true in relation-to low intensity agricultural activities, such as silviculture, and native range for livestock. There are several existing programs in Florida which offer enhanced management processes to agricultural land owners. These provide incentives and resources to properly manage property for erosion control, habitat restoration, good agriculture practices, all of which are important to the protection of the environment. The committee heard from several speakers about existing programs and reviewed other incentive ideas regarding this issue. They included tax relief, agricultural exemptions, best management practices, and regulation streamlining. An attempt was made to provide incentives for the agricultural business community to keep their property in agriculture. This would enable them to enjoy the economic opportunity it afforded and likewise offer to the state and the citizens of Florida, the desirable open space elements of the property. Examples of this concept are forestry land in the panhandle which is important Florida Black Bear habitat, and the range lands of the Kissimmee Valley, which are primary habitat for Audubon's Caracara. Although no specific recommendations were drawn, the committee recommends that the following areas continue to be reviewed and where possible improved. This would provide incentives to agricultural landowners who wish to adopt sound management processes which balance the economic opportunity of the land and natural resources management. - reforming the agricultural exemption program to specified areas were the percent of tax relief is related to the duration of a conservation easement. - creating Best Management Practices (BMP) programs with regulatory and/or tax relief to encourage less intensive agricultural activities. These various programs offer a win-win situation.The owners of property are allowed to continue their economic activity and are eligible for incentives. Habitat is retained for protected species, water supply, and flood protection. Ecosystem values are protected while property owners are allowed to continue their production. The balancing aspect of this program makes all the players want to participate. Specific recommendations were approved in the following areas: - creating a voluntary program that would provide federal estate tax relief for families with large agricultural ownerships. - reforming the state's acquisition programs so that they are more flexible and less bureaucratic. 12 - provide adequate funding and career planning for environmental regulation staff. - initiate legislation to encourage Environmental Resource Permit decisions to be made on an ecosystem basis. In conclusion, the committee has worked extremely hard; many hours have been spent researching and negotiating recommendations. Many of the proposals that were considered such as the tax incentives, agricultural exemptions, best management practices of particular agriculture activities, conversion of low-impact agriculture production to a more intense use, need further review. These need to be refined to reward private land stewards who balance production and envirorunental protection. • The committee feels, however, that the most significant program that can be implemented is one which retains open space, provides economic opportunities, protection of habitat for wildlife and native communities, as well as opportunities for recreation. The MDR program, which is being proposed, offers all of these incentives. It will provide and offer an opportunity for everyone who owns land to be in the marketplace of development. It would direct development to the more urban communities, which is desirable, while retaining the rural areas of Florida, and providing the opportunity to enjoy the natural systems the State of Florida offers. 13 h'irtRKETABLE DEVELOPMENT RIt.,-ATS: FLORIDA'S RESPONSE TO WINDFALLS AND WIPEOUTS Marketable development rights ("MDRs") is a bold initiative in Florida to address the inequities that often result from the implementation of growth management. Too often the burdens and benefits of growth management fall unevenly on property owners. The owners of land which growth management determines to be suitable for development receive a "windfall" in the form of increased value. At the same time, the owners of land which is less suitable for development suffer a diminution in value --a "wipeout". MDRs are one way the economic impacts of growth management can be made more equitable. MDRs is a program which has been developed to respond to specific fairness concerns arising from the implementation of the Growth Management Act of 1985. Mitigation of "windfalls and wipeouts" resulting from the implementation of programs of public policy has been widely discussed in the literature and addressed in the United Kingdom,' see Hagman, D. and Misczynski, D., Windfalls for Wipeouts:Land Value Capture and Compensation (APA Press, Wash., D.C. 1978), however, there are currently no MDR programs in the United States. MDRs is a program whereby existing development rights in the rural portions of the State are made transferable, at a property owner's option, to those parts of the State which are planned for new growth and development. Unlike transferable development rights ("TDRs") where on-site development is banned in favor of the transfer of development rights to "receiver sites," the proposed MDRs program does not Affect any property owner's development rights to develop on-site under existing local government land development regulations unless the property owner chooses to transfer his rights. Instead, MDRs simply makes all existing development rights in the rural and interval portions of the State transferable, giving property owners the opportunity to build on site according to existing land development regulations or transfer his or her development rights to other lands in the County in which his property is located. MDRs is also a response to an unintended by-product of the interplay between growth management and constitutional rights. It is well-settled that the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States provide that a property owner may not be deprived of all beneficial use of his or her property without payment of just compensation. As a result, local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations generally permit on-site development on all property to ensure the existence of an economically viable use even though public policy may otherwise support a ban on all on-site development. This means that the owner of land which is less suitable for development has no choice but to mitigate the economic impact of growth management by developing whatever he or she can on-site, often with an undesirable impact on the very resource that growth management seeks to protect. In addition, MDRs give the property owner an alternative way to realize the value of whatever development rights he or she has under existing land development regulations without resort to cumbersome and time-consuming permitting processes which must be survived in order to carry out even low density development. Under the MDRs proposal, all rights to develop residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses which exist under local government land development regulations, could, at a property owner's option, be severed from the property to which those rights are appurtenant and sold for use at another site within the same county. The development rights would be conveyed by deed and would be treated as an interest in real estate for conveyancing and taxation purposes. 14 BASIC INGREDIENTS OF THE MDRS PROGRAM The essential ingredients of the MDRs proposal for a state-wide, market-based windfalls/wipeouts program are: • a state-wide program to be implemented on a county-wide basis, i.e. rights would be freely transferable within a single county except after 75% of MDRs allocated to the rural portions of a county have been used for development or transferred and where development rights from public land acquisitions by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund are authorized by local government comprehensive plan amendment for intercounty transfer. • increases in density above the density permitted as of right under existing land development regulations would require the approval of local government and the acquisition, transfer and use of MDRs; • • all rights to develop residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses under existing land development regulations in the rural and interval portions of the State would be made transferable; • all property owners have the option of on-site development permitted as of right under existing zoning and land development regulations or the sale of MDRs; • MDRs are freely transferable interests in real property for purposes of conveyancing and taxation; • the allocation and use of MDRs is controlled by local government planning and land development regulations; • MDRs are allocated and used according to the three defined categories of land -- rural, interval and urban; • the would be three classes of MDRs -- Rural 1 MDRs, Rural 2 MDRs and Interval MDRs; • Rural 1 MDRs are based on existing "as of right" development rights under local zoning and land development regulations in the rural areas in the State; • Rural 1 MDRs can be transferred to and used in the rural, interval and urban areas; • Rural 2 MDRs are based on a minimum allocation of 1 MDR per 5 gross acres of land in the rural areas of the State; • Rural 2 MDRs can be transferred to and used in the interval and urban areas; • Interval MDRs are based on existing "as of right" development rights under local zoning and land development regulations in the interval areas in the State; 15 • Interval MDRs can be transferred to and used in the urban areas; • except for land subject to a conservation easement, the owner of land from which development rights have been transferred would be able to purchase replacement rights from other parcels of land; • land located within areas eligible for bonus allocations would be entitled to two Rural 2 MDRs for every one Rural 1 MDR upon the recording of a conservation easement in the chain of title of the property; • Rural 1 MDRs are eligible for a density bonus if transferred to and used on lands which are within a "qualified economic development area" which is designated in a local government comprehensive plan in a rural county; • public projects shall be subject to the requirements for the use of MDRs for increases in development intensity in the same manner as private developers; • MDRs can be used to increase the density of residential or nonresidential development; and • in the event a local government reduces permitted density On-any parcel of land in the future, such reduction in density shall not affect the existence, ownership and transferability of MDRs except that Rural 1 MDRs which are subject to such a downzoning shall automatically become Rural 2 MDRs. 16 ADVANTAGES OF THE MDRS PROGRAM There are manifest advantages that would flow from MDRs as a windfalls -- wipeouts mitigation program. o Conservation of Rural Lands. MDRs would promote and facilitate the conservation of rural lands and help to guide growth to areas which are more suitable for development. MDRs would allow the owners of such lands to secure an economically beneficial use of their property without the adverse public impacts generated by on-site development and without the time and expense of permitting. For example, the owners of agricultural lands would be able to realize the economic value of allocated development rights by selling their development rights for use elsewhere without negatively impacting on the use of their land for agricultural purposes. o Increase in the Amount of Protected Land. The purchase of development rights or fee simple interests is a very effective way of promoting a more efficient pattern of growth and development and mitigating the burdens of growth management. There are, however, insufficient funds available for land or development rights acquisition to conserve all of the rural landscape that could or should be protected. MDRs is a natural complement to public land or development rights acquisition programs and would allow available funds to concentrated on critical resource lands. o Positive Impact on Property Values and Housing Prices. MDRs addresses another difficulty with public acquisition programs -- a reduction in the supply of land and density available for development. Land supply constraints can result in increased housing costs because of the scarcity of available land. The MDR program achieves land conservation without eliminating allocated density from the market supply. As a result. MDRs can help to reduce the inflationary impact of growth management on housing costs. o Market Based Program. MDRs is a market based program which allows the market to adjust for the economic impacts of growth management. In counties where there is relatively little development pressure (and therefore relatively little impact of growth management on property values) the market will ascribe relatively little value to development rights. In contrast, in counties where there is substantial market pressure for development, the market will use MDRs to promote rural land conservation and to balance the benefits and burdens of growth management. In addition, MDRs is a response to a problem which does not involve a new governmental bureaucracy for implementation. The sale and purchase of MDRs is a matter of private commerce and government's involvement is limited to title recordation and development permitting, programs which already exist. The British call the increase in value which results from a windfall as a "betterment" and the wipeout as a "worsenment"._ 17 Chapter 94- AN ACT relating to growth management, establishing a statewide marketable development rights program,providing for definitions,making development rights transferable, dividing the state into rural, interval and urban categories for the purposes of a statewide marketable development rights program; providing for three classes of marketable development rights; providing for the allocation of marketable development rights; providing for a minimum allocation of marketable development rights in the rural portions of the state; providing for a bonus allocation of marketable development rights in special conservation areas; requiring a conservation easement in order to be eligible for a bonus allocation of marketable development rights; providing for the recording of marketable development rights; providing that the allocation of marketable development rights are not subject to downzoning; requiring the use of marketable development rights for development at a density or intensity which is greater than the development permitted as of right, providing for the expiration of local development orders if marketable development rights are not transferred; providing for the transfer of marketable development rights within a single county; providing for the transfer of marketable development rights from one county to another, providing that marketable development rights are an interest in real property,providing for the conveyance of marketable development rights; providing for the use of marketable development rights in the rural portions of the state; providing for the use of marketable development rights in the interval portions of the state; providing for the use of marketable development rights in the urban portions of the state; providing that development rights are convertible from residential to non-residential development rights; establishing criteria for qualified land conservation areas; providing for the designation of Rural County Economic Development Centers; providing for a density bonus for marketable development rights transferred and used in a rural county economic development center; requiring the use of marketable development rights for development carried out by a governmental agency; providing for enforcement; providing for evaluation; providing for preemption; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. 1 Section 1. Title. This act is entitled and may be referred to as the "1994 Growth 2 Management Equity Act.' 3 4 Section 2. Intent. The intent of this legislation is to establish a state-wide marketable 5 development rights program as a "market-based" growth management impact mitigation program in 6 order to more evenly distribute the burdens and benefits of growth management upon property values 7 among the property owners of the State. 8 It is further the intent of this Act to ensure that: 9 (1) the changes in value of real property which result from growth management are balanced 10 among the owners of property which is suitable for growth and development and property which 11 is less suitable for growth and development; 12 (2) to balance or mitigate the "windfalls" and "wipeouts" which may result from growth 13 management; 14 (3) to create an effective means of conserving rural, agricultural and environmentally 15 sensitive lands through a market based program; 16 (4) to enhance the effectiveness of public and private programs to conserve rural, agricultural 17 and environmentally sensitive lands through the acquisition of fee or less than fee interests; and 18 (5) to mitigate the negative effects of strict government restrictions as an alternative to 19 judicial relief. 18 1 2 3 Section 3. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meaning set forth: 4 (1) "Appurtenant" means belonging or attached to a parcel of land. 5 (2) "Area Eligible for Bonus Marketable Development Rights" shall mean an area of land 6 eligible for a bonus allocation of marketable development rights which meets one of the 7 following criteria: 8 (a) a land area designated for conservation or agricultural use in a local government 9 comprehensive plan; or 10 (b) land area identified as a natural resource of regional significance in a strategic 11 regional policy plan; or 12 (c) a land area designated by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission as 13 critical habitat for a state threatened or endangered species or identified by the 14 Commission as a Strategic Habitat Conservation Area or as a Regional Biodiversity Hot 15 Spot; or 16 (d) land area within a protection area for surface waters designated by a water 17 management district; or 18 (e) land located within an area of critical state concern under Chapter 380 F.S.; or 19 (f) land located within a designated purchase area under any government or non-profit 20 land acquisition conservation program. 21 (3) "Average weekday vehicle trip end" shall mean the average twenty-four (24) hour total 22 of all vehicle trips counted to and from a site from Monday through Friday. 23 (4) "Comprehensive plan" shall mean a comprehensive plan as defined in section 163.3164 24 F.S. 25 (5) "Conservation easement" means a conservation easement as that term is defined in section 26 704.06 F.S. 27 (6) "Conservation or Agricultural Use" means land which is used for conservation and 28 agricultural purposes where on-site development is limited to conservation and agricultural uses, 29 including structures normally associated with agricultural use. 30 (7) "Development right" means the right of a property owner to carry out development of 31 his or her property for residential, commercial, office, industrial, institutional or governmental 32 uses. 33 (8) "Floor Area Ratio' means the mathematical relationship between the surface area of a 34 parcel of land in square feet and the gross square footage of building floor area. 35 19 1 (9) "Interval land" means land which is designated for residential densities at more than one 2 (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres and less than three (3) dwelling units per acre or non- 3 residential uses with a Floor Area Ratio five-tenths (.25) or less in the future land use element 4 of the local government comprehensive plan of the local government in which the land is 5 located. 6 (10) "Land development regulations" shall mean land development regulations as defined in 7 section 163.3222 F.S. 8 (11) "Permitted as of right" means development which is not subject to discretion in regard 9 to the magnitude of permitted development. 10 (12) "Rural County" means a county with a population of less than fifty thousand (50,000) 11 persons on the effective date of this Act. 12 (13) "Rural County Economic Development Center" means an area of land in a Rural County 13 of at least one hundred and not more than six hundred and forty (640) acres in area which is 14 designated in a county local government comprehensive plan for a mix of uses which includes 15 commercial retail, office and residential dwelling units organized around a well-planned network 16 of streets. 17 (14) "Rural land" means land which is designated for residential densities of one (1) dwelling 18 unit per five (5) acres or less in the future land use element of the local government 19 comprehensive plan of the local government in which the land is located. 20 (15) "Urban land" means land which is designated for residential densities of greater than 21 three (3) dwelling units per acre or non-residential densities of greater than a Floor Area Ratio 22 of five tenths (.25) in the future land use element of the local government comprehensive plan 23 of the local government in which the land is located. 24 25 Section 4. Existing Development Rights Made Marketable and Transferable. All 26 development rights appurtenant to land in the rural and interval portions of the State which is not owned 27 by an agency of government which rights are created or exist by virtue of local government zoning or 28 land development regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act are hereby made marketable and 29 transferable according to the provisions of this Act. Development rights appurtenant to land in the rural 30 and interval portions of the State which are created or exist by virtue of local government zoning or land 31 development regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act and are transferred according to the 32 provisions of this Act and shall be known and referred to as "marketable development rights." 33 34 Section 5. Types of Marketable Development Rights.There shall be three types of marketable 35 development rights: 36 (1) Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights; 37 (2) Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights; and 38 (3) Interval Marketable Development Rights. 20 1 Section 6. Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights. Development rights appurtenant to land 2 in the rural portions of the State which are created or exist by virtue of local government zoning or land 3 development regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act and are transferred according to the 4 provisions of this Act shall be Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights. 5 6 Section 7. Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights. Marketable development rights created 7 or existing by virtue of Sections 10, 11 or 12 of this Act shall be Rural 2 Marketable Development 8 Rights. 9 0 Section 8. Interval Marketable Development Rights. Development rights appurtenant to land 11 in the interval portions of the State which are created or exist by virtue of local government zoning or 12 land development regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act and are transferred according 13 to the provisions of this Act shall be Interval Marketable Development Rights. 4 15 Section 9. Allocation of Marketable Development Rights. Except as provided for in Section 16 . 10 of this Act, the amount of marketable development rights appurtenant to a parcel of land shall be 17 the gross density permitted as of right under local government zoning or land development regulations 18 in effect on the effective date of this Act. For the purposes of this section, the gross density permitted 19 as of right under local government zoning or land development regulations in effect on the effective date 20 of this Act shall include any rezoning or change in land development regulations granted pursuant to 21 a complete application for rezoning which was pending on the date this Act is signed by the Governor. 22 23 Section 10. Minimum Allocation of Marketable Development Rights. Notwithstanding the 24 development rights appurtenant to land which is located within the rural portions of the State which are :5 'created by or exist by virtue of local government zoning and land development regulations in effect on 26 the effective date of this Act, the owners of all land in the rural portions of the State shall be entitled 27 to and shall be deemed to have an additional allocation of marketable development right such that the 28 total number of marketable development rights allocated equals one (1) marketable development right 29 for each five (5) acres of land owned on the effective date of this Act. The additional marketable 30 development rights created and allocated to a parcel of land pursuant to this section shall be Rural 2 31 Marketable Development Rights. 32 33 Section 11. Bonus Allocation of Marketable Development Rights for Area Eligible for 34 Bonus Marketable Development Rights. The owner of a parcel of land located in an Area Eligible 35 for Bonus Marketable Development Rights shall, upon the recording of a conservation easement, be 36 entitled to two (2) Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights in lieu of each Rural 1 Marketable 37 Development Rights otherwise allocated to his or her parcel of land pursuant to Section 10 of this Act. 21 1 2 Section 12. Marketable Development Rights Not Affected by Downzoning. In the event that 3 a local government modifies its zoning or land development regulations to further limit the use or 4 intensity of use of a parcel of land, such modifications shall not affect the number of marketable 5 development rights which are appurtenant to the parcel of land, provided however, in the event land 6 to which Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights are allocated is subject to a local government 7 modification of land development regulations, any development rights not previously transferred 8 pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall be Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights in the event they 9 are transferred. • 10 11 Section 13. Increase in Density or Intensity of the Use of All Land Requires Use of 12 Marketable Development Rights. After the effective date of this Act, no development shall be 13 undertaken at a density or intensity which is greater than the development rights which are created and 14 exist by virtue of local government zoning or land development regulations in effect on the effective 15 date of this Act, unless the local government with jurisdiction shall have granted a change in zoning or 16 land development regulations to permit development at a greater density or intensity and the developer 17 shall have acquired and transferred an amount of marketable development rights equal to the approved 18 increase in density or intensity. 19 20 Section 14. Effective Period of Development Orders Requiring the Use of Marketable 21 Development Rights. A development order issued by a local government which authorizes 22 development which requires the use of marketable development rights under this Act shall expire within 23 twelve (12) months after the date the development order becomes final unless marketable development 24 rights have been transferred to the parcel of land proposed for development and have been made 25 appurtenant thereto pursuant to the provisions of this Act or the development order otherwise expires 26 pursuant to the terms of applicable local government land development regulations. 27 28 Section 15. Transfer of Marketable Development Rights Limited to a Single County. 29 Except as provided in Section 16 of this Act, no marketable development rights may be transferred from 30 a parcel of land in one county to a parcel of land in another county. 31 32 Section 16. Transfer of Marketable Development Rights From One County to Another 33 County. In the event that seventy-five percent (75%) of the Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights 34 and Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights in a county have been developed or transferred and made 22 I appurtenant to a parcel of land for development pursuant to this Act, the County may petition the 2 Florida Administration Commission for a determination that the County is eligible for transfers of 3 marketable development rights acquired by the State of Florida or a water management district under 4 section 373.069 F.S. which are appurtenant to real property situate in other counties. If the 5 Administration Commission determines that seventy-five percent (75%) of the Rural 1 Marketable 6 Development Rights and Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights in a county have been developed or 7 transferred and made appurtenant to a parcel of land for development pursuant to this Act, the 8 Administration Commission shall issue an order authorizing the transfer of marketable development 9 rights from other counties provided that such transfers shall be limited to marketable development rights 10 acquired by the State of Florida or a water management district under section 373.069 F.S. as a part 11 of a land and water conservation program subsequent to the effective date of this Act. 12 13 Section 17. Marketable Development Rights Are an Interest in Real Property. Marketable 14 development rights shall be considered an interest in real property for all purposes including ad valorem 15 taxation. 16 17 Section 18. Conveyances of Marketable Development Rights. Conveyances of marketable 18 development rights shall be by deed in accordance with the requirements of Florida law for the sale and 19 conveyance of real property. Each deed or conveyance relating to marketable development rights shall 20 be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in which the marketable development rights are 21 transferred from or to and shall be included on the daily schedule of deeds and conveyances furnished 22 to the tax assessor by the Clerk of the Circuit Court pursuant to section 695.22 F.S. 23 24 Section 19. Marketable Development Right Appurtenant Upon Use or Recording of Deed 25 of Transfer. A marketable development right shall be deemed to be transferred and made appurtenant 26 to a parcel of land when a deed of transfer is recorded on the chain of title of the parcel of land to 27 which it is to be transferred. 28 29 Section 20. Recordation of Allocated Marketable Development Rights. The tax assessor 30 of each county shall establish an entry or other recording in the assessment roll for the county which 31 shall indicate the number of marketable development rights appurtenant to each parcel of real property 32 on the roll. The entry or other recording shall be included in the first assessment roll which comes due 33 after the twelve (12) month anniversary of the effective date of this Act. Thereafter, the tax assessor 34 shall update the number of marketable development rights appurtenant to each parcel of land each year 35 as a part of the preparation of the assessment roll for the county. 36 37 23 1 Section 21. Transfer and Use of Rural 1 Marketable Development Rights. Rural 1 2 Marketable Development Rights may be transferred to any parcel of land in the rural, interval or urban 3 portions of the same county, including parcels of land located in incorporated municipalities. 4 5 Section 22. Transfer and Use of Rural 2 Marketable Development Rights. Rural 2 6 Marketable Development Rights may be transferred to any parcel of land in the interval or urban 7 portions of the same county, including parcels of land located in incorporated municipalities. 8 - 9 Section 23. Transfer and Use of Interval Marketable Development Rights. Marketable 10 development rights from the interval portions of a county may be transferred only to parcels of land in 11 the urban portions of the same county, including parcels of land in incorporated municipalities. 12 13 Section 24. Use of Marketable Development Rights from Lands in the Urban Portions of 14 a County. There shall be no marketable development rights appurtenant to lands in the urban portions 15 of any county except for marketable development rights which are transferred to parcels of land in urban 16 areas from the rural and interval portions of a county. 17 18 Section 25. Marketable Development Rights Convertible from Residential to Non- 19 Residential Use. Marketable development rights may be converted from one use to another according 20 to the following equivalency ratios: 21 (1) One (1) dwelling unit equals 1000 square feet of commercial floor area. 22 - (2) One (1) dwelling unit equals 1000 square feet of institutional floor area. 23 (3) One (1) dwelling unit equals 800 square feet of office floor area. 24 (4) One (1) dwelling unit equals 2000 square feet of industrial floor area. 25 (5) One (1) dwelling unit equals that portion of a recreational or entertainment 26 facility or attraction which generates ten (10) average weekday vehicle trip ends. 27 28 Section 26. Marketable Development Rights Can be Transferred to a Parcel of Land from 29 which Such Rights have been Previously Transferred. Except for parcels of land which are subject 30 to a conservation easement, parcels of land from which marketable development rights have been 31 previously transferred may be developed provided that marketable development rights are acquired and 32 transferred to the parcel. 33 34 Section 27. Designation of Rural County Economic Development Centers. Each county 35 may designate in any part of the county including within an incorporated municipality one (1) Rural 36 County Economic Development Center in the county's local government comprehensive development 37 plan. 24 1 Section 28. Bonus Density for Marketable Development Rights Transferred To Rural 2 County Economic Development Centers. The use of marketable development rights transferred to and 3 used for development of parcels of land in an economic development center of a county shall entitle the 4 developer to construct two (2) times the density or intensity of use otherwise permitted by the transfer 5 and use of marketable development rights. 6 7 8 Section 29. Marketable Development Rights Required For Increases in Intensity for Public 9 Development. The requirement for use of marketable development rights in Section 7 of this-Act shall 10 apply to any increase in the intensity of the use of any property for any public.development which is 11 greater than the intensity of use permitted under local government land development regulations in effect 12 on the effective date of this Act. 13 14 Section 30. Preservation of Local Government Planning and Zoning Authority. Nothing 15 in this Act shall require any local government to approve any particular application for a local 16 government comprehensive plan amendment or an increase in density or intensity under local zoning 17 or land development regulations. 18 19 Section 31. Protection of Existing Development Rights. Nothing in this Act shall limit or 20 modify the right of a property owner to carry out any development otherwise permitted as of right by 21 local government zoning and land development regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act. 22 23 Section 32. Enforcement. Any party, any aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined 24 in section 163.3215(2) F.S., or the state land planning agency may file an action for injunctive relief 25 in the circuit court to enforce the provisions of this Act. 26 27 Section 33. Evaluation Evaluation of this Act shall include the following: 28 (1) Each county government, as part of its ongoing planning program, shall include within its 29 evaluation and appraisal report on its comprehensive plan as required under s. 163.3191, F.S., an 30 evaluation of the use of MDR's within its jurisdiction. 31 (2) Each county government, as part of its ongoing planning program, shall include within its 32 evaluation and appraisal report on its comprehensive plan as required under s. 163.3191,F.S., an 33 appraisal of the effectiveness of the 1994 Growth Management Equity Act in meeting the intent of the 34 Act, including recommendations of action which can be taken by the county government to increase 35 utilization of MDR's and to further the purpose of the Act. 36 (3) The state land planning agency shall submit to the Legislature a report by January 1, 1999 37 on what legislative action, if any, is necessary to increase utilization of MDR's and to further the 38 purposes of the Act. 25 1 Section 34. Preemption. It is the intention of the Legislature that the provisions of this Act 2 shall apply statewide and no agency of government or any political subdivision of the state shall take 3 any action which would prevent the effective and successful implementation of this Act. 4 5 Section 35. Severability. If any court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any provision of this 6 Act to be invalid, then such judgment shall not affect the validity and continued enforcement of any 7 other provision of this Act. 8 9 Section 36. Effective Date. This Act shall become effective on July 31, 1994. 10 26 WATER & ENERGY COMMITTEE Introduction Background Water is vital to the citizens of the state and to Florida's economy and natural environment. Today Florida is concerned over its fresh water supplies. The concern is about quality (water more saline than before) and quantity (excessive withdrawals in some areas). While there is disagreement on the extent and cause of water problems in Florida, there is agreement that ways must be found to use this resource wisely. Managing the water supplies of the state requires sound regulation of water use, effective planning for meeting future water supply needs, and adequate financing of water supply facilities. From its passage in 1972, the Water Resources Act directed the water management districts to undertake data collection and apply research necessary to determine the availability of water. This program is now coming to completion with the development of Water Supply Needs and Sources Studies. These studies, to be included in the November, 1994 District Water Management Plans, will estimate the needs for water by all use sectors for the next twenty years and will evaluate the availability of water to meet these needs. In areas projected to have inadequate water supplies, the water management districts will work with water users to identify alternative sources and conservation measures which are necessary to avoid existing or future water supply problems. Within these projected problem areas, the pressure will be greatest to finance water supply development projects which typically will be more expensive than conventional approaches. Focus The Water and Energy Committee's charge was to study water and related energy problems and issues outlined in Partners' enabling legislation. Emphasis was to be placed on identifying possible market-based incentive approaches to promote water conservation and to protect the water resources of the state. The incentives were to enhance the economy of the State of Florida while protecting and improving the environment and to promote "partnering" between business and environmental representatives. Early in its discussions, the committee identified expansion of the availability of alternative water sources as an important area of consideration. Subsequently, it became clear that reuse of reclaimed water not only represents an alternative source of water but contributes to conservation by freeing up higher quality water for uses that require that level of purity and reserving these sources for future uses. Reclaimed water also cam improve water quality and provide recharge to local aquifers. Therefore, the committee narrowed its focus to investigating market-based incentives to encourage water conservation and reuse of reclaimed water. 27 Energy was also discussed in relation to the need for and siting of new power facilities; however, the committee spent most of its time working with water issues. The energy issue was taken up by the Council as a where, and its recommendations on this issue is included in the Recommendation section of this report. Activities The committee's work included gathering background information and hearing from speakers with specific knowledge of the state's water problems. The committee met nine times. Meetings were attended by 16 invited speakers, plus representatives of the South Florida Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and other interested parties. Speakers ranged from representatives of state and local government, including water and wastewater utility managers, to economists, agricultural interests, and consultants. Each individual presentation was followed by extensive discussions between the committee members and speakers. The committee diligently sought to determine new and innovative approaches to dealing with Florida's water crises. Three of the committee meetings were intensive work sessions for reviewing existing state policy and environmental legislation and drafting the committee's recommended legislation. The committee reviewed how various forms of our market economy could be integrated into the planning and use of the state's water resources. Steve McDonald, an economist with Fishkind& Associates, assisted the group in these discussions. His report on Water Markets is included in the appendices of this report. While this approach is not recommended by the committee, it was valuable in our attempt to understand how markets interact with public resources. Findings The committee determined that certain disincentives exist that are actually barriers to reuse projects and/or conservation improvements. The committee discussed many areas that could benefit from legislative change but focused on nine legislative reforms that eliminate current disincentives and/or create new incentives for water conservation and reuse. These nine reforms are: 1. -Sprinkler Systems -Requires a device to prevent overwatering and watering of landscaping and lawns during rainfall. 2. - DEP Policy - Incorporates improvements to Florida's award-winning reuse program. 3. - Individual Water Metering - With certain exemptions, requires metering to provide feedback to the user on his water consumption which would offer cash incentives to conserve. 4. - Public Service Commission - Gives the PSC the authority to assist the water management districts in evaluating the technical aspects of economic feasibility portions of permit applications 28 5. - Xeriscape - Requires local governments to enact and use ordinances that require xeriscaping as a water conservation me=asure. 6. - Financial Assistance - Gives the water management districts the statutory authority to provide grants and loans for water conservation and management efforts. 7. -Plumbing Fixtures -Requires new structures to use water-efficient faucets, water closets, and shower heads. 8. -Wet Weather Discharge-Within certain DEP limits, allows backup discharges to surface water, of reclaimed water during wet weather conditions, for reuse projects. 9. -Aquifer Recharge - Eliminates the prohibition of recharge of the Floridan and Biscayne aquifers with high- quality reclaimed water from domestic wastewater sources. These nine reforms are incorporated in the proposed 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act, which was drafted by the committee. Various presentations convinced the committee that some form of funding is needed as an incentive to help get reclaimed water from discharge points to reuse customers and promote other water conservation measures. Possible funding sources discussed included: (1) self-funding by the water and/or wastewater utilities, (2) increasing the ad valorem taxing capability of the water management districts for reuse projects, as the Southwest Florida Water Management District has recently done with their New Water Source Initiative, and (3) creating a trust fund to help fund reuse projects by charging a fee for the withdrawal of surface and groundwater. Rather than duplicating prior work, the committee reworked a bill previously drafted by Representative R. Z. (Sandy) Safley calling for a water use charge to create a trust fund to support various water resource programs. After much deliberation, the committee concluded that before it can recommend a specific funding program, additional information is needed on existing and projected sources of reclaimed water, potential reuse customers, costs, and existing and alternative funding sources. Recommendations As a result of the activities and findings of the committee, two recommendations are made: (1) The potential and funding needs for reuse and conservation should be included in studies conducted by DEP and water management districts. (2) With the support of the Governor's office, the State Legislature should adopt the incentives recommended by the committee by passing the proposed 1994 Water Reuse and Conservation Reform Act,which is presented in the following pages. 29 TILE 1994 WATER REUSE AND CONSERVATION REFORM ACT DRAFT JANUARY 1994 1 - SPRINKLER SYSTEMS This provision provides a requirement that new sprinkler systems include a device that measures soil moisture and automatically regulates the sprinkler system so that landscaping and lawns are not over-watered or watered during rainfall. Section 2. Section 373.62. Florida Statutes is amended to read: 373.62 Water conservation; Automatic sprinkler systems. Any person who•purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system after (the effective date of this Act) shall install, operate and maintain a rain sensor device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation cycle of the sprinkler system when adequate rainfall has occurred. Concurrent with the development or next review of a local government's Land Development Regulations provisions shall be included to implement and enforce this section. Such regulation may provide f,r exemptions from this requirements fcr reclaimed water systems. 2 - DEP FQLICY This section is identical to the reuse bill proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection for the 1994 Legislative Session. This section incorporates several of the key recommendations made by the Reuse Coordinating Committee (includes representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection, the water management districts,and the Public Service Commission)for improving Florida's award winning reuse program. This section includes provisions to refine reuse feasibility study requirements, ensure consistency between Department of Environmental Protection and water management district permits, allow inside uses of reclaimed water, and clean-up reuse-related terminology to provide state-wide consistency. An act relating to reuse of reclaimed water; amending s. 403.064, F.S.; Section 1. Section 403.064, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 403.064.Reuse of reclaimed water.— (1) The encouragement and promotion of water conservation, and reuse of reclaimed water, as defined by the department, are state objectives and are considered to be in the public interest. The Legislature finds that for those wastewater treatment plants permitted and operated under an approved reuse program by the department, the reclaimed water shall be considered environmentally acceptable and not a threat to public health and safety. (2) , All applicants for permits to construct or operate a domestic wastewater treatment facility located within, serving a population located within or discharging within in a critical water resource caution supply area shall prepare a reuse feasibility study eval•: • • .. : •: : •• - = ••:: water as part of their application for the permit. Reuse feasibility studies shall be prepared in accordance with the department's guidelines and shall include, at a minimum: La) Evaluation of monetary costs and benefits for several levels of reuse, Sb) Evaluation of water savings if reuse in implemented, (c) Evaluation of rates and fees necessary to implement reuse, ((I) Evaluation of environmental and water resource benefits associated with reuse, and (e) Evaluation of technical constraints, (f) Development of a schedule for implementation of reuse, including consideration of phased implementation. 30 (3) A reuse feasibility study is not required if one of the following conditions is met: (a) The domestic wastewater treatment facility has an existing or proposed permitted or design capacity les, than 0.1 million gallons a day or (b) The permitted reuse capacity equals or exceeds the total permitted capacity of the domestic wastewater treatment faciiity, b- • .i.' _ w . • •Z. •. • . . • • .. . . •. .. . .. . .. .. •• .. • . • !. ... . • ., .•. .. (4) Reclaimed water may be used for inside activities, including toilet flushing. fire protection and decorative wester features. as_well as outdoor uses, if domestic wastewater treatment facilities are constructed. permitted. and operates in accordance with department rules, (51 Permits iced by the department for domestic wastewater treatment facilities shall be consistent with requirements for reuse included in applicable consumptive usepermiq issued by the water management district, to the extent that such reouirements for reuse are in accordance with the department's rules governing reuse of reclaimed water. This subsection =lies only to domestic wastewater treatment facilities that meet both of the following conditions: (a) The facilities are located within, serve a population located within, or discharge within water resource caution areas and r) The farilit e<: are owned, operated. or controlled by a local government or utility which has responsibility for both water supply and wastewater management. - (¢)(4) Local governments May and are encouraged to implement programs for the reuse of reclaimed water. Nothing in this chapter shall be constructed to prohibit or preempt such local reuse programs. (7 A local government that implements a reuse program under this section shall be allowed to allocate the costs in a reasonable manner. (8 Pursuant to Chapter 367,the Florida Public Service Commission shall allow entities which implement reuse projects to recover the full cost of such facilities through their rate structure. (2)(7) In issuing consumptive use permits, the permitting agency shall take into consideration the local reuse program. f Q)(S)A local government shall require a developer, as a condition for obtaining a development order,to comply with the local reuse program. Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law. 31 3 - INDIVIDUAL WATER METERING Most people want to conserve water. Metering of service connections has been shown to be a key component to obtaining conservation. Measuring how much water is consumed by an individual encourages conservation in several ways. Metering provides important feedback information to the user, similar to a speedometer on a car. Unless one knows how fast one is going (how much water one is using) it is difficult to make the proper adjustments, such as braking (conserving), to get the desired end result, such as driving the correct speed (or using less water). Will simple lifestyle adjustments, like turning off the tap while brushing one's teeth, make a difference? Or are more comprehensive adjustments, such as installing a low flow toilet necessary? Without a meter there is no way to know. Without a meter an individual user has no baseline against which to measure the effect of his or her changes in water consumption behavior. Metering may provide important cash incentives to conserve. When water is assigned a monetary value, it takes on more importance in most people's lives. Many water customers are charged a simple monthly fee (or access charge) for ti eir water usage. Under this scenario, the user receives no monetary incentive to conserve as there is no monetary penalty for the amount of water used. By pricing water on a per gallon basis, customers are encouraged to use only what they need since each additional gallon, or 1,000 gallons, adds to their bill. Without individual metering, it is impossible to implement any type of gallonage charge, and thus, one big economic incentive for conservation is lost. Section 4. Section 373. , Florida Statutes, is created to read: 373. Individual water metering -public water supply systems, Individual water meters shall be required for each separate occupancy unit of new commercial establishments, residential buildings, condominiums cooperatives marinas and trailer mobile home and recreational vehicle .arks f•r whi h . isn i .mm-n . • _t.11 1 1 This r•.uir•m•n hall ....1 whether .r not the facility is engaged in a time-sharing plan. Individual water meters shall not, however, be required: (1) In those portions of a commercial stablishment where the floor space dimensions or physical configuration of the units is subject to alteration as evidenced by non-structural element partition walls, unless the utility determines that adequate provisions can be made to modify the metering to accurately reflect such alterations. (2) For water used in specialized-use housing accommodations such as hospitals, nursing homes, living facilities located on the same premises as. and operated in conjunction with, a nursing home or other health care facility providing at least the same level and types of service as a nursing home, convalescent homes. facilities certificated under Chapter 651.Florida Statutes.college dormitories,convents. sorority houses,fraternity houses, motels. hotels, and similar facilities. (3) For separate specifically designated areas for overnight occupancy at trailer, mobile home and recreational vehicle parks where permanent residency is not established and for marinas where living on board is prohibited by ordinance, deed restriction, or other permanent means, 32 4 - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMIS ION Most water management districts require utility applicants for consumptive use permits to submit economic feasibility studies as part of their application to use water. Reuse economic feasibility studies, for example, include sections on the cost to: treat existing wastewater to meet higher treatment standards, distribute the reclaimed water to the site of use, and upgrade or revise on-site distribution lines. The studies also include sections on what the resultant rates to customers will be under different reuse scenarios. Typically,the Public Service Commission (PSC)hires staff with expertise in evaluating utility infrastructure costs and water rate calculations. It makes sense for agencies to share expertise rather than expand that expertise in- house at great expense. To this end the districts, DEP, and the PSC have all entered into Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's). Revising Section 367.011 F.S. simply gives the PSC the statutory authority to fulfill these MOU's, i.e. the authority to allow PSC staff, upon request, to review water, wastewater, and reuse economic feasibility studies to assist the water management districts in evaluating applications for permits. Section 5. Sxtion 357.011, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 367.011 Jurisdiction; legislative intent. The Public Service CommissionIPSC) shall,upon request. assist a water management district or the Department of Environmental Protection in the review of economic feasibility studies associated with District or Department water u e wast-water and reu e ermittin: are'ram Thi . si tance ma .e •rovided for water mana:ement .i ria • D-.. •n .ermi "n' •f ..• P "uri •iti•nal • d non-'uri dictional utilities. Nothin: in this Section shall be interpreted as expanding the jurisdiction of the PSC. 5 - XERISCAPE The Xeriscape concept includes an entire array of design and plant options to efficiently use irrigation water and maintain an attractive landscape. These features include: appropriate mulch products and applications, use of native and drought-tolerant plant-species, drip irrigation systems, design of landscape for efficiency, alternative materials and species for lawns, etc. The following statutory language requires local governments to enact and use ordinances that require the use of Xeriscaping as a water conservation measure. This would include using these techniques in landscaping design of new public projects including parks. Voluntary use of Xeriscaping has been encouraged in the past but has meet with local resistance or unsatisfactory implementation. This requirement will further the use of this water conserving technique, provide supply incentives, demonstration projects, and educational opportunities for local governments. Section . Section 166.048, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 166.048 Conservation of water; Xeriscape.- 33 (2) By Ootobe*-1-992 July 1. 1995 the governing body of each municipality shall eensider enacting ordinances requiring the use of Xeriscape as a water conservation measure. . - . ••_ • _ • - - •• -• • - - . -.•. •. • . -.- •.•.•";:.• • ..'.. . • :. :• •: : : : • . The governing body shall also use Xeriscape in, aroind. or near facilities-narks—arid other common areas under its jurisdiction which are landscaped after the effective date of this act. Further, the governing board shall consider promoting Xeriscape as a water conservation measure by: using • , -, . . • • , providing public education 1on Xeriscape, its uses as a water conservation tool, and its long-term cost effectiveness; and offering incentives to local residents and businesses to implement Xeriscape landscaping. • Section . Section , Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 125.568 Conservation of water; Xeriscape.- (2)By October 1, 1992 July 1. 1995 the board of county commissioners of each county or city council members of each municipality shall consider enacting ordinances requiring the use of Xeriscape as a water conservation meas•ire. If the-bearlet, • . . . ' • r be of signi€cant-benefit-as-a-w rala the-cast- e-imp . .... : ' ::.:: ..•: •::• :. _: . • : --':•, .• : .::. : -:. - -. : Xoriseape-erdiannee.The board shall also use Xeriscape in. around. or near facilities. parks. and other common areas under its jurisdiction which are landscaped after the effective date of this act, Further, the board of county commissioners shall consider promoting Xeriscape as a water conservation measure by: i , , providing public education on Xeriscape, its uses as a water conservation tool, and its long-term cost effectiveness; and offering incentives to local residents and businesses to implement Xeriscape landscaping. 6 - FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Revising Section 373.0392 F.S. gives the water management districts the statutory authority to provide grants and loans to various applicants for the purpose of water conservation and management purposes. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 373.0392, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 373.0392 Financial assistance.— The governing board may provide grants or loans under such terms and • conditions as it deems proper to qualified local, regional, federal, or state governmental entities, or other non- governmental entities, for the purpose of implementing water conservation, reuse, stormwater management and other water resource programs. Any loan provided by the district under this section shall be repaid within 30 years at such interest rate as determined by the governing board. The governing board shall promulgate rules, as provide in Chapter 120, to determine the standards under which an entity shall be qualified to receive a grant or loan and the criteria for the distribution of such funds. Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming law. .34 7 - PLUMBING FIXTURES This section brings Florida's standards for plumbing fixtures up to national levels. This would require construction of new structures to use water efficient faucets, water closets, and shower heads. Section . Section 553.14, F. S., is amended to read: 553.14 Water closets, maximum quantity of water per flush; shower heads and faucets, maximum flow rate; exceptions; penalty.- (1) This section may be cited as the "Water Conservation Act." • (2)(a) After September 1, 1993, no new building shall be constructed which: 1. Employs a tank-type water closet having a tank capacity in excess of 34 1.6 gallons of water, or 2. Employs a shower head er-f ueet that allows 2 flow of more than an average of 3 225 gallons of water per minute at 60$Q pounds of pressure per square inch, or 3Employe a fauc.A that al.ows a flow of more than an average of 2 gallons of water per minute at 80 pounds of rte' in ch - 8 - WET WEATHER DISCHARGE During wet weather conditions, the demand for reclaimed water normally declines. As demand declines, the reuse utility must either store excess reclaimed water or dispose of the excess through a permitted backup discharge mechanism. Since long-term storage facilities are land-intensive, expensive, and may reduce the quality of the reclaimed water, facilities continue to seek means to facilitate the permitting of backup discharges. Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, allows for surface water discharge of effluent which has received advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida. The Indian River Lagoon System and Basin Act also allows AWT discharges in the Indian River Lagoon System. This section of the bill adds a new subsection to Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, which will allow backup discharges statewide if the reclaimed water meets AWT quality. Lower levels of reclaimed water may be accepted if the applicant demonstrates that surface water quality standards will be met. In some circumstances, this will facilitate permitting of backup discharges for reuse projects. Section X: Subsection (7) is added to Section 403.086, Florida Statutes: f7) fa) For purposes of this subsection, a backup discharge is a surface water discharge which is used in conjunction with a reuse system.permitted under rules adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection which provides reclaimed water for irrigation of public access areas_residential properties, or edible food crops. Backus •i char. - are ac ivat_• durin' •-riod •f reduc=• demand for reclaimed water in the reuse s stem generally during wet weather periods. Backup discharges permitted under this subsection shall be limited to the flow permitted for the reuse system and shall not be activated for more than 30 days in any year. (b) This subsection applies only to backup discharges as described in paragraph (a). 35 (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter or Chapter 373. discharge of a reclaimed water meeting the standards set forth in subsection (4) shall be presumed to be allowable, and shall be permitted in all watgrs in _e_s_tai_e ata reasonably accgssiblepoint_wheresuchslischa_rge results in minimal negative impact. This •r• in, ion If . lew.•ill •f •. ku• •i ch.r. • m. re •v•r,,m• •nl • a semen tr.tisn at •n• •r msre of the following conditions would occur: 1. The discharge will impact an Outstanding Florida Water. 2 The discharge fails to meet the requirements of the antideeradation policy contained in rules of the Department of Environmental Protection. 3. The discharge will impact Class I or II waters, 4. The discharge will impact waters identified by the Department of Environmental Protection as requiring more stringent nutrient limits. 5, The increased volume of fresh water contributed by the backup discharge will seriously alter the natural fresh-salt water balance of the receiving water after reasonable opportunity for mixing, id) If one or more of She conditions.described in paragraph(c) has been demonstrates. remedies may include, but are not limited to. the remedies included in subparagraphs 1. through 4. of paragraph (b)of subsection (5). fe) Lower levels of treatment shall be permitted if the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that water quality standards will be met during the periods of discharge and all other requirements of this subsection are met. if) Any backup discharge shall be subiect to the provisions of the antidegradation policy contained in rules of the Department of Environmental Protection. • (g) It shall be the policy of the Department and water management districts to allow the use of reclaimed water during wet weather periods to.augment lake levels. Operators of reclaimed water systems are also encouraged • desi. ste to s r•vide fir e mana.ement •f l.kes s r tormwater s tems b treatin! exc:, water from such lake bodies in the treatment facilities for distribution through reclaimed water systems, 9 - AQUIFER RECHARGE Indirect potable reuse involves the use of high-quality reclaimed water to augment surface or ground water supplies which are used for drinking water. This concept is receiving increased emphasis and interest in the Tampa Bay Area and in Southeast Florida. One major institutional impediment to indirect potable reuse projects is Section 403.859(7), Florida Statutes, which prohibits discharge of any wastewater, regardless of treatment level, to any formation of the Floridan or Biscayne Aquifer containing less than 500 mg/L of total dissolved solids. This section of the bill simply eliminates this blanket prohibition for recharge with high-quality reclaimed water from domestic wastewater sources. The prohibition on use of other wastewater will remain unchanged. Any injection of high-quality reclaimed water from domestic sources will be subject to very stringent Department of Environmental Protection rule requirements. This will provide opportunities for utilities to develop indirect potable reuse projects in water scarce areas, while protecting the quality of the water resource and the public health. 36 Section Y: Paragraph 403.859(7), Florida Statutes, is amended to read: (7) The artificial recharge by the direct pumping of treated or untreated waste into any geologic formation of the Florida Aquifer or the Biscayne Aquifer containing total dissolved solids of 500 milligrams per liter or less, except such injection of reclaimed water from domestic wastewater treatment reuse facilities presently-being a cod ep mentbefereJune 1, l989,-ot if the following conditions are met: .. • - • , • .may --epe at' -wh-ieli-ne .. .•- : . - ' . peur • • - ••. . .• . , . - -• •• • .• • .. • ..' : .•• •— :•• . cal (e) The effluent quality must meet the water quality standards established by the Department of Environmental Regulation as part of the permit for te- et the treatment facility. • Q) ( ) By January 1, 1984, The Department of Environmental Protection Regulation shall promulgate by rile effluent standards for any project proposing wastewatef reuse of reclaimed water by injection in the Floridan Aquifer or Biscayne Aquifer. Any injection to geologic formation Qf The Floridan or Bis cayneAouifgr containing total dissolved solids of 500 milligrams per liter or less shall meet the requirements of these rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection, (e) At th e-c'E�--ef-the 2 year cp e-atieinfl1-ta r., • • • s c: • . .. r.. tweaeily distnihn4eti to npct&t, impaBial iii-e xper4eneattooai-au.•• ' • . • • • - •. • •. •.. shall .:. •. , (4) In the event a facility does not receive g an epefatieu permit for injection which assures compliance with department rules promulgated pursuant to this subsection, the treated or untreated wastewater waste shall be returned to the wastewater sewage-treatment plant from which the wastewater was diverted during any testing period required by department rules the 2-yeaf-pefind or another legally acceptable reuse or disposal alternative. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to treated or untreated waste currently discharging into the Florida Aquifer or Biscayne Aquifer on June 22, 1983. Any expansions of the existing facilities are subject to the requirements of this subsection. 1. The British call the increase in value which results from a windfall as a "betterment' and the wipeout as a "worsenment." 37 • — C O o -• v m > c - L •-• 0 V Pi 4 7 0 U �. r L .J O L 0 0 .0 L N ✓ ✓ O r 1) ^ • ••••• gl > • 4 • ....1. W L e E C •• L. O N U L 1 C 0 • • 11 E 110 03. • CI•^) I p O . - O • 0 C�. • • .10 VI 01 A L .-. C 0 ' > 9 0 0 4 A 0 C L• oll O 0 ✓ ✓ • • - • O ✓ 0 0. O t. C C D • - •• N 7 N E •o• •C N ✓ 4 4 • 7 • .. • 7 0 ✓ • 7 O C U Cl7 U N E r7 0 V V C▪ • E 0 • _ • > N 0' 0 w • • 0 ,•.1 • • • • .0 O V A Z '0 • • > a • 7 '- Cl - - v • • b. ,. O O.. •••I 0 1• 4 - • • • • C • U o • .• C 0 • .• V - • - - • .0 _ y • N O N 00 .. • • 17 - - - • 0 .0 • V • •1 o - • O E E• C �. ..1 • 0 a 0 .- 7 - •1 4 -• • ; - - 7 E - 0 - y E V ✓ • o a • V C E• 0 • a 0 E • .o > • .0 0 L N 3 ^ • •• . • E ••• E• U _ 0 � • _ -3 • C Cl. _ • O o • -• 4L. >• • 4 Cl O 4 ^� - • y 4 7 1 IA c • Cl ✓ • - - • E ' - 0 0 • L • rr .• • - • U - O 2 •U `• 4 -+ CO • 7 • n t> 0 •- 0 0 • - - - O 4 7 • Z 0 4 0 -- .4 N PI S N .O 1'. O P .Si p4 . � ..4 N N N N N N N 'N N N 1rf PO tJ •$ C 0 w . y W -0 V ..4 .. . ... .. . • w O v .Vi a+ • • O w • 4 v C • > 7 O C M V 'V �• • ••U• C 14 4 0. V • C O > y V O • O 4 C • O w L. M • _ • C V C N 4 C V 4 C 0 O •` M N • • _ • A O O r• O w C O w L. N 10 • 0 > N N .•n 4. V O 4•1 C O O • 4. t • L P ••1 w C • O w a 0. 0 •••1 •• C y • O P O4.1 • PI •1 A• LI 4 O a - • • 1 r •• N , •. O a J • O1 A C O O A 0 - N • a C E w •- to a •O C C O O • 4 w O V a • • • w • O• • - - r• O a O A C a O V E w C •• • V 4 ., • - -0 4 4 O. • L. y 4 a C • • • 'Oi ..-1 O % C a C •. C O O 11 it w o • - V ✓C O w y O 0 •. O a O O E .- 01 w • 11 of A 4 L. .•1 E L. E C O a • • a • of U • w •O O E 01 0 0 0 .•4 • _ L p a < C O. OCA O C . ••1 • 1 • 4 0 w «. C w E U w • .1 y • y • C 0. > y C O 7 O o O 4 > • • •C ., • p ••y • O L O 0. E 4 w • • •••1 y • a CC 0 r1 ••1 y U 0. 7 b 0. 4 • N • U W ✓ 4 • O) •>. CCOOL 0 A C C • V > L O C C C 4 O w w 4 w 4 • - • y w w O L 0 L. E • O. V .0i •0 • N • y - • 4 • O 7 O > 4 0 7 N 0 y U 9 O 0 E, N O 0. CO 4 V O O O U 7 C V p < U U < 4 C 4 4. • •••• • IC N N • L CC a - ; u s w 00 f-1 • O O a • v 4 • 7 • 7 Z •1 O 4 O .~ N h 4 01 i A 10 P 0 .4 N M J 01 .O A 0 P 0 .•• 0 .-• N M 9 111 .O n 0 P M .•1 ..• N .••1 N N N N N N N N N N N M H U) r C O W - o' > - v - • el - • E • • m , • .1O • - - - D • X • • •• - C .. • O • 4 • • T y • OP •• • • C _ .. • A • • • • • •• ✓ - MO V S P E • - E - - C T • .. 4Ls E • •• E • •• v_ • N • ; • o - 4' °.. > .. .. •, - - -V 4 4 4 . - • 0 R • 9 . • 4 O • C • • 0. - • �1 - C • v - .. - _ c EE _ •Ilv u c • :-... o _1 qqY 7.: o IL WI CC i - ' 3 V N ...0 E IO O t 7 • O V Q •• H W. tO C1 .4 N M J 1A .O n C P .4NN .4N NNN . r4 N '4 .,4 .4 N N N N U • N C O lad - .. - w •0In O, D • ' . I . • . _ . • ! • . . _ • . .. o • a ...'i o D • � c � a - D o •+ 4 7 - N N P 4 • 4 T O - N E E 4 • E O N - 7 4 et O O T E OC l. • • 4 • ✓ • V C - 4 L • 4 4 T • N ' C C C O C C 0 D • O L .7 ° 1.• w .+ v N O t ✓ + C _ N C V 4 , O C N O , O • ✓ D c ✓ ✓ . E J E V r1 4 L. .0 O C _ C • - bE v •.-I O 4 r •,. E O h - O C W D ✓ y ✓ E 9 2 • > N O 7 L O O .. •.• N O 1.1 14 E G C ° EB 4 ✓ C C V v • o 7 Z Lo Nf 4 • A G. dqq t•- • • l.• 0 0 P 0 .� . NM 11OhCP 4 .4 '4O y O P1 O ,N4 N M N ,flN ►. b0 • U • N ^^ • fa 0 ' 4. n .+ r 9 VI _ a 7 . v N e n L • C = A 7 O n • C 47 n> 4 cE y O v 00oc 7t u I- u w -i• cl "I c • " ;IC 0 • . u cn. t I. ✓ •E • _ c .Ci �� .... o L. n c A a •0 V • 4 ' •. II C O 7 E e • e e E • - C• O n • C • 0 c E 7 4 = E •11 ? . N O. > • •' • a • • ., . O u 2 4 E •• v C • 4 s . E • .. . - O C O O e • 7 O 3 r r 7 E E > • M C r •i • C a 4 C C *0 w r. -.4 •• - r E • 7 4 • ... C 4 ✓ • C t • O 4 r r e _ ••1 e 4 • I. o t. s ., CC n e ••• . r e 0 o 0 • 7 N30 • ] ' . O O • a to • s V .- o 4.6 4 Z a x s .. .. .o c LL H N H J 1.0 •O h 4 •` O .•. N H J W .O P b O. N N N •J N N O O .y .y .. .. ,.� N M .. N N N N N N N N N N N m N N N N N M: M V • C O w m > • • E • . r • o s • • n M O i r L 4• N • - U • ° •- LL .. N H J IA •O 1. .0 P o .. Csi H J. • f 0 0. o .. O .+ .. .. .. .. N N N N N N N N N N h VI {J _ c • • '' t..“ ._ VI PL a - C 0 M ✓ • • .0 E E • q O • h. .•I • > ✓ E A a C > • 14 4 O {. Q O. ~i a ig E 4 4 - • - ✓ C w 4 • 3 N E 0 - • ., C o • .4. y •• • K r• 4.) . • d C Y C N • ::: i i43' ' •O b N .. to 9 2 !! .. O • E a • ..1 G 4 E C. ? ri •• 0. O • L. a w t+. .•i t. . 's5 O .1 O M V > MI N •.4 .- .•y O O .. 4 h a O U • 6 4 Z 0 a •C C ' 4 X OOD O 0 •-•1 h O CI L. e01 01 r0 -1 N M J •f1 •O h b P 0, . .. 4 ..,J . .i .-1 N N N N N N N N N N M cs M U • M C O M •• M Sal - • M WI - ` • 9 • L • • • • 4• .. - • • a o U• a - • - i - a 1 - t C 0 - • W Z O • .0 '0 0 • - • - •.q E • w U 0 • L • 12 V > - • - .a • ✓ O N G V 0 - - j . L.L. r6 • S O. •a 3 4.1E 4 - - - - '0 4-- h 9 4 - t - a N E 0 a °'' - C - C E A O O 7 ;f. .. N C - C 0 • 0 • - • } C 4 .. 0 r > - O o > 0 h y • - • N a •'� .'r • . • - 0 C • .ar 4 7 ✓ E _ 0 _ -••r O 0 N • C0 A a • O 7 C • y � - - - - O E h E • p U O p .' • • • - y O a 01 C o • ✓ y o - a - o 'a • >� U O; E 0 U c E E • - E la '0 - E E o V ✓ L. O • 0 0 E 9 - 3 O O - CI \••� L.O V O - L.C .0 • • O 4 = '0 • -0 L. 0 a R O tic 0 < ✓ O:0 y 4 > •• 0 O -0 G c 1 •.+ 0 0Ct C > G 0 S O ✓ 0 G L N .` OO C - y -'11.1 • ✓ O - • E O M ✓ a E a �i . s a N , U U a o 0 s t C . o '0 c0 I.. . O E 0 } . ti •b 0 C .0 A • U GO � G lr O .a N M T 01 .0 P O P 0 .-1 0 .. NM4. W `OnapPo .4 .l M .y 'y 'yO n C .-40' N0 N N N N 01 01 N N N M M ' N C O M N V V 4 0 L A V 0 C aeL 9 V C 7 N la L 0 2 N C O M Y • ••1 • V • 1. a C O Y u M L A N V L 0 S C, Z M .4 N M .T N .O P 0 0• C. .l N M 1 IN n 0 0' 0 .. N H 1 N .O I's 0 O• o .4 G .4 .-� .41 .-I .i .1 .4 ./ ./ N N N N N N N N N N N M MI U U • 4 C W • o itM O. C • M 0 4 • M M m •1 ►0 U O V '0 Z 4 N 2 • . .1 C 4- 0. • .0 .4 O 1- O C' >.4 ow C. M 4.0 • 00.0lea 1400 •V'OV 0 0M✓ ••4/C>0.•+00 C 014 00 ✓V C >OM>4>•.1• U 4 C 4 ,4 <44.i•✓E4 C 0 004• L O ee 4•C41.4•00elle E .4+ •••2 V V.+0 0 V u t1 4 0. 4 r o -.+ C M 4 4 d C C✓ 0 C 4 7 4 Le el •O 4M a 4.1 OI 4CC.1 a 0460 0 M • 4 V N .-1 0.0404V> 4 • >OM L 0. >. 4.t0 OM CO 0>. •t Of 0 a. CC O.4 C7 EM 4V '00 .I0 2 4 < 4M 0 4 0 0 C C J _ 0•Cb A C 4 0 0 0 at 1 Z: ✓3 CIM0C4+/ ✓OI ✓O M U ✓ 42 000E 4 4+-4= 4 LaOA U>.0M00 a 42✓ P 0 0 SOA .0.+ ✓O C V O „4 > 47 4lee MV 440 4t '00M .. M in 4 4 C .ICV O.0 04•P •00 • 4+ D COC••C 04 uC ,,.1 4 0 144.44! 001 4 7 4 4 • 4+ X 00 eel UO'4EC4 >.0 '0.44 y C lea04 ✓EM0 • UM 0.10 O M>v4Coa+M>. C ea MA • a 4 4M 4 4•U.I .+ 0 a O.0 E L 0 4. C41✓E 0./4-/ OIC 0 0 4 4 0044CO4E✓./ 40 404 Cl. C V 017•4 4 4 4 4 4 C 0 41.414'0E-1,-400! CM 3 C w 4 CC 4>O CC7.$0.4.0' './4 .10 Y Mr 0.4.lM '4 I.O C. 0.'1 .1.- 0•C U 4. O 6.4114.41424 • 4 M010 L • Y G> 0.+0.1 0✓ elu./ 0 t O C S C>.0 C>C UC 40.0 4 a ✓4+O •4 0M0 0 U 4 7 01 E4 04E.+E 4E M•E M 0 I 4.4CO4✓•C4C •0. .1.14 V t M 0.0......0 4 0 A OIO L 4 43 4C-4.4477.4 CH./ 70 OatC 2 V N •7> RV OI O'>O> O'> 4M .1 1 4 0 C 7 V O O C O C 0 0 4 4• .. 4es 000A440C•0• C .. CV tOt C> 0 .-1 .0M 0.✓ _ 0 .il 4 b p .+ N .7 J ./1 `C P O P 0 .+ N .•1 J VI d h 0 P 0 N ..1 ,1 VI d Is. 0 Cr, o ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: March 28, 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4: 00 p I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - March 14, 1994 IV. Old Business a. Ad Hoc Subcommittee Status Report- Golden Gate Estates b. LDC shortcomings c. Manatee Protection Plan Comments V. New Business a. Clam Bay NRPA Project Plan VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: NRD Staff FROM: Teresa Thomas, Natural Resources Sr. Secretary DATE: 24-Mar-1994 SUBJECT: Procedure for EPTAB Bill Lorenz has requested that staff following the following instructions for doing the EPTAB minutes and agenda: * Everyone has received a copy of the EPTAB Procedure, please get yourself familiar with this procedure. * The person taking the minutes needs to set up the Agenda for the following meeting, prepare the minutes and make sure the Action Items are addressed. * The person taking the minutes need to have the minutes completed and given to Pat Cookson by the Thursday, 8 : 00 a.m. following the EPTAB meeting. This will allow Pat time to get the minutes mailed out to the EPTAB members. * All handouts should be mailed out with the minutes and agenda and anything after this deadline will have to be handed out at the EPTAB meeting. * Once the Agenda has been given to Pat, she will then send this to Mike Davis for approval. Since I will not be here to take care of these things please be considerate of Pat's time being spent to work with the Natural Resources Staff. Pat is willing to help out if needed, please feel free to call her for assistance. :tt c: William D. Lorenz Jr. , P. E. , Administrator File WILSON MILLER TEL : 813-643-5T" 16 'Apr__ 04 94 14 :33 No .016 P .0' PTA& Y751/454 54 &O;e/..4 Wa11/1 g70/71,744-Ale; t fi r� 3301 East Tamlarni Trail • Naples, Florida 33962.4977 ' g John C. Norris (813) 774-8097 • Fax (813) 774-3602 District 1 O N Michael J. Volpe District 2 Timothy J.Constantine District 3 March 24 , 1994 Burt L. Saunders District 4 Bettye J. Matthews !(j P774 7 f ,76 -S District 5 1-r15:7'1 /5 s DoA,/2_ 4I 7-/c)¢ ISCC n.c)C, EP TJ // 2) 7 b /-(A-rte Ac R '5 E7t,/ 7 F-r� V ' e s c-u s g�`- 1--a O Ms. Dorothea P. Zysko . . . . _ - /�ce....CFiaiar • Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board 6654-A Tannin Lane Naples, T'L 33942 Dear Ms. Zysko: Thank you very much for your letter of March 22 , 1994 in reference to your suggestion from EPTAB to our Long Range Planning Department. By copy of this letter I have asked County Manager Neil Dorrill to place the item on a future County Commission agenda and to notify EPTAB so they pay make the appropriate arguments when the discussion comes . forth �- arguments ) Again, thank you for your letter. If I m.y-be of further assistance, please feel welcome to contact me. I ar in this office daisy. Very t ly yours, I Timot, y Constantine,, Chairman Commi•.s ' oner, District 3 TJC:ec cc: County Manager Neil Dorrill ENdlt, .,�t is 3�cROUTING DATE: ___�_'�j'�✓j���.,� I ACTION: March 22, 1994 INFO: _ „,4 The Honorable Timothy J. Constantine Chairman, Board of County Commissioners FILE: Collier County Government Complex 3301 East Tamiami Trail Administrative Building Naples, Florida 33962 Dear Chairman Constantine: By copy of this correspondence, the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board requests that the Board of County Commissioners direct the Long Range Planning Department to prepare language for the upcoming plan amendment cycle that could permit "clustering" in Natural Resource Protection Areas under certain circumstances. It was the consensus of our Board that the absence of this tool in the Growth Management Plan could work against our efforts to conserve lands in Natural Resource Protection Areas, since the plan only permits one dwelling unit on five acres. Clustering, therefore, on smaller lots in exchange for preserving larger areas could provide an additional incentive for natural resource protection. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 440 /4jttaie; Dorothea P. Zysko Vice Chairman Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board cc: Dick Clark, Community Development Services Division Stan Litsinger, Long Range Planning Department Barbara Cacchione, Long Range Planning Department Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Division Mike Davis, Chairman, Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board Members DRAFT: 3/15/94 APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF March 14,1994 Present: Gary Beardsley David Land Nancy Payton Robert Duane Derek Hodgin Christopher Hagan Dorothea Zysko Steven Means Notified Absences: Mike Davis, David Maehr Staff: Bill Lorenz Dick Hartwell James Hatcher Kevin Dugan Kimberly Polen Lisa Douglass Barbara Cacchione Public: Fran Stallings Tony Polzios I. Meeting called to order II. Roll call 1. Introduction of New Member of Derek Hodgin 2. An updated list of EPTAB Members and addresses was handed out. 3. LDC Procedures and Natural Resources Policy 010 was handed out to the EPTAB members. III. Approval of Minutes: 1. The minutes of the February 14, 1994 were approved 5 to 1 abstention. Gary Beardsley wanted clarification on abstaining without filing appropriate paperwork, with finical burden. Staff is checking with the County Attorneys office on this issue. IV. Old Business: a. Status Report for Subcommittees Gary Beardsley wanted to add to the agenda a mini status Report on the Golden Gate Estates subcommittee from Chris Hagan and the happenings of Army Corp field trip that occurred the morning of March 14, 1994. Dorothea Zysko stated she believed it to be a good idea to always have an item on the agenda for reports from the sub- subcommittees. She further stated that it was more appropriate to call these committees Ad Hoc Committees. Kimberly Polen summarized the discussion to three specific issues; Vegetation, Wildlife and Hydrology. Discussion under each heading was to include restoration opportunities. The following members were appointed to consider specific areas: 1) Dave Maehr- large mammals; 2) Dave Addison- small animals; 3) Gary Beardsley- Vegetation; 4) Chris Hagan- Hydrology, and these would be reported the next subcommittee meeting. Staff agreed to put together a draft bibliography with information relayed to North Golden Gate Estates. This Draft would be submitted to the EPTAB committee for their input and comments. Chris Hagan stated the boundaries were North of Alligator Alley and East of 951. He stated he wants to include every general report in the bibliography. He explained that a lot of the issues have been looked at before and that it would be beneficial to look at these reports and not recreate the wheel. Steven Means joined the meeting. Gary Beardsley summarized the group's theory to layer information, and if possible update the information. He said their "Major Goal" was to answer: Is there any resource of value functions in North Golden Gate Estates that needs to be protected? b. Field trip with the Army Corp Gary Beardsley reported on the status of the Corp field trip. Gary Beardsley stated that the County and the Army Corp are negotiating to see if they can come up with some kind of delegated authority agreement. Basically, it focus down to Golden Gate Estates would be in two Parts. One Part would be under a general permit, and one part would be under Army Corp. The County would have a information process where they would look at an area for it's location within or outside the general permit area. If you are inside the general permit the county would issue the permit in house. If you are outside the general permit then the Corp would review the permit. David Land joined the meeting. Bill Lorenz stated if EPTAB members wanted to address the Natural Resource issues we can assist you, however if you want to address the details of the agreement you would need the Development Services to be present. Gary Beardsley suggested Barbara Burgeson be present at the next EPTAB meeting to clarify the general permit agreement. Basically, the County is trying propose when a person comes in and applies to the permit, and it is in the general permit area, they will ask if it in the below the threshold limits established. If it is outside the general permit area, and/or is above the threshold limits the Army Corp of Engineers will review the permit. c. BCC Approval of the NRPA Program Bill Lorenz updated the members on the Board of County Commission decision to proceed with the NRPA Program utilizing Clam Bay as an example. They also wanted a procedure or guideline to follow. Dick Hartwell is preparing a Project Plan for the work to be completed at Clam Bay. Staff is currently brainstorming ideas on Clam Bay. The next decision will be to decide which NRPA and what set of NRPA to bring back to the board. Dorothea Zysko asked if that was going to be based on staff's ability to handle the workload. Bill Lorenz explained that he has allocated 2 Full Time Employees(FTE), for this program, and that staff need to establish a system within that allocation of time. David Land stated he believed staff should prepare and complete Clam Bay before continuing further. Nancy Payton inquired to the time frame for completion of the Clam Bay NRPA. Bill Lorenz stated that they are currently working on a task timeline and completion plan for Clam Bay. It should be ready for the next EPTAB meeting. d. LDC shortcomings/NRPA Protection Mechanisms Barbara Cacchione, Long Range Planning discussed the Transfer of Development Rights. Various options were discussed. David Land explained the problem was that there is no economical incentive to use TDR. Barbara Cacchione said that the TDR has not been utilized recently, more incentive to use the PUD instead of the TDR. The only way to make the TDR system work is more regulations. She stated she recently received a copy of Partners Proposal State TDR which has new information. She state she will distribute copies to EPTAB members. A MOTION was made by Robert Duane that EPTAB ask the Board of County Commissioners to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Land Development Code to allow clustering for the density requirement in NRPA's. The motion passed 7 to 1. This motion would submitted in a letter to the Board of Commissioners by the Chairman and Robert Duane. e. Manatee Protection Plan Comments Kevin Dugan reported that the State may have some changes to the Manatee Protection Plan. However, he would like EPTAB members to provide written comments on the draft plan. Gary Beardsley inquired about the letter from Commissioner Tim Constantine to the Army Corp of Engineers. Bill Lorenz stated that we would obtain it and distribute copies to EPTAB Members. V. NEW BUSINESS: a. Gary Beardsley stated that he recently received a copy of the Florida Panther Habitat Protection Plan- November 1993. He stated there is some good information in the back of this document. The back 19 pages of Methods of Habitat Protection could be utilized for and during the NRPA Program. It has a list of each agency's responsibilities. Bill Lorenz stated staff make copies of the document and distribute them. The subcommittee meeting for North Golden Gate was scheduled for Thursday March 24., 1994 at 7:30 a.m. b. Bill Lorenz informed the members that the Strategic Planning for the County would be held on March 29, 1994. Various discussion took place about the definition of "Quality of Life" and where Environmental issues fit in. VI. ACTION ITEMS: a. Staff distribute copies of the letter Commissioner Constantine sent to the Army Corp of Engineers. b. Staff copy the "Method of Habitat Protection" from the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan- November 1993, and submit to all of the EPTAB Members. Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA DATE: March 14 , 1994 PLACE: Collier Government Complex, Health & Community Services Building, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 216 TIME: 4 : 00 PM I. Call Meeting to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1994 IV. Old Business a. BCC approval of the NRPA Program b. LDC shortcomings/NRPA Protection Mechanisms c. Manatee Protection Plan Comments V. New Business VI. Public Comments VII. Adjournment DRAFT: 3/1/94 APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF February 28, 1994 PRESENT: Mike Davis David Maehr Steve Means Christopher Hagan Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Gary Beardsley NOTIFIED ABSENSE: Nancy Payton David Land David Addison ABSENT: Derek Hodgin STAFF: Bill Lorenz Kevin Dugan Martha Nebelsiek Dick Hartwell Kimberly Polen Doug Suitor PUBLIC: Tom Bates Bertisable Swillo Bernie Young Tony Polizos I. Meeting called to order II. Roll call III. Approval of Minutes: 1. Approval of the minutes passed 6 to 1 with Gary Beardsley opposing because he did not receive his minutes. IV. Old Business: 1. Robert Duane summarized his report on LDC shortcomings to the board. Several weeks ago he sent a short report of the LDC shortcomings out to the board members. 2 . Gary Beardsley pointed out two main problems; 1) the unified LDC and 2) the legal status of Collier County. He requested that this become the first agenda item for the next meeting so that he could send members his report. 3 . Report from the North Golden Gate Estates Subcommittee. Chris Hagen stated that commissioner Constantine has sent out his letter and that EPTAB's recommendations will no longer be needed. He believed that further discussion of the motions would not be worth further effort. 4 . Gary Beardsley believed that this was still a valid subject, and should be discussed. He further requested a copy of Commissioners letter. Mike Davis responded by saying he would attempt to obtain a copy and send it to all members. 5. Robert Dudh made a motion to close . Jiscussion on this matter. Chris Hagen seconded the motion. 6 . Dave Maehr stated that he believed Golden Gate Estates needs special consideration. 7 . The motion was restated to say that: EPTAB will shelf discussion on the Golden Gate Estates until any new new relevant information becomes available. Vote was made 5 to 2 with Gary Beardsley and David Maehr opposing. David Maehr stated he would rather abstain from the vote due to lack of information. V. New Business: 1. Gary Beardsley made motion to add two items to the agenda. a. Discussion On Subcommittee Notifications. b. Discussion Of Board Of Commissioners Vote On NRPA Program. 2 . Board decided these were procedural items, no vote was necessary. 3 . Gary discussed the Subcommittee notifications and believed that a 24 hr. notice of subcommittee members of meetings was not sufficient. He recommended that the chair of the subcommittee be allowed to contact members about the meetings. 4 . Mike Davis agreed that as long as only the time and place of the meeting were discussed the communications between members would not violate sunshine rules. 5. Bill Lorenz said that staff will need 24 hrs. to release a public notice. He suggested that the subcommittee chair should notify members of the meeting, then tell staff to allow for the public notices to be released. 6. Martha Nebelsek advised the board that the subcommittee chairperson could call members as long as only the time and place of the meeting were discussed. 7 . Gary Beardsley requested a weeks notice for these meetings. 8. Bill Lorenz added that staff be advised of these communications as well as subcommittee members. 9. Final decision was for the Subcommittee Chairpersons to call subcommittee members and staff to arrange subcommittee meetings. After the meeting has been setup staff will be given a final notification so a press release may be sent out 24 hrs in advance of the meeting. 10 . Bernie Young of the Greater Naples Civic Association addressed EPTAB about their support for the NRPA program. He believed that the board was going to vote against the program, he further stated that he was disturbed that EPTAB would not be present to support the program. He offered to be present at the board meeting to help support the program. 11. Gary Beardsley made a motion that the Chairman or vice chair be present to give a quick overview of the program and answer questions. Dave Maehr second the motion. 12 . Ammend motion that EPTAB have a member present at the board meeting, and that they draft a letter recommending that the board to postpone the ruling until after the water management workshop meeting. Dave Maehr second the motion 13 . Approved 6 to 1 with Mike Davis voting against sending the letter he believed there was not sufficient time for the letter to be effective. 14 . Kevin Dugan presented the latest draft of the Manatee Protection Plan to EPTAB. 15. Dave Maehr made a motion that EPTAB members read the plan then provide written comment and discuss the plan at the next EPTAB meeting. VI. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB receive Betty Mathews strategic planning document. 2 . Bill Lorenz said that staff would send members a copy out with their minutes. 3 . Mike Davis agreed that this should become the first agenda item for the next meeting, and that Gary's information be given to all members for the discussion. 4 . Steve Means asked that staff give a short presentation on the shortcomings and positive aspects of the LDC, and how they are applied at County level. EPTAB further requested exerpts from the LDC to follow along with the presentation. VII. Meeting adjourned at 6: 00 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 94-82 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING DEREK HODGIN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 91-26 creating the Collier County Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board provides that the Board shall consist of nine (9) members; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on May 28, 1991 adopted Ordinance No. 91-48 which amended Ordinance No. 91-26 to provide that the Collier County Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board shall consist of eleven (11) members; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners received the resignation of Larry W. Richardson which created a vacancy on the Collier County Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Derek Hodgin is hereby appointed to the Collier County Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board to fill the unexpired term, said term expiring on September 30, 1994. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: February 15, 1994 ATTESTCi BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. "BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA i cc// ,{9 BY: MO'1�HY vJf CONST N II.JE CHAIRMAN Approved as `to form and �, ,/ 'aegal. sufficiency: Kenneth B. Cuy County Attorney 44R Ip MAR- T-tea r10r-4 8 ;0.1_ \1 ' F . Ili 1 , lit % tt :' 4 i , ., :. 044 e e)41) fl -;1 + • : fir;;iii ! K}l,'NC 1! E,NT{ ''iRr.yO NNIES1 , e7 ),4t1 L I v . I. jt. ' fi, eilir Nor'.. ~c ,, !;i 3,a;, i n 0 irr1'i :, tni_ 0:1' Pt?) A ,,,.,„, rlx 13) 211:ANAOVILA.:i . . 0,,d- i ---) _,,, .6L , FRCSIM1PE (*Foie) #: �� , . 1,,,-i-//v-41,ux--- ;12 t14.----- I 1-4- MCMGOM011): - ______,..7 , ...i2 TIME SENT:0 - ® Mrs/1 , y47 Number of pages Famed Air 7,-_____L, 6.,.... 11/v/A-_.(J-‘ kj.-4 . Iliilllilllltl , 11111111 . 11 IMI ,IIIIIIiiiillliiili TORIC OF FlK/fOCUMENT: 1 „ 4 ....., ilii MUNI' jiiir 111111i11i111IIII1 1 Comments of SENDER: krt. 1° i . / Mel ife4 ' 4 ) I Air/ . . A #, 414 4V 4 . -: lirill 7014'%q#flfr)4 , Ay 4 4 7: 7 6,16. # Id I e h. 4,. iliale 0)-"` Ift'r e. 44 eimi S ,,., r4 Alitic, ' ;„--,,, 0 le „7., #1; ,f,,: : 4 es RAory r, ' '-::: Chow ii) I* E46,40Ai .,,, e4/4Ja • .,: . froidni. . , ,, .-. n 1, ...- - * 4Ø' :. 1401 7 pe c ik 114 to otedv 4 OseFt°1fM4 iseSP 4 —dose 1Q ec cos g Igoe0.40(‘ 077 f Hifi FRli 7A-46 ,1 E VIriG::15E 7Al. SERVICES 130U % k—is4.056 RiVthiAt*I?$ Y,.".� 3�a�^ ...DATE: a O1' 1 NTAL ._ OS1,S 1°5 8 4))4)01 tfric. ctl, A ,,,, ::_ F < '11t4Ftt-'4C' 1J 4, tetst .. • _ , 4,, ,, ..444,4,,,, Pi 4 FACSIMILE ( "FEW) #: t. ,. ,, tfe eitio4v,.. . .4'1. 4 Mr no' 144 _o) c7v.... 4,, _ . --4,;--'' 44,#)ty TIME SENT: 0920 Ars. n P %.)( <-: c < , Number of pages Found -- 1 Einlfnlnt1111111111l tfiillntl 111111118111111 TOPIC OF F I/fluCIIMENT: E Lin.� � . niisnill IIIIIIIIIIIt 'U * mi11W ung AER. Oe ' /son _t'4 7iiiiikhrel P /yo) liC)) 04,,,$) 47.7e#1, /40 el, , AVO4: w: 144. dem #è/4 " Oreit esoft;4111 44/11eAl 4 Y . 7V4J? 5 1.,„r m AIo*'A 6.M s, 4 leg r t , 4 ,, e dlevoi - e61 . .,,rdn Per of At44114- 4 . , I C'efr4 l ' ' ..„"or „, ,,, , -;,, 0 Afd . ego.. 4' 41 ., 0 ` „,,id--- 10/ miel 4,14; t 7 4. 'Note--Please contact HUN phone ($ -263--88l?) if this F6i , vs, tr nsm8 sion Is not coo`mpt a or prop g recelue . !. _ .OtosL A tl` A "> ate'. mill1 l .m .- _ K'..t1 F Ga L. Beard:r.y J 2398 11th Str..t North tl ,,•, Naples,FL 33940 NallOSIMINIIMMINffaMaNnekt FRIENDS • 7r,.>r nil ST AGE♦4[t) �,�N� ---• r. i t l 1 t.!'.”, - r t FLORIDA , . $ ,..,,_ It•.1 Ti;); OPTA43 P-:nfed on Rao/clod Papa %t}:'t-'O�il fi - ht Winter 1994 c. r�'•��•1�t'(. c. 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA 1 OL 7 NC; �=L O.R..1: G RLI NTW A Y=S 4A N N U.Akli �. ' E.- P.0, R'1 UN .S1..P E. Tell Your Lawmakers: Growth �P ner, N°T'' Management Works orFlorida! Anew legislative session dawns, place to handle new residential and dogged roads, empty strip malls. and with it, threats from business growth. and antiquated water and sewer special interests who seek tv cif s- We are on the right track, systems. mantle the quality of life ensured by charting a future that goes beyond During the 1993 session, legisio Florida's forward-thinking , ag ,, -.1 :s. tors approved the first-ever change growth management i + .` to Florida's 1985 Growth lanage- policies. x s ' ." rnentAct when they passed a piece Growth management , ' - of legislation with an unwieldynanit is working in Florida. ; ._ the recommendations of thThite Through comprehensive y .^ 1•`;. ,l''• ' ' ' Environmental Land Management planning, citizens are ;► _ �' !rtwz+ • Study Committee. The package, deciding how their corn- 1 `:, ?f' , more commonly known as ELMS {„I munities ought to evolve, .�, . ' :CI' gives citizens more leverage in where new parks and shaping growth management roads should be, what I;, ,. strategies for their towns,their kind of businesses they �„_ s•.� �.- counties, and their state. It recog. want to attract, and where , . -:'� • t »= nizes that no true community vinic:' ' " �` " � ' ` can remain static- it must be new development is M �. r( T t. ,.•Jr. .• r" 4. P c -`;`,, :. ' ''*-' .- revisited, challenged and refined. •l.. appropriate. Local yov- - �":� ..L _ � ,._ ernments are making sure The leyistarure will explore proposals to protect that end, the ELMS III bill spurs the infrastructure is in environmental areas and prevent urban sprawl with a (see Lawmakers page 10 riarketabic development rights program. Why conservatives Should INSIDE . . . Like Growth Management In December, Georgia lnsiitute of • Expand economic development. Affordable Housing I Technology City Planning Professor In effect, these are conservative I • Dr.Arthur C. Nelson, AICD, ()aye an policy objectives. Let's explore why- 4 - Intriguing presentation at the Q-aige f County Growth Management Sym- Taxpayer Equity The Snyder Decision 1 posium. We asked him to elaborateGrowth management policies art his Ideas for Foresight readers. aim to prevent overbuilding and subsidized lifestyles that create Eco-Friendly Design inequitable burdens among taxpay- , I lorida's growth management ens 1 '� , I policies aim to: Overbuilding -A prime example r 1 •Achieve taxpayer equity, of how,overbuilding creates inequi• Around The re, a Protect future options. ties among taxpayers Is the savings �` . Improvegovernmental eficlen_y_ 3 p (see Growth page c) --.. (Lawmakers [r .'_ . s.'-.,1: : r— . rewrites of the ste1-: legleeal ,':, ; An Alphabet Soup of Development Rights local compreher--e-: the next several ',tees This is ;report ael •wol k , e ..- s government struggle'; s.,.;!t .-- - i.-,:j .‘ ..c -•!:-It-`n DtVel:p the issue of developmer' ,- .1! r1se .-e:wsl,:te- fr)rn the state's long•range feteie, .?re•-: ;t • 'ghts, you're likely to hear jiir-'r. f. .' -.,::‘ e. :7. )e±, .elee3gement shouldn't be intte,-..ve,:i 5) --.!.• •, ..:1 confusing acronyms. Hefe'', a f,-'!7'.; :- term politics. ...)rimer on the three main marke•- ,.,'N, ,t., -2-isful of the..e As we move <ete th;s. jeer '-xased strategies that leaislalcr!.. :---, . -\\=.--..:.;o - ,) C:,,inty Md., wt- session, there arf feiorts -rice---' -- << xplore this session: e -1•Dl-' pe.:,,<•-ern ;,, Jseci to preseo, ! reverse the gains -0.f-- iTlf-J ' i- t;Hr' • ',:' : 6 r'i , :.:4r!I !and in the face af ELMS Ill legislation a-vii reterit;:, MDRs: Marketable Develo,e le.ree _stet-. jrcwth, pressure business-as-usual ir For'.O.a. !I's :Tient Rights. MDRs make a!'exisee; .;...:-P.eziinn ):: ft:.;:n Washington, ... _. _ . critical that you lel your legisletees development rights transferable fee ,-, el C. 1 ,dete, more than 5,200 know that you support growth rural (and some suburban) a:-es r i _nst-es Eave been approved, management. SpecificallylProperty owners in those areas 1.01! , ieesreving more then 26,000 acre,. , e'i t'-Pm have the opportunity to either: 1) :J familae.nfrom development. know that: build on site according to existing : How dc MRs and MDRs differ? • We don't need a 'glitch bili" to development rules or 2) sell the ihe ream ilfererce is that develop- make changes to the 1993 development rights to someone WI.,.) ;Ilont is nat a;iowed n a rul ELMS III legislatior., The ;ecreri- will transfer them to other urbar. : 'sending zz.le " Cinder TDRs, a rural mendations are beim; smnetl-zey lands in the county. (MDRs car,'t :. lJ)doner sells her development implemented -with little cross county lines.) i •; htt-,tc,yet er onomic value from objection-through the Depart- MDRs are voluntary A statewidi? : her land without developing it. ment of Corrirriunily. Affairs' MDRs system is proposed by : .Inder- MDR , the landowner has a Partners for a Better Florida in the . el-cice.- either ..-lei.elop at the low rulemaking process. 1994 Growth Management Equity ticrii;Iy allowed in rural areas,or seli • The state's coastal planning Act. (For more on that proposal, see Ler rights to someone v.'hoWill build program should stay in the state . accompanying legislative story.) F.e.mewhem -else in the county. , Department cf Community MDRs, as they are proposed this . . Affairs,and not - as some have year, have never been tried in the PDRs: Purchase of DeVelop- suggested - move to the . U.S. merit Righti. This approach is Department of Environmental promoted by the American Farm- .and Trust. a Protection. TDRs:Transfer of Developmeet ; national agricultural • The state water policy sh:- id Rights. Similar to MDRs,except that ; ensereatien organization. Public • government designates two zones. entities buy the right to develop stay as is until a e. ize 's . the "sending zone"and the"receiv- i f•-ern a property owner and transfer committee t Land Use ano ing zone."The concept is to transfer • R to another tract of land. Removal i''iiar arteming Task Foree. ; ___ development rights from the senclini.3 • ef the development right leOves the compfetes its-v7o-ric. i ne task zone -where development is : property to private ownership and e//wfbrce,which grew out of laet, unwanted-to the receiving zone, ' free for use.4-1 agriculture and year's ELMS legislation, is where development is encouraged at ' forestry A bill will be introduced this • looking at the relationship higher densities than otherwise year by State Rep. Dean Saunders between water management allowed. : (D-Lakeland) to authorize PDRs in and land use planning to make At least 50 TDR programs ha Ve i the Green Swamp Area of Critical < , sure that communities are been established around the count , " State oec--re. considering water supply and — . i - — management when they • .. • land use decisions. completely rescind their Cmmission, which heard testi- , Development Rights community's regulations.This is rr -lny throughout the state during Another topic that's sure to gain simply a speculator's relief act and the past year. plenty of attention this session ;s a raid on community treasuries The bill creates administrative development rights, statewide. Don't be fooled because. relief for property owners who feel a State Rep. Ken Pruitt. R-Port St. it comes wrapped in the American government action has "inordinatel Lucie, will introduce a bili sirrii;.1.1r to fag. • ;irnited the effective and practic& last year's unsuccessful government Instead, legislators should u..-e" of their land. Today, these "takings" bill. The Pruitt bill, sold in consider the options being pre- disputes are bandied exclusively the guise of protecting private sented by two citizen advisory through the courts. Tne new bill property rights,will bankrupt committees: Partners for a Better v,ould create a state-funded appee; ; • ; communities across the state. In Florida and the Governor's Property pocess,where property owners essence, if a landowner believes the Rights Study Commission. cld bring a "request forirlier • . value of his land is reduced by The "Florida Real Property before-a state-appointed ediattir government regulation, taxpayers Protection Act of 1994," is being in the local judicial circuit.The • i ,. would have to either buy him out or drafted by the Property Rights Study mediator would review;the case and , • to , , rFvurnrrren_! � nci.r . economic value from he- an:' governmeet's !and-res. :'t ,;c" ,-, without developing it. Urban ; :._- be modified t . r,',,,r, :, .' F owners can get increased dere :'' landowner. by using MDRs. You Can Help '�ti:,',c going to be extra ' . Marketable Water Reuse ,~'2. rn,)ritoring the iss., , Development Rights The Partners committee ?L� `'`':'''', 'r= .rel' as related pry- t Another i-.:tizer,'s inn tte'.: -- came up with the 1994 Water ei �'`.,c;'� `�'tir.g, administret:•. -• u.:_ ir'r.ir:y r' Partners for .a setter Fic-i•i+ -- ;•a-: Reuse and Conservation Reform. _, .cl c ,•;Zen transportation 5 to elect::i come up wah a bCId am:a:e t' Act, which aims to increase t.•,c -e effic ia;s. and citizen enfercen-n:- . address development rights arr..i i' of treated wastewater in Floris.--.‘ may be among the most taikel- The Act changes the rules for asbe; environmental and growth mane. : about proposais this session. treated wastewater for irrigaric.r nmen! laws.ail We hope all of you will be '.. The Partners panel, ,,;h:,:h aquifer recharge. too — up on the issue'2.. brings industry and environrnenta It would also require new water- letting reading up o lawmakers w'..,; leaders together to discus market- conservation rules, including you If aw takers owcal ,-t_a! based approaches to er,ironmerta: individual meters on new homes yo think.222-6277.wep' protection, is proposing the 1994 and businesses; require Coca; Growth Management Equity Act. government xeriscape ordinances, _ -'. ------- The legislation: would create a and would institute a require:ren' How to Make system of Marketable r)evelopmen-, that makes lawn irrigation systems Rights (MDRs) across Florida. limit watering when there's be^n Your Voice Heard The idea is to make the e,-:;,_ sufficient rain. ‘Nrite cr telegraph lawmalres nomic impacts of arovati1 ;r,anace- ment more equitable.The way the Preservation 2000 The Honorable � law works row, some fromty Gov. Lawton Chiles' 1994 The Senate o�Fron�a— owners get a "windfall" growth The Ca td management rules if. for example, budget includes funding for Tallahcssee,FL 2399-1100 they are located in an area ?cried Florida's conservation land-buying coram, Preservation 2000. Tell Repr�sentatives: for high-density urban growth. program, The Honorable Other property owners, such as your legislator to support money For F;orida Nouse oT Representotiver P2000 this year so that we car • The Capitol those living sn rural or rnvlronrr:es- - tally sensitive areas, experience a continue to preserve Florida's To+lahossee,FL 3399-1300 "wipeout"because they are ;oc_ared ecological riches before they are Not sure w',o your leg'eslators area Cot on land which the communit} has lost to development. Changes are yeair kcol Supervisor of Elections,a,:e': .. set aside for conservation. also necessary to streamline the. at(904)222-6277. MDRs make ail existing de'el- land acquisition process sc that opment rights transferable frog rural (and some suburban) areas. Property owners in those areas wl, Hot Off the Press have the opportunity to either, : build on site according to exist:ng A State Future Land Use Map development rules or 2 sell the development rights to someone who As part of its look at development rights,Partners for a Better Florida obtOnF will transfer them to other lands in research which gives the first-ever comprehensive picture of future lord the county. (MDRs can't crossresearch in Florida. county lines.) The Equity Act contains two Regional planners looked at the fuh,re land use mops of every community important principles: pa-ticipat.on the state. The result is a set of tables and a composite statewide land use map,v.l) among landowners is voluntary and show how much new development counties and cities ore expecting, and 'Ae' local governments retain control that new development will likely go.The tubes tell how much acreage each ccxur over land use decisions. I.andown- plans to set aside for the following categories: agriculture,estate, single for7s;';. ers still need zoning approval from multifamily, commercial/office, industrial, mining, military,and preserve the local government. The develop- The research was directed by the Center for Urban Transportation Reseur< ment rights would be conveyed by (C )with funding from the Florida Department of Transportation.. The Soutl v.'e deed and would be taxed as ar. Florida Rnional Planning Council coordinated the.inf ormation,4ich came`- interest in real estate. Florida's eleven r ianol planning councils.Partners for a Better rids used M Rs can be used to guide if development away from sensitive data to develop o map depicting urban,interval,cod rural areas for use wirn proposed marketable everots program.a lands and channel it to places kbldevelopment rights p i ' I where growth can be efficiently If you ore interested in getting a copy of this information,c tact Davia 13 , served. Using MDRs, the owner of a at the Southwest Florida Regiorxol Planning Council, (813) 9 i282. rural parcel car conceivably Cel t _._.___ _._ ___ — -+ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DIRECTION FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AREA (NRPA) PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: Receive Board direction on the NRPA Program. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 18, 1994, the Board directed the staff to develop guidelines for identifying areas for consideration as NRPAs and then determine those areas already covered by State and/or Federal regulations. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to propose guidelines for developing the NRPA program. The Board should note that all potential NRPAs will be covered by Federal and State regulations to some degree. Each NRPA, however, will have a unique set of circumstances where the current regulations may be judged as inadequate to provide an appropriate degree of protection for the NRPA. This information will be developed for each NRPA as the evaluation and adoption process unfolds. Growth Management Plan Guidelines The Conservation and Coastal Element (CCME) states that the purpose of a Natural Resources Protection Area is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and their habitat (Objective 1 .3) . (See Attachment 1 for applicable objectives and policies. ) Conservation guidelines should be developed to protect natural resource value, maintain ecologically functioning systems and to restore or mitigate NRPAs already degraded (Policy 1.3.1e) . The Growth Management Plan defines a NRPA as a "portion of the County that has been identified as being of extreme importance for one or more critical ecological functions by the Collier County Natural Resources Department. Some of these critical ecological functions are: aquifer recharge, storm water detention, protected and unprotected wildlife habitat, and normal conveyance of water toward the County estuaries" . Categories of NRPAs (Volume II of the CCME) include: 1 . Estuaries and Coastal Barrier Areas (ECB) 2. Water Protection and Conservation Areas (WPC) 3. Critical Ecological Corridors (CEC) 4. Rare, Unique, and Endangered Habitats (RUE) Appendix M of the CCME provides a more technical description of these NRPA types and their functions (Attachment 2) . Criteria for Identifying Potential NRPAs Based upon information and criteria contained in the Growth Management Plan and input from EPTAB, staff has developed a checklist of criteria to evaluate an area as a possible NRPA (Attachment 3) . so. r5) MAR 0194 P?. -L_ Executive Summary NRPA Program Page -2- Process for Identifying Potential NRPAs Staff has previously provided EPTAB and the BCC with a proposed process to evaluate areas for potential candidates as NRPAs. Based on Board comments from previous discussions, staff has modified the process to include BCC authorization to work on a particular NRPA (Attachment 4) . A general outline of the process is as follows: 1 . Board Authorization to Proceed - Potential NRPAs will be presented to the Board for receiving authorization to proceed with selected NRPAs. The Criteria for Identifying NRPAs (Attachment 3) will be used to evaluate the merits of a particular area as an NRPA. A technical memorandum for each potential NRPA addressing the criteria could be used to solicit direction from the Board. Each of the criteria groups (e.g. , Water Protection and Conservation Area, Wildlife Corridor) could be rated by EPTAB using a scoring system and presented to the Board as part of the technical memorandum. The Board would then decide on which if any of the NRPAs should proceed to the next step. 2. Development of an NRPA Management Plan - Policy 1.3.2 requires the County to adopt management guidelines and performance standards for NRPAs. A Management Plan will be developed by staff for each NRPA for ultimate Board review and approval . The Plan will consist of a detailed inventory and analysis of the area's natural resource value, the degree it is being protected by existing regulations, a list of recommended protection mechanisms and costs to implement the Plan. The report will provide additional information relative to the criteria and will evaluate the appropriateness of a variety of protection mechanisms (Attachment 5) . Staff will work with EPTAB and will conduct public workshops to receive input to modify and change the Plan prior to review by the Board. 3. Board Review and Approval/Rejection - Staff will present the Management Plan for each NRPA to the Board. The Board can then accept, modify or reject the recommendations. Staff will prepare appropriate implementation actions (e.g. code amendments, Future Land Use Map amendments) for subsequent Board approval . FISCAL IMPACT: Staff has estimated that it may take up to 1,000 hours to complete a complex NRPA Management Plan. Staffing required for completing the NRPA Program will depend on the degree and scope of the NRPAs authorized by the BCC. An annual allocation of 2 FTEs ($70,000) would be a reasonable estimate for maintaining the Program. ThisRal ResourcesallDocation would come from existing staff and budgeted resources of t GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Objective 1.3 of the CCME requires the County to complete the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the County Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Program. 4:120 VA/ 0 1 94 — Executive Summary NRPA Program Page -3- RECOMMENDATION: Direct the staff to continue with the NRPA Program. Prepared by: lit YuLJ....iii Date: Z -/7-°)4- Eiam D. . , E. , Administrator nvironmental Services Division Reviewed by: Date: Neil Dorrill , County Manager WDL:pc Attachments C: EPTAB Members A;..-Ey e_Eit„.) tio. MAR 0 1 94 ATTACHMENT 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES * * OBJECTIVE 1 . 3 : By August 1 , 1994 , complete the phased delineation, data gatherir. management guidelines and implementation of the County Natural Resources Protection Areas (NRPA) program. The purpose of Natural Resources protection areas will be to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in • current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida" , published by the Florida and Fresh Water Fish Commission) and their habitats. Policy 1. 3 . 1: The program will include the following: a. Identification of the NRPAs in map form as an overlay to the Future Land Use Plan Map; b. A process for verifying the existence and boundaries of NRPAs during development permit applications; c. Guidelines and standards for development of NRPAs including conservation guidelines to protect natural resource values, to maintain ecologically functioning systems, and to restore or mitigate NRPAs already degraded; - d. A review process, integrated into the normal development application review, to ensure that the guidelines and standards are being met and, in those cases where Environmental Impact Statements are prepared, that the site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts of development are being adequately assessed and addressed; e. A program to defer development of NRPAs. First consideration should be fee simple purchase (based on public referenda approving and funding purchases) . Other options should include, but not be limited to, tax incentives and transfer of development rights; f. A program to pursue Delegation of Authority agreements with State and Federal permitting agencies for local regulation of activities that may alter the biological and physical characteristics of NRPA; g. The County shall seek assistance from and support State (e.g. CARL, SOR) or Federal land acquisition programs for County areas qualifying as NRPAs. * * Amended Ma•. , 1990 I .- 3) MAR 0 1 94 y Policy 1. 3 . 2 : By August 1 , 1990, designate and adopt management guidelines for the undeveloped coastal barrier and estuarine natural resources protection area . Policy 1. 3 . 3 : Guided by the Technical Advisory Committee, between August 1, 1990 and August 1, 1994 , designate and adopt management guidelines and performance standards for County natural resource protection areas. Implementation shall occur on an annual basis as NRPAs and their implementation criteria are developed. Policy 1. 3.4: Where possible, the implementation of the NRPA program shall be coordinated with the preparation and implementation of watershed and sub-basin management plans. r-- ` Na r j MAR 0 1 94 GOAL 14 : THE COUNTY SHALL AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF EXISTING REGULATORY PROGRAMS. OBJECTIVE 14 . 1: To establish, prior to the adoption of any land development regulation to implement this element, including but not limited to NRPA management guidelines and watershed management plans, a program to review such regulations and identify existing regulatory programs exercised by regional, state, or federal agencies with jurisdiction over the activities sought to be regulated. Policy 14 . 1. 1: There will be no`unnecessary duplication of existing regional, state, or federal permitting programs. Policy 14 . 1. 2 : The County may adopt regulations to strengthen existing permitting programs. Policy 14 . 1.3: Prior to adopting any new regulations to implement this element, the following guidelines shall be met: a. It fulfills an_important need not presently adequately met by existing regional, state, or federal regulation. b. The regulation can be effectively and efficiently — administered by authorized increases to County staff. c. The cost to the County of implementing the regulation shall have been identified and considered. !IAR0194 9 ATTACHMENT 2 NRPA TYPES (APPENDIX M) NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS 1. Estuaries and Coastal Barrier Systems (ECBS) ti. A. This Protection is Necessary to Provide 1. Water Quality Protection (from pollutants) a. Estuarine and fisheries protection b. Natural area and wildlife protection • `i c. Protection of threatened and endangered spgclesior.J:+(tf4!n7 (such as the West Indian Manatee, bald eagle' sea turtles. etc.) 2. Functioning of mangrove habitat and other coastal barriers as natural buffers and protection from • hurricane and tropical storm surge • 3. Functioning benthic, planktonic, and pelagic systems • that are necessary to provide viable fisheries. This requires strict protection of mangroves, sea grasses, living oyster bars, and attached macro algae habitats. a. Since estuaries and their attendant mangrove and salt marsh wetlands serve as nursery areas and habitat for most fishery species and coastal barriers reduce the effects of storm surge, and serve as critical wildlife habitat for myriad terrestial and marine species, this subcategory shall receive the greatest degree of protection. 2. Water Protection and Conservation Areas (WPC) A. This Protection is Necessary to Provide 1. Water Storage a. Aquifer recharge (for present and future wellfields) h. Fire retardation c. Storm water management 2. Water Quality Protection (from pollutants) a. Well field and aquifer protectionAGEN?{ 3> kAR 0I94 3. Natural area and wildlife protection a. Since water is the single most valuable resource in the county, WPC will receive a degree of protection comparable to ECB areas. 4. Critical Ecological Corridor (CEC) (can be land or water) A. CEC Definition: Relatively large contiguous area (such as a wetland flow way) containing Class I (pristine or mostly undisturbed) and Class II (modified by some historic event like fire or drainage) biotopes or an "archipelago" of semi— connected or adjacent habitat "islands" that serves one or more of the following major ecological functions: 1. Conduit or corridor for animal or plant populations allowing passage from major habitat to major habitat (i.e., such as between the Bird Rookery/Corkscrew Swamp major habitat to the Big Cypress/Fakahatchee area). This will function, according to island biographic theory, to allow a greater number of species to survive than could in the separated larger habitats individually. 2. Home range, nesting area, foraging area, or subpopulation (deme) of plant or animals, for local, state, and federally protected species. 3. Natural surface—or—ground—water flow—way. 4. Forming a buffer for natural and human—inhabited areas from storm surge (generally mangroves, barrier islands, and salt marshes). 5. Erosion control (generally mangroves and salt marsh in the coastal regions) 6. Providing a nutrient base for commercial and sport fisheries (mangroves, especially in the Ten Thousand Islands, Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, Clam Bay, and Hickory Bay systems). B. CEC areas will receive a secondary level of protection, (less than WPC and ECB areas) 4. Rare, Unique, or Endangered Area (RUE) A. RUE definition: nearly undisturbed habitats that are unusual, rare, or unique to Collier County. These areas may be relatively moderate to small in size and contain or be -- Ac_.4. comprised of one or more of the following: No. 2 3) 1. Hardwood hammocks MAR p 1 94 2. Archaeological sites P11- 3. Xeric dwarf oak sites 4. Sand pine habitat 5. Coastal hammocks and barrier island strands 6. Dune vegetation 7. Bay forests 8. Coastal prairie not covered by WPC or CEC designations 9. Cypress domes not covered by WPC or CEC designations B. The RUE designation will receive a third level of protection (less than CEC, WPC, or ECB).pa ' R 0 1 91, ATTACHMENT 3 CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS 1. WATER PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION AREA (WCB, P1 .3.4) * For use and protection as a natural flood plain, watersheds, marsh, or estuary if the protection and conservation of such lands are necessary to enhance or protect water quality or quantity. * Hydrology promotes removal of nutrient and other pollutants. * Prevents rapid discharge to estuaries by maintaining or enhancing sheet flow. * Natural features promote recharge of aquifers. * Potential as a source of potable water. 2. HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED, OTHER LISTED SPECIES, AND BIODIVERSITY (CEC, Obj1.3) * Lands critical for the survival of endangered or threatened species. * Necessary to maintain the County's native animal diversity. 3. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR/MOVEMENT FOR SELECTED SPECIES (CEC, Obj1 .3) * Natural area connects large areas utilized by listed species, and, thus, facilitates their survival . * Corridor will maintain native animal species diversity. 4. RARE UNIQUE AND ENDANGERED HABITATS (RUE P.3.1c) * Supports rare, unique, or endangered vegetation communities (scrub, dune, hammock) . * Important habitat for listed wildlife and/or plant species. * Concentrations of listed plants are supported in the area. * Necessary to preserve existing diversity of plant communities in Collier County. 5. FISHERIES (CEC) * Supports functioning estuarine nursery areas. * Provides habitat for important sport, commercial , and listed species. 6. PRISTINE/NATURAL STATE (RUE) * Protects natural communities that are inadequately represented on existing protected lands. * Exotics plant communities if present are not extensive. * Protect the best remaining examples of Collier County natural communities with priority given to those communities which are most endangered or rarest. * Part of viable, functioning system. 1 MRO 1 94 7. DEGREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK (P14. 1 .2, P1 .3. 1c) * Existing regulations will not adequately attain environmental objectives. * Significant degree of risk that key environmental objectives will be lost or severely impaired by future development patterns. 8. SUPPORTIVE OF STATE PRESERVATION EFFORTS (P1 .3. IG) * Part of a State funded acquisition program or on a list in need of funding. * Listing as a NRPA will attract funding. * Area is very attractive to State agencies for off site mitigation. 9. SYSTEM PROVIDES OTHER SOCIAL VALUES (ECB) * Area aids in protecting residential areas from fire. * Area provides important recreational or educational opportunities. * Area adds to the aesthetic setting of the county. * Large natural areas enhance air quality. * Land and vegetative characteristics provide storm protection for landward areas. 10. FINANCIAL AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPACTS * Cost/benefit ratio is acceptable. * Private property rights are not unacceptably impaired. 11. DUPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL EFFORTS (P14.1 .1, P14.1.2, P14.1.3) * There will be no unnecessary duplication of existing regional , state, or federal permitting programs. * It fulfills an important need not presently adequately met by existing regional , state, or federal regulation. () - Cross Reference to selected Growth Management Plan criteria contained in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element P= Policy Obj= Objective WCB= Water Protection and Conservation Area (Appendix M) ECBS= Estuaries and Coastal Barrier System (Appendix M) CEC= Critical Ecological Corridor (Appendix M) RUE= Rare, Unique or Endangered Area (Appendix M) MAR 0 1 94 ATTACHMENT 4 N?.PA DEVELOPMENT & APPROVAL PROCESS 7.O W : _. 2 i I cr O a Y 4 1 a SN! a d to I...,...2 F 1 J `t i-S1Jf- 2 _Y .q t, t W Q 1 St..1 vb J. d a 2 al>LJ - .._..i _. t dV% i r•..:- 1 N Z • o.-• y ,,, - O� 2 re IQ iW � I o 2 W S- a W • Q �__ .-' Cf Ua..1 I 1 Z 0 �1�1 O tY``� lY W H m i d Qt'' , O It QX 2 a `pi 4\ i v 1 N .( j �W i a ► ii ac \ i -- Za -J ot2WZ�1 / r--1 --, x W {t.tWS \�“U I i u= 'v - r-� G t- d 0 I i 2W OA v H 4W <a Ce 3o I 1 cx _J 0_ o > z ! r L < W W J ' 1 U aN I a j ai V O r- d`21 A~ a cr a. - • , � r Li Z o 1002 W aU OW ►- 4 a I Y 1 �N 1- L__ 4-- . • cc C4 a Q F- c 10 '• I a (4 IW H (,/' I U Ili 0 fel i 10. L.'-‘ C•<at IC a W p•. N 111 CC L j J J� �� J / /; -- _ .. J ✓ 1 r W \ a ..... , (d\ 1 ___ !AR 0 1 9� ATTACHMENT 5 TYPES OF PROTECTION MECHANISMS Set Asides Density Transfers Purchase of Development Rights Purchase of Property Use Rights Land Use Density/Zoning Conservation Easements Regulatory Standards Mitigation Banking Land Development Standards Public Ownership RuEw f No, MAR 019� Pg. DRAFT: 3/1/94 APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF February 28, 1994 PRESENT: Mike Davis David Maehr Steve Means Christopher Hagan Robert Duane Dorothea Zysko Gary Beardsley NOTIFIED ABSENSE: Nancy Payton David Land David Addison ABSENT: Derek Hodgin STAFF: Bill Lorenz Kevin Dugan Martha Nebelsiek Dick Hartwell Kimberly Polen Doug Suitor PUBLIC: Tom Bates Bertisable Swillo Bernie Young Tony Polizos I. Meeting called to order II. Roll call III. Approval of Minutes: 1. Approval of the minutes passed 6 to 1 with Gary Beardsley opposing because he did not receive his minutes. IV. Old Business: 1. Robert Duane summarized his report on LDC shortcomings to the board. Several weeks ago he sent a short report of the LDC shortcomings out to the board members. 2 . Gary Beardsley pointed out two main problems; 1) the unified LDC and 2) the legal status of Collier County. He requested that this become the first agenda item for the next meeting so that he could send members his report. 3 . Report from the North Golden Gate Estates Subcommittee. Chris Hagen stated that commissioner Constantine has sent out his letter and that EPTAB's recommendations will no longer be needed. He believed that further discussion of the motions would not be worth further effort. 4 . Gary Beardsley believed that this was still a valid subject, and should be discussed. He further requested a copy of the Commissioners letter. Mike Davis responded by saying he would attempt to obtain a copy and send it to all members. 5. Robert Duane_ .rade a motion to close the _iscussion on this matter. Chris Hagen seconded the motion. 6. Dave Maehr stated that he believed Golden Gate Estates needs special consideration. 7. The motion was restated to say that: EPTAB will shelf discussion on the Golden Gate Estates until any new new relevant information becomes available. Vote was made 5 to 2 with Gary Beardsley and David Maehr opposing. David Maehr stated he would rather abstain from the vote due to lack of information. V. New Business: 1. Gary Beardsley made motion to add two items to the agenda. a. Discussion On Subcommittee Notifications. b. Discussion Of Board Of Commissioners Vote On NRPA Program. 2 . Board decided these were procedural items, no vote was necessary. 3 . Gary discussed the Subcommittee notifications and believed that a 24 hr. notice of subcommittee members of meetings was not sufficient. He recommended that the chair of the subcommittee be allowed to contact members about the meetings. 4 . Mike Davis agreed that as long as only the time and place of the meeting were discussed the communications between members would not violate sunshine rules. 5. Bill Lorenz said that staff will need 24 hrs. to release a public notice. He suggested that the subcommittee chair should notify members of the meeting, then tell staff to allow for the public notices to be released. 6. Martha Nebelsek advised the board that the subcommittee chairperson could call members as long as only the time and place of the meeting were discussed. 7 . Gary Beardsley requested a weeks notice for these meetings. 8 . Bill Lorenz added that staff be advised of these communications as well as subcommittee members. 9 . Final decision was for the Subcommittee Chairpersons to call subcommittee members and staff to arrange subcommittee meetings. After the meeting has been setup staff will be given a final notification so a press release may be sent out 24 hrs in advance of the meeting. 10. Bernie Young of the Greater Naples Civic Association addressed EPTAB about their support for the NRPA program. He believed that the board was going to vote against the program, he further stated that he was disturbed that EPTAB would not be present to support the program. He offered to be present at the board meeting to help support the program. 11. Gary Beardsley made a motion that the Chairman or vice chair be present to give a quick overview of the program and answer questions. Dave Maehr second the motion. 12 . Ammend motion that EPTAB have a member present at the board meeting, and that they draft a letter recommending that the board to postpone the ruling until after the water management workshop meeting. Dave Maehr second the motion 13 . Approved 6 to 1 with Mike Davis voting against sending the letter he believed there was not sufficient time for the letter to be effective. 14 . Kevin Dugan presented the latest draft of the Manatee Protection Plan to EPTAB. 15. Dave Maehr made a motion that EPTAB members read the plan then provide written comment and discuss the plan at the next EPTAB meeting. VI. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Gary Beardsley requested that EPTAB receive Betty Mathews strategic planning document. 2 . Bill Lorenz said that staff would send members a copy out with their minutes. 3 . Mike Davis agreed that this should become the first agenda item for the next meeting, and that Gary's information be given to all members for the discussion. 4 . Steve Means asked that staff give a short presentation on the shortcomings and positive aspects of the LDC, and how they are applied at County level. EPTAB further requested exerpts from the LDC to follow along with the presentation. VII. Meeting adjourned at 6: 00 p.m.