The URL can be used to link to this page

GMP Sub Committee Policies/Meetings/General Correspondence - Vol 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COHMUXITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE \:APLES, FL 33042 41) ) 4; 8-400 May 24, 1996 Gayle Brett FDEP - Bureau of Land Acquisition 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 115 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9958 RE: 1995 Land Acquisition Summary for Collier County Dear Ms. Brett: I am writing this letter as a formal request for information regarding the above referenced subject. The information is planned to be utilized in the County's EAR/GMP Process, which is currently being reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Please send me, as soon as possible, a Collier County Land Acquisition Summary as of December 31, 1995, which contains the following categories: total area; total acres acquired to date and acres remaining to be acquired. Also, please enclose one enlarged copy of a map of the Golden Gate Estates which illustrates the acres (parcels) of land that have been acquired. Please note, in order to process my request more quickly and to possibly make it more convenient for you, our department has a computer system with the following graphic display software Arc-View, Arc-Cad and Auto-Cad if you could provide the data in one of these forms we could print all of the above requested information. Thus, saving both of us time! I am looking forward to receiving this information (or data) from you by June 17th or sooner. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding my request please do not hesitate to contact Kimberly Polen at (941) 732-2505. Ms. Gayle Brett May 24, 1996 Page Two Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, !lxsw /V 'L � G lP, William D. Lorenz, Jr. , P. E. Natural Resources Director cc: EPTAB/GMP File C's MP SA5co M t r rE c County Manager's Agency ATTENTION: LOCAL MEDIA Office of Public Information 774-8069 Contact: William D. Lorenz Jr. , P.E. , Director Natural Resources Department 732-2505 The Growth Management Planning SubCommittee of the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board will hold a meeting on Thursday, January 18, 1996 at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the small conference room of the Main Library located at 650 Central Avenue. I q77zw2f2') • 1 ,RC; , fJ) aietvELL ReleJanuary 9, 1996 �•` 9/VK �/I"/e7 /-Z)ti'EE L�� [,V '7SJ S'7��`YFF: k/MeDt /L.y o 64-WE/VIZ z/SC14sS/0AL eecomptuwbrvnoNii E, C_ f',eoa vCE' 7-0 1, co/1/7. /i c- . : STT 7ritywityz y 2$ni 6-o Rd-C 401`-i,,*1 Crieb A-7-7 0/VSC/9n/ ,A A/1F 2b� 7' V/ VES refrA F tri41 a r puirl/v/tvjc 60P1M. 'Ks EZ RE: Ft._( 'E 5 r •57711-2E-1) 77/En&-" �9/e 14 le i TrEN /M / 7-79-77 a NS G . Sc/ KE3i 7z) (-00!� /fir" Q1APtP E'KE'S Foss/6c.y °-� - /9 ciw,v -tS /b An 8 cet >u17€z-0.1v C77 o Al n)/ 7-77/V4- Sci 6377 o/VS 4 (./--3i?O A,Ca) C f�E.', 77CLAV`A S Mt.S S t ONi R 7e /9s iv 4-:V!Sot9' 7Vcs • g ed eto 13Y SSR 1) NG` i t2 Ca "' 4vy* -N 'S t Nibc •/M'?741B /4trevo SE �C c_ 7?1-E cc/%. ?„ ' /S To L1//i-L ' 3-t, r ft1 mf yv 1l/fit..' f'C //v cc._4 /h/ Tl 6 fir EP-as of T7 -6- G��L�— v S,P ce . . s 7'7i T- //e N19' o AAA) /1 i°A W0,42, , E' As Co RICESeN C€) be: rcoMM N via_ 8e -i-ypE zAs-rytievr -i?� E`P+ p�'D � .-e-4 A.-4,1 /ale -...4,'1 ,�,1l ,t,._,..t. L.,.." �. -& ,1,;�.,J ESR ri C...A c...1.-ti 54,4 ,- „„,_,,,,.„,4 ► MEMORANDUM ce11 r" TO: Collier County Board of Commissioners, John Norris, Chairman [also, CCPC] it°- FROM: BCC Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, Robert Duane, Chairman RE: Growth Management Plan EAR DATE: January 8, 1996 ak✓".1Q -As-you-know,The Board of County Commissioners has appointed EPTAB to eer-aa -on the implementation of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the county's Growth • Management Plan. In that capacity, we have closely followed the discussions held by the Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report Citizens' Advisory Committee. Now that the final recommendations of that subcommittee have been adopted by the full CAC, EPTAB would like to offer a formal opinion of this report, et s- 0f _J''‘^ r' 14 SG Upon lengthy discussion and review of the tremendous effort which went into evaluating the CCME, the members of EPTAB fully concur with the findings of the CAC/which are presented in their EAR report on the CCME. From our knowledge of their meticulous evaluation process, we are confident that the report you receive is an insightful, objectiveeand accurate appraisal of t e- implementation-of this portion of our Growth Management Plan thus far. 4'%:.cr•-:.:J to :IS We understand that-there it concernVabout the transmission to DCA of some of the narrative comments in the EAR report which offer suggestions and ideas resulting from the appraisals of each objective and policy. It is our belief that these comments are strictly advisory, and do not attempt to amend the Plan as part of the EAR. These remarks should help Collier County in not - only perfunctorily completing the EAR tasks, but actually learning from the process. Such commentary will provide a well informed point of departure for the EAR-based amendment process to follow u N EPTAB found many excellent ideas and recommedations throughout the report, but we especially would like to underscore the CAC's desire to move toward community consensus on implementation of the NRPA, HPO, and Stormwater Management objectives. viz /Q u k ,, e.+..,1 0 ! 4- E+4R ,rvcE1! 1. be_ �� ,Iib. wiV .-F o ` >I� p ru--cL i---& l',,,-e...., C VA-1A"-VA-1A"i' •-• w►' - 1 d .4-41-3 w c. "4-4/73 r►� -� yr.,4 iv---1)-- h e f;c-t a c c. ?t. u-f '"rt--e-t c 0 v ) . ,':.. 5 , 0 SPci- c, L-eTAL ' Cow.w.n-i = tr-' - 't J. -11.4- 0vi\ iLvvLJ ►.,.��.t. 4 w1#&/� u sp�ct Bret-'�1,� 0„) h'�vr,� _: ,,4-s tArv;1,(� F.-e„4..�.o3 ' 4.6 ivaw►o�� w,'Z`r �lwY� -�r c#�= v�r 4-J (,t,, ,'. ► t -{ c t)v‘v.e -�^+1 k 1 4 7 R .j sad e-11 "A r -.�. 3 r-LEr. . its vY vruvJ r Ir: r,v, — ,s.„ ,h, e,.....„4._ r.R P k v..d,rei ` s 2. - ,,,...1-1,., N R �' _- .t 411'd evu �. -1 wt.-�.� -, r t ss•-ss W aU rl ,,�— t u, 11 :,,,,.,!vt qt.._ f',.wi,z ,y ,,) . ,�,�� ,t � -- -ice res.,t}-;J c,,k4.,r,.,v, ii _ {'� L- 1"� o 'Fro„,... E e t Ag 1- CA-C )� {'Ls,• A A . � t rt vl r1-..1 I. 3. 1 Ce ) u " Pi t c- .t,^ A t� crt, a 1)o tir t . G rr-•� (pt 1 . 7( u e ,�� J‘f'' S RT O P 4 i- or-J 4,c P P '', A-I C v-"--4-1-1—\"'l ,. 1_ ,,,.+�..�,l c.,,v'szvv�.-fit ti.— f,,..,! T, '.,.1,:s‘ c. t�r,,�-tt .,i1 1,,...„...1, j-t�..,t ,,t €s s t,,,.�I i�l 4. -K. a .1 I � d � 01 , -0.G k W 4 w "......" „--4-.t..��a.+ - e. L�--im.-v. i 14.floc h,_________________-------------if'-it''' v.,v '1 v to T%— r O r3&AA-i Z-.11\1"%.44 t NGl s'v 1' A f e..-.1 it— 4-A-4 o e ` ( /1-1, r4 rt ..-4 G�' � y.t.,-..-A S v l�'' ) 1>v1 � 1 ft.isr n,..l Gu,- .e.--....t.,,-1.A..,1 4, GI kyt p -1-4-e-i.t ,evJ�i*.kti3 0‘^ .t-c.tvvi1,..► t , c.r,,,,t c ,) f Pr u r. t iv,Li 13-c rL._..../ -e • r-e- t v v; or e-” 1 -10 4-46a-/ f•.•-b 44-4` J raw...- : I n 4....1 Ir......„ e L, t_.._1 ,„it.mfre , N R 9A i 4r 0 5 t---L1 f-e eri`,Jsr's 4I-r e- arcs-gA t'. { 1 f �t tt c s t,,,- f r.„-- i ,.-r- ww s c !A c ir.p•‘-`-'41-a % -1v 41 :.- e i a+1 t t..-5, • �� r 1.--,— f ..,-L........, id O CC v'r- . 5 t� vic f .ru�S� �� r �v_.,4 U cam-{ t L r.........~4.....--..-...4 CJ C 2 x c �, T r t_..“-,14,.....+1•t p...�4 or.-....)ft v- 0,, 4``4- 3 - y„�ti"""p, /4- ? /41ty �}► kt CIC•• : o?. f 3, S+�.w. wr.- c�` ` _ o i;�! 3 w'S �� vv, ierItvie- "44- LI 4' - _ Gvw, LI O . , t„ 4'L l '{ ,_ r Glvt vf vi 0- ;4„,,e,,-..-�6._,,,--t-e_ V V,c...-rt , [,1 N.cte.v.i.,-, ,-- --- Lw C_ w s t' r cc J `.wm-y `-��r, s ► ‘,-e-r-6 c , x.44.- . r tc.-s-. -J-4 1p.. i ,:. of _of.k._ C k-c , i`1 e'l - a vrakk4 N R pA.--- r 3 . • i.� Zb �� 0 ) -��~/ '-��, �� ~�� u^�'L�'[' � - °`' /��\ ~ ` . �^� - �� / 'c/ -~^��i/�rLt��v _�x�( ^�/'�17v ^\1 Pit 51.1 H F0 1.2112....0Zei2jed piCA 'kr r � � 0 a-6 -��-- CU -�~� / // _ . . ` ° --' . - � L liot/'-ekvv)- ^~o //«' ^ ' / �� y` ) kew/ � -__ CirAd -rf - - �^� _~-~- _- _ 7 --------�--�-------- ---- ----------------- |] ":� '---- ------------------- ------ ---' _- / _-_' - �� -__-_- _ _ ' l ------��---�-- - -------- - �----- �.� " � v� 01/18/96 10:48 '$1 813 262 3074 HOLE MONTES — 001/003 FAX TRANSMITTAL HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES,INC, Engineers, Planners&Land Surveyors 715 Tenth Street South Naples, Florida 33940 Phone: (941)262-4617 Fax No: (941) 262-3074 f � rx rxs1•2:.;t %.+t,.:..:`li za. ti $ EiN � «y �z � ' `0 DATE: _.1/18/96 g : F rL \4 y M *; : , ns� FROM:Fa ;k � : .:6. .: , ; ,C > ? : : q Mk e Del laJtOe B N O. 82 .00B ,t ` y , > EPTAB Growth Management Y �s% o ; � ; : , 0� m . 5 :,, ti�\` � , � ' - Subcommittee Meeting `fir. i oh Sa104 . a. ,i44^sq., . YJ ` r.0 x \ SYskyir. ty" :l?g- '� �" r.� 1✓ 1 ^41\1" ^.Vfa <^V:}< l a, _: Fi 'evis.�,•; R ; $ ��%fN i?d: . a �� sr � * �� x0xs04.N. � y 'Vtia. 4•Efi There are a total of 3 pages on this transmittal including the cover sheet. If there is a problem transmitting or you do not receive the number of pages indicated, please call the above number immediately. Remarks: Please forward to Brad Cornell. Thanks. Telefax Numbers: Main Office: (941) 262-3074 Utilities: (941) 262-6528 Accounting: (941) 262-0640 Bonita: (941) 992-2327 Gateway: (941) 561-7970 Ft. Myers: (941)481-1015 01/18/96 10:49 '11 813 282 3074 HOLE MONTES 1002/003 MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 1996 From: Michael Delate To: Bradley Cornell Through: Kimberly Polen Subject: EPTAB Growth Management Subcommittee Sony I can't make it to the subcommittee meeting. Something came up suddenly. However, I would like to be able to contribute some comments germane to what I assume will be discussed. Specifically, in reference to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objectives I add the following: Objective 1.3: It is important to at least have the Board recognize the importance of protecting non-County managed lands. That is,just because they say the State manages a certain area, the County should not contribute financially or otherwise toward the protection of those lands. The County, though, can contribute manpower or aid in design and implementation of research, enhancement i.e., through programs that would benefit those lands without a significantmonetaryteer contribution.or other contribution. Objective 2.1: It seems like this is a good place to tie-in water quality with water quantity. It is an opportune place to emphasize that managing water not only means flood control but also prevention of water quality degradation downstream or enhancement or remediation of deteriorated water quality. Objective 2.2: Fiscal constraint seems to be the limiting, catch-all phrase here. There should be an emphasis on volunteer efforts at improving water quality through education. As well, if the County is financially incapable of funding the necessary research,joint efforts 01/18/96 10:50 e1 813 262 3074 HOLE MONTES Q 003/003 with DEP(for example, at Rookery Bay)or with the Federal government (Panther Preserve) in applying for grants may be more practical. Objective 6.1: Under IIB, should add LDC changes that would provide flexibility within a development to provide greater protection to unique habitat. That is, allow certain variances from spatial requirements, where appropriate, that would allow for more land to be preserved. I would like to have been there to contribute more, but I think this is the gist of what I would add to be considered over and above what the Natural Resources Subcommittee is recommending. MJD\ COLLIER COUNTY EVALUATION and APPRAISAL REPORT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OVERVIEW The purpose of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process is tc:= assess the extent to which the Growth Management Plan describes ' he current conditions in the County and to evaluate the extent to which the Plan has been implemented. Where conditions have changed or where objectives and policies have not been met, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report should discuss and recommend revisions to the objectives and policies. The EAR for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element consists of five sections: 1. The Natural Resources Subcommittee's recommendations for modifications to the goals, objectives and policies. 2 . An objective and policy evaluation matrix for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. 3 . A summary of the condition and quality of the county's natural resources, 4 . A narrative of each objective evaluating: a. The condition of the objective at the time of the original Growth Management Plan adoption; b. The condition of the objective at the time of the preparation of the EAR; and c. The objective against the results (Objective Summary Table) . 5. The goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. This format was selected due to the diverse and comprehensive nature of this element. Members of the Natural Resources subcommittee reviewed initial drafts of this material and staff incorporated their input where applicable. F.VAI,UA'1'IoN ANL APPRAISAL REPORT THE NA'I'URAI, PFSOURCF.S SITRC'OMMITTEE' S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS To THF (;nALS , ORJFC"1'IVES AND POLICIES SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: The Conservation and Coastal Management Element contains 14 Goals , 49 Objectives and 3ub Policies: the sheer volume precludes addressing comments to each . As can be seen from the summary table, the majority of the policies have been completed , but few are recommended for deletion . Staff and the subcommittee members feel that the most appropriate action for many policies is to amend them to reflect the need for a continuing effort for implementation. Several objectives , and their attendant policies , bear specific mention . oB 1Fc TIVF 1 . 3 : The Natur a 1 Resources Protect ion Areas Program. This program needs to be retained because it is a very important component of the overall resource management effort , but it also needs to be reworked into something that will have a broad community consensus for successful implementation . Modifying it to address management of County-controlled natural areas, and acknowledging the environmental protection areas that are managed by other agencies , is a good start . OBJECTIVE 2 . 1 : By January 1 , 1993 , the County shall prepare Watershed Management Plans . The subcommittee feels that this is a necessary and very important objective, particularly in the light of the flooding encountered during the 1995 rainy season. To protect the residents and the natural resources they value for contributing to their quality of life, it is important to integrate the management of stormwater, the recharge of our aquifers , and the quality and timing of discharges to our rivers, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. OBJECTIVES 2 . 2 & 2 . 3 : These two objectives address waterways and the requirement to meet various water quality standards in their entirety . That is an impossible goal , and one that would cost many thousands of dollars just to test for "all applicable Federal , State and local water quality standards. " Both need to be amended to recognize the financial realities . OBJECTIVE 2 . 5 : This objective mandated the development of an "estuarine management plan" . The result was the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Plan , plus implementation of several monitoring programs and land Development Code regulations. The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods program, recently developed in cooperation with the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences of the University of Florida , is aimc,d at educating homeowners on appropriate use of irrigation , fertilizer , pesticides , landscape plants , etc . , to reduce pollution and enrichment of estuaries. The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods program should be added as a program component of this Objective . P, 6c .1 0r,3 EAR-CCME Page 2 OBJECTIVE 4 . 1 : This objective relates to conservation of the County' s water resources and the need to acquire a data base for future resource management . The South Florida Water Management District adoption, in 1994 , of the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) , requires serious reconsideration of local water resource utilization strategies . The LWCWSP considers the impacts of predicted population growth on our water supply, and balances the needs of the residential/commercial communities, the agricultural community, and the natural resources. It concludes that the only way to fully meet these competing demands is to develop new water supplies by tapping the deeper Floridian Aquifer . That would require constructing new wellfields and expensive treatment facilities to reduce the mineral content of the raw water . It appears that Goal 4 and its contained Objectives should be revisited in view of the LWCWSP recommendations and appropriate policies added . OBJECTIVE 4 . 2 : This objective addresses conservation of the water resources . Additional policies and Land Development Code regulations should be developed dealing with means of conserving water , including innovative plumbing fixtures, maximizing effluent reuse , ] ow-water-use landscaping , graywater utilization, etc . GOAL 6 : This goal and its contained Objectives and Policies pertain to the wise stewardship of the County' s wetland and upland habitats . The majority of the Objectives should be retained and assigned realistic attainment dates, if necessary. Substantive amendments are recommended for Objectives 6. 2 and 6 . 4 to eliminate ambiguity in reference to wetlands functionality. OBJECTIVES 11 . 3 & 11 . 5 : These deal with protection of coastal resources, by restricting activities on undeveloped coastal barriers , limiting adverse impacts on developed shorelines and restoring the natural functions of beach/dune systems . However, the Collier County Land Development Code does not utilize the Collier County Coastal Construction Control Line, adopted by the Governor and Cabinet in 1989 . It is recommended that the County adopt that line for permitting beachfront construction because it was established after extensive scientific and engineering analysis , and affords much better protection for the beach/dune system than does an obsolete , arbitrary and minimal setback distance. �i9Ce ,� CF 2 EAR-CCME Page 1. OBJECTIVE 11 . 6 : This Objective called for development of a "Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program" . The result was adoption of the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Plan in 1992 . Presently, the Department of Environmental Protection is assisting in financing preparation of comprehensive inlet management plans for the six passes ( inlets) in Collier County, from Wiggins Pass to Caxambas Pass . Funds for planning and management of those passes have been allocated from the beach and pass portion of the Tourist Development Tax . A policy should be added acknowledging the inlet management plans and indicating that their recommendations will fnrm the bases for future actions . OBJECTIVE 12 . 1 : This Goal and Objective addresses preservation of historic and archaeological resources . Dr . Arthur Lee, of the County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board, provided valuable assistance to the subcommittee and staff . Several amendments have been drafted and incorporated into the Monitoring & Evaluation Report . Their purpose is to promote continuing conservation of the resources through acquisition and mapping of data , innovative development regulations , pursuit of grants and other funding sources for education and preservation , etc. The subcommittee recommends their adoption . GOAL 13 : This Goal , and its contained Objectives and Policies, address emergency preparedness and post -disaster redevelopment thoroughly and in compliance with the Growth Management Act . Placing this Goal within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element was the subject of considerable Subcommittee/staff discussion because it is an awkward companion to goals dealing with conservation and management of natural resources . The Subcommittee recommends that a separate Emergency Management or Public Safety Element he added to the Comprehensive Plan ; one that might be expanded to include police and fire protection goals , objectives and p:)11 ,- ie . rii&C cF 3 C ,ervation and Coastal Management Element Objective and Policy Evaluation Matrix November 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Objective 1 . 1 X Policy 1. 1. 1 X X C,D Policy 1. 1. 2 X C,S Policy 1. 1. 3 X X X C Policy 1. 1. 4 X X X Policy 1. 1. 5 X X X Policy 1. 1. 6 X X X Policy 1. 1. 7 X X D(2) Policy 1. 1. 8 X X X Objective 1. 2 X X C,D Policy 1 . 2 . 1 X X X Policy 1. 2 . 2 X X X Policy 1. 2 . 3 X X X Policy 1. 2. 4 X X X Policy 1 . 2 . 5 X X X Objective 1. 3 X C,D Policy 1. 3 . 1 X S Policy 1. 3 . 2 X X ( 3olicy 1. 3 . 3 X X C,D Policy 1. 3 . 4 X X C,D Objective 2 . 1 X Policy 2 . 1. 1 X D(10) X Policy 2 . 1. 2 X Policy 2 . 1. 3 X X X Policy 2 . 1. 4 X X Policy 2 . 1. 5 X X Policy 2 . 1. 6 X X Policy 2 . 1. 7 X X X Objective 2 . 2 X S Policy 2 . 2 . 1 X S Policy 2 . 2 . 2 X X S Policy 2 . 2 . 3 X X X Policy 2 . 2 .4 X X S 0 jec ive 2 . 3 X S Policy 2 . 3 . 1 X X S Policy 2 . 3 . 2 X X Policy 2 . 3 . 3 X X X Policy 2 . 3 . 4 X S Policy 2 . 3 . 5 X X C,D Policy 2 . 3 . 6 X X X Objective 2 . 4 X N,D(*) Policy 2 . 4 . 1 X X Policy 2 . 4 . 2 X X Policy 2 . 4 . 3 X X /0/966/ o,-8 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective and Policy Evaluation Matrix November 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Objective 2 . 5 X S,D(**) Policy 2 . 5. 1 X X S Policy 2 . 5. 2 X S Policy 2 . 5. 3 X X S Objective 3 . 1 X X C,D Policy 3 . 1. 1 X X X Policy 3 . 1. 2 X X Policy 3 . 1. 3 X X C,D Policy 3 . 1. 4 X X C Policy 3 . 1. 5 X X C Policy 3 . 1. 6 X X C Objective 3 . 2 X X C,D Policy 3 . 2 . 1 X X C, S Policy 3 . 2 . 2 X X X Policy 3 . 2 . 3 X X C Policy 3 . 2 . 4 X X C Objective 3 . 3 X X C,D Policy 3 . 3 . 1 X S Policy 3 . 3 . 2 X X S (" Policy 3 . 3 . 3 X X C Policy 3 . 3 . 4 X X X Policy 3 . 3 . 5 X X C Objective 3 . 4 X X X Policy 3 . 4 . 1 X X S Policy 3 . 4 . 2 X X X Policy 3 . 4 . 3 X X X Policy 3 . 4 . 4 X X X Objective 4 . 1 X X C Policy 4 . 1 . 1 X X X Policy 4 . 1. 2 X X S Policy 4 . 1 . 3 X X S Objective 4 . 2 X D(1) Policy 4 . 2 . 1 X X X Policy 4 . 2 . 2 X X X Policy 4 . 2 . 3 X X S Policy 4 . 2 . 4 X X S Policy 4 . 2 . 5 X X Policy 4 . 2 . 6 X X S, D(1) Objective 5 . 1 X X X Policy 5 . 1 . 1 X X X Policy 5. 1 . 2 X X X Policy 5. 1 . 3 X X X Policy 5. 1. 4 X X X Policy 5. 1. 5 X X , -2 0F8 Conservation and Coastal Management Element C active and Policy Evaluation Matrix N .:tuber 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Objective 5. 2 X Policy 5. 2 . 1 X C, Policy 5. 2 .2 C, S X Objective 5. 3 X D(*) Policy 5. 3 . 1 X S Objective 5. 4 X X Policy 5. 4 . 1 X C,D X Policy 5. 4 . 2 X X X Policy 5. 4 . 3 X Policy 5. 4 . 4 X X X N Objective 6. 1 X ___,.. D(1) Policy 6. 1. 1 X D(1) Policy 6. 1. 2 X D(1) Policy 6. 1. 3 X D(1) Policy 6. 1. 4 X X Policy 6. 1. 5 X X Policy 6 . 1. 6 X X Policy 6. 1. 7 X X X Objective 6. 2 X X S Policy 6. 2 . 1 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 2 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 3 X X Policy 6. 2 . 4 X X S Policy 6 . 2 . 5 X S Policy 6. 2 . 6 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 7 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 8 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 9 X X S Policy 6. 2 . 10 X X S Policy 6 . 2 . 11 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 12 X S Policy 6. 2 . 13 X X S Policy 6. 2 . 14 X X X Policy 6. 2 . 15 Policy 6. 3 . 3 should become Policy 6. 2 . 15 Objective 6. 3 X X X Policy 6. 3 . 1 X X X Policy 6. 3 . 2 X X X Policy 6. 3 . 3 X X X 6. 2 . 15 Objective 6 . 4 X X S Policy 6. 4 . 1 X X S Policy 6. 4 . 2 X X X Policy 6. 4 . 3 X X S Policy 6. 4 .4 X X X Policy 6 . 4 . 5 X X S fi9GE 3 o -5 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective and Policy Evaluation Matrix November 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Policy 6. 4 . 6 X X S Policy 6. 4 . 7 X X S Policy 6.4 . 8 X X X Objective 6. 5 X X S Policy 6. 5. 1 X X S Policy 6. 5. 2 X X X Objective 6. 6 X X S Policy 6. 6. 1 X X C,D Policy 6. 6. 2 X X C, D Policy 6 . 6 . 3 X X N Objective 6 . 7 X X X Policy 6. 7 . 1 X X X Policy 6 . 7 . 2 X X C,D Policy 6. 7 . 3 X X X Objective 6. 8 X X X Policy 6 . 8 . 1 X X X Policy 6. 8 . 2 X X X Objective 7 . 1 X X X Policy 7 . 1. 1 X X C,D Policy 7 . 1 . 2 X X X N Objective 7 . 2 X D(2) Policy 7 . 2 . 1 X X X Policy 7 . 2 . 2 X X X Policy 7 . 2 . 3 X X X Policy 7 . 2 . 4 X X X Objective 7 . 3 X C,D Policy 7 . 3 . 1 X X X Policy 7 . 3 . 2 X X C Policy 7 . 3 . 3 X C,D Policy 7 . 3 . 4 X X X Policy 7 . 3 . 5 X X X Policy 7 . 3 . 6 X X X Policy 7 . 3 . 7 X X X Policy 7 . 3 . 8 X X C,D Policy 7 . 3 . 9 X X D(***) Objective 8 . 1 X X X Policy 8 . 1 . 1 X X X Policy 8 . 1 . 2 X X X Policy 8 . 1 . 3 X X X Policy 8 . 1 . 4 X X X Policy 8 . 1 . 5 X X C,D Objective 9 . 1 X X X PAVE 1- of--3 Conservation and Coastal Management Element C ctive and Policy Evaluation Matrix N. amber 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Policy 9 . 1. 1 X X X Policy 9 . 1 . 2 X X X Policy 9. 1. 3 X X Policy 9 . 1. 4 X X X Policy 9 . 1. 5 X X X Policy 9. 1 . 6 X X X Policy 9 . 1. 7 X X X Objective 9 . 2 X X Policy 9 . 2 . 1 X X X C,D Policy 9. 2 . 2 X X X OOjective 9 . 3 X X X Policy 9 . 3 . 1 X X X Policy 9. 3 . 2 X X Objective 9 . 4 X X C,D Policy 9 . 4 . 1 X X X Policy 9 . 4 . 2 X X X Objective 9 . 5 X X S Dolicy 9 . 5. 1 X X S Objective 10. 1 X X Policy 10. 1. 1 X S Policy 10. 1 . 2 X X Policy 10. 1. 3 X X Policy 10. 1 . 4 X X Policy 10. 1. 5 X S Policy 10. 1. 6 X X Objective 10. 2 X X X Policy 10. 2 . 1 X X Policy 10. 2 . 2 X X X Policy 10 . 2 . 3 X X X Policy 10. 2 . 4 X X X Policy 10. 2 . 5 X X X Objective 11. 1 X X X Policy 11. 1. 1 X X X Policy 11. 1. 2 X X X Policy 11. 1. 3 X X X Policy 11 . 1. 4 X X S Policy 11 . 1. 5 X X X Policy 11. 1 . 6 X X X Policy 11. 1 . 7 X X X Policy 11 . 1. 8 X X S Policy 11. 1 . 9 X X X `ective 11. 2 X X D(2) Policy 11. 2 . 1 X X X 10f1GE5 oF8 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective and Policy Evaluation Matrix November 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Policy 11. 2 . 2 X X X Policy 11. 2 . 3 X X X Policy 11. 2 . 4 X X X Policy 11. 2 . 5 X X X Policy 11. 2 . 6 X X X Objective 11. 3 X X C Policy 11. 3 . 1 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 2 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 3 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 4 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 5 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 6 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 7 X X Policy 11. 3 . 8 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 9 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 10 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 11 X X X Policy 11 . 3 . 12 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 13 X X X Policy 11. 3 . 14 X X X Policy 11 . 3 . 15 X X X r Objective 11 . 4 X X C Policy 11. 4 . 1 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 2 X X X Policy 11 . 4 . 3 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 4 X X X Policy 11 . 4 . 5 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 6 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 7 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 8 X X X Policy 11 . 4 . 9 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 10 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 11 X X Policy 11. 4 . 12 X X X Policy 11. 4 . 13 X X X Objective 11. 5 X X X Policy 11. 5. 1 X X X Policy 11 . 5 . 2 X X Policy 11 . 5. 3 X X X Policy 11. 5. 4 X X X Policy 11 . 5. 5 X X X Policy 11. 5 . 6 This Policy does not exist-- a sequential numbering error Policy 11 . 5 . 7 X X X Policy 11. 5. 8 X X Policy 11. 5. 9 X X X Policy 11. 5. 10 X X X Policy 11. 5. 11 X X X Policy 11. 5. 12 X X X Conservation and Coastal Management Element C ctive and Policy Evaluation Matrix N4. . ember 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Policy 11. 5. 13 X X X Objective 11. 6 X X C,D Policy 11. 6. 1 X X S Policy 11. 6. 2 X X S Policy 11. 6. 3 X X S Policy 11. 6. 4 X X C Objective 12 . 1 X X X Policy 12 . 1 . 1 X X S Policy 12 . 1. 2 X X S Policy 12 . 1. 3 X X S Objective 13 . 1 X X X Policy 13 . 1. 1 X X X Policy 13 . 1 . 2 X X X Policy 13 . 1. 3 X S Policy 13 . 1 . 4 X X X Policy 13 . 1 . 5 X X X Policy 13 . 1. 6 X X X Policy 13 . 1 . 7 X X X L active 13 . 2 X S Policy 13 . 2 . 1 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 2 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 3 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 4 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 5 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 6 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 7 X X X Policy 13 . 2 . 8 X X X Objective 13 . 3 X X X --- Policy 13 . 3 . 1 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 2 X X X Policy 13 . 3 . 3 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 4 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 5 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 6 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 7 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 8 X X Policy 13 . 3 . 9 This policy was formally deleted by a prior amendment. Objective 13 . 4 X X X Policy 13 .4 . 1 X X Policy 13 . 4 . 2 X X X Policy 13 . 4 . 3 X X X Objective 14 . 1 X X X Policy 14 . 1 . 1 X X X Policy 14 . 1 . 2 X X X Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective and Policy Evaluation Matrix November 3 , 1995 Implementation Status: Recommendations: Not Not Contin Retain Objective/Policy Begun Complete Complete Effort As Is Delete Amend Policy 14 . 1. 3 X X X Amendments are coded as follows: C: Revise to reflect a continuing effort must be sustained. D(#) : Revise the date. The number refers to the number of years after the amendment adoption. D(*) : Revise the date. The asterick refers to the completion prior to the amendment adoption. D(**) : Revise the date. The asterisks refer to completion one year after each watershed management plan is prepared. D(***) : Revise the date. The asterisks refer to completion at the time of the amendment adoption. N: Change the name of an organizational entity. S: A substantial change; see the narrative for further description. ,gs 8OF8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I. CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 1. 3 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 1 . 3 was to address the Data and Analysis Requirements and the Requirements for Goals, Objectives and Policies of 9J-5 . 012 (1) , (2) and (3) and 9J-5. 013 (1) and (2) . B. The specific intent of Objective 1. 3 was to complete the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the County Natural Resources Protection Areas (NRPA) Program by August 1, 1994 . The purpose of Natural Resources Protection Areas will be to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in the current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida" , published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission) and their habitats. C. Prior to January 1989, the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: the concept of planning and implementing NRPAs did not exist. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: our area's natural habitats are its economic base, and its greatest attraction to those who wish to experience nature beyond their own backyard. It may be short sighted to assume that the quality of life in Collier County can be maintained or improved by simply removing the features that have provided this fundamental value. Increased human population will put a severe strain on the remaining natural areas. Preservation and protection of these areas is the only way to insure the quality of life people expect in Collier County. E. In addressing this Objective, there were some problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: 1. Constraints have prevented the adopted Clam Bay NRYA from being mapped, therefore; 100% has not yet been achieved. 2 . Constraints have prevented the funding to create Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans (cross- reference Objective 2 . 1) . -12- II . CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . In December 1992 , Staff briefed the BCC on the proposed NRPA Program. Following several information workshops, on March 1, 1994 , the BCC took formal action to create the process for developing NRPAs. Also, the Board directed Staff to create the Clam Bay NRPA as the first NRPA for development. On February 28 , 1995, the BCC approved the Clam Bay NRPA which included some of Staff's management guideline recommendations. On July 18 , 1995, the BCC directed staff to re-evaluate the NRPA Program through the EAR process. 2 . On October 1, 1991, the BCC approved Resolution 92-319 regarding the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) , which included recommendations for management guidelines for the undeveloped coastal barrier. On June 29, 1993 the BCC adopted various LDC amendments reflecting some of the CZMP recommendations. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . The County should continue with the NRPA Program as directed by the BCC and amend the dates within the Objective and Policies 1 . 3 . 2 and 1 . 3 . 3 . [As stated in Section II .A (above) , the BCC requested Staff to re-determine the vision of the NRPA Program through the EAR process. Staff recently developed a proposed three-step procedure which consists of the following actions: first, create a Comprehensive Land Management NRPA that entails all County-owned conservation lands (e.g. , Belle Meade Wetland Preserve, Westclox Scrub Preserve, Lely Barefoot Beach Park, Tigertail Beach Park) ; second, assist the community with natural areas management of private lands ; and third, recommend areas of environmental concern (e . g. , Okaloacoochee Slough, Camp Keais Strand) that contain natural resource connections, which are essential to the long-term sustainabilities of adjacent established NRPA areas. ] 2 . The County should amend Policy 1. 3 . 1 . (a) in order to first recognize the implementation of an adopted NRPA, then identify the NRPA(s) in map form as an overlay to the Future Land Use Plan Map during the following annual Growth Management Plan amendment process. 3 . The County should amend Policy 1 . 3 . 1 . (e) in order to include the following EPTAB/GMP Committee suggestions: -13- 1 . Consideration of potential reduction (s) in densities, where such reductions can be justified to protect natural resources, public health, safety and welfare; 2 . Tailoring development standards to the needs of NRPAs in the form of f overlays or other forms of similar zoning overlay treatments; and 3 . Clustering and mitigation banking concepts. 4 . In the event that the County adopts an open space recreational system, consideration should be given to incorporating the linkage and protection objectives of the NRPA program. -14- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [ See the following "Objective Table Summary" ] -15- ^, a �' CxvMv 'C N ., � C, CD C Z L C 473 ro • I� Q) >. 0 Rte - X •°; v v IC > � � C CL ZwLi a, •,), N 'II o sv.) 0 •.i 0 •r,ul E 'OII.4CZ vC <Zy -4 CL C A 41 0 CU 0 X 7 N y r > 0 Z O C E Z :+. = TJ a o v y C C c • v It • C.+ C:0 CD 42) 0 4) m DE4. > n) Ew � v -.4 C. C+,-�i r > >, 4 E 413 O.4.,+ r A � E 0 .C1 4 crs y 1,4 ,-1 $w N V d C 0 --i m )15v Z a) ms v 3 .w E >4 0.i Cc,> sr v M U .0 UW 4)i R C ^+ U v a a a aoII. cC Osa co E" 4 N >I Z 3 w . iz 0 N m as J, d C Z ,0 of •; x iLi4) wz 0 1Z CAI = 01 I, "II • Ci -., U ZZ' 4-) E0 --.. - C w C R s.. co O. 0 v A 0u CL•-•.. o •c o 0 V �- 13 N U -+ C. co Of V 1..1 i R! C CL Oa v U ) v Z 1 I ) '� C N >, co �Ol v c .0 v v Sr -4 0 • L C N .� .i C ^t A 0 NII •� o N R •.i a0 0 ..4-) N ) C '¢Li, E" >, N 4 $.4 •41 � w •• ›•• v et • > N o N C C v 1J O N O a w C .0 .� 'II it v •II R Li U v C C U ., 0 N O -I U v Q) •• C ,.,,r 'C :c. t 0 -.. y ' Z U IV t •.. E -.i O -r Z ..II C Q) $r C •.i '^ v L � � C .r1 J E C) --+ U 3 a� C) .) o a� �) •.... rp o v to 0 , 0 C :. N L A U C t v s. v .-, E v L. U �� s. U O G^ or, v U C U II O 0p O N -, :ii N a C v C+ v v .0 s. = v N s., o sr c v N 1.1 C C C ••a v v •,, C G. 0 IV �+ ••r t,. L •.. k ,0 I .a >.� cc, iM " � U ~ � e0 maPaeourec. �; vmU ,� saww �veCa. .-4 Cl, N 0 v 0 ).. N 0 CO "0 v N s.. w v v E ••w O > ., u 'J t E 0 .. Z 1 4 n. B Z 5 G 1. 0 C 7 .2 R E v COO C VI —4 C O w C C -16- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I. CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 2 . 1 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 2 . 1 was to address the Data and Analysis Requirements and the Requirements for Goals, Objectives and Policies of 9J-5 . 012 (1) , (2) and (3 ) and 9J-5 . 013 ( 1) and (2) . B. The specific intent of Objective 2 . 1 was to prepare Watershed Management Plans by January 1, 1993 . C. Prior to January 1989 , the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: the concept of planning and implementing Watershed Management Plans did not exist. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include : the County should develop a County-Wide Water Management Master Plan, which will emphasize total water management design concepts and will evaluate drainage needs that are consistent with other existing or improved natural conditions . This Master Plan should identify the existing watershed boundaries and establish them as planning units for addressing protection and management strategies of the their natural resources . E. In addressing this Objective, there were a number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: Policy constraints have prevented the funding of the Water- shed Management Plans, which would have addressed impacts on the County's estuarine system as well as impacts within the watersheds . -17- II. CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- ion of this Objective include: Ordinance No. 90-10, which is utilized by the County' s permit review process and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) provides project design criteria for various basins throughout the County. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- ion of this Objective include: 1 . It is recommended that the Objective be retained and the the date should be amended. 2 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 1 . 5 be retained and re- phrased to address concerns over the quality of data available relative to the scale at which land use interpretations are made in each watershed. This could potentially involve site specific field investigations to verify land use. -18- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS :See the following "Objective Table Summary" ) -19- 4 IC ID 10 1y 4) • 4 1•^ VI '0 't Z 0 C'••4-) I C O y • CCM • 0 sa Ci Ci E ^ C r^ y > •C C) a 0 10 -+ 0 n 0 y iy a) O as C y ••4 C w U •"� c .� r0 r0 y C1 w C) a N sa '^" C) U L C) ••-\ () 7 0 C ••7.' > E 4. A iC 3 w C O U rC O O v .13 Smi > •J E 'C .-+ 0•1 CJ C A y N ^•4I 0 c CJ (V Say a CM CV 0 V a y > a O C A C 0 C) W 4) C •••1 7 7 7 4 Q '., E a 0 y _ F y C C •� g CU V CU mi C r Li v 0, .^, c0 C) w C) :C C! N C •-1 y £ M 0 y R W 1;14 �� AE � C3y > o1 d) •C U O 'O Sa C) rd 0-4 C) ••+ w ••+ 0 E U w 0) ••� •-i y C) £ £ .., .^+ N C v) C' • �0 U c .-4 r0 c C) MS 0 C) C c0 0 C) a 110s r0 ^•+ N aAy £ CS. C X94) w 0 0 C N 1.4r0 0 C (1) E y ••4 ••-I m 3 a) a C4.) E 7 .0 4-J V ••4 N 0 C V 0 U • •roi y IVO E Oi CI y (0 tp C ••4 sa 0 •••1 sa sa C) d C 0 Sr •-4 .0 ••i C 4) c E •••+ r, C, • 04 0 ••4 0 •.i dl y t y V $4 Ga e0 sa 'C C U ••a 'C 4) CT C) C > .Oi RS 3 �0 O v U 'C C .0 Z Q. 1-4 41 . _ -1 •4 47 4.4 N ^� u > � C N C C 0 ••4 7 y (2) C E � U ' s.10 C) • 0 a Ci 7 C I I •n C\ 7 C) ++ C ^ A >,c'• 0 Sr 0CC) ••+ (.) a3 £ a -20- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I . CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 2 . 2 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 2 . 2 was to address the requirements of: 9J-5 . 011 (1) (f) where drainage needs will be identified; 9J-5 . 011 (2) (b) 5 to protect the functions of natural drainage features; 9J-5 . 013 ( 1) (a) 1 to "identify and analyze rivers, bays, lakes, wetlands, etc. including infor- ation on quality of the resource available; and 9J-5 . 013 (2) (c) 6 to protect and conserve the " . . . natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, harbors, wetlands including estuarine marshes, freshwater beaches and shores , and marine habitats" . B. The specific intent of Objective 2 . 2 was that inland surface water quality meet all applicable Federal, State and local standards. C. Prior to January 1989 , the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: 1 . A Wastewater Treatment Plant Inspection Program was in place, via a specific delegation agreement with the FDEP; 2 . Prior to 1989 , there was no Estuarine Water Quality Monitoring Program in place to determine background water quality values; 3 . Inland Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program had been taken over ( 1988) from the SFWMD. Background values had yet to be determined; and 4 . No local regulations to limit specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater run-off. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: adequacy of water quality data from which to address the "meet all standards" requirement; funding for Stormwater Management Program; time between citations of wastewater plants for violations and remedial action; impossibility of meeting the "all applicable standards" requirement; and lack of coordinated authority to address discovered pollution situations. E. In addressing this Objective, there were a number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: -21- 1 . Fiscal constraints preclude addressing the "all applicable standards" aspect of this Objective, not only in frequency of monitoring, but the number and density of monitoring locations, and analyte lists; 2 . Fiscal constraints that slow the acquisition of water quality data; 3 . That the quality and quantity of urban and rural input into the freshwater system cannot be controlled and that background water quality standards often exceed applicable standards; and 4 . Lack of fiscal support for Comprehensive Stormwater Program. -22- II. CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . Pollution Control Department Staff has implemented a Freshwater Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program which monitors eleven (11) locations four (4) times per year (where each station represents approximately 21 linear miles of Collier County waterways. 2 . The PCD's Strategic Water Quality Monitoring Plan (PC- SP-92-02) serves as a mechanism for optimizing fiscal and human resources by focusing monitoring efforts in different drainage basins each year with a five-year rotation through all basins. At the end of the five- year cycle, the County will have a database on the back- ground water quality of each watershed. FY 94/95 is the fourth year of the program cycle. 3 . In terms of surface water quality findings during this evaluation period, the following are representative of initial background water quality determinations at twenty-three (23) widely separated locations, mainly for nutrients . Seasonal variability is noted in some of the analytes (phosphorous, silica) while other analytes do not appear to have seasonal controls. Certain water- sheds exhibit higher than expected concentrations (phosphorus and ammonia concentrations in the West Branch of the Cocohatchee River. Subsequent sampling events indicate similar trends and increasing values. 4 . In terms of freshwater sediment samples, &;here are very few standards against which to compare analyte values. The Inland Sediment Sampling Program is not required under the Growth Management Plan, and was implemented during 1989-91 sampling periods. The initial survey indicated a number of areas in major drainage ways that contained pesticides, metals, and PAH concentrations that exceeded values at which some biological impact (Long and Morgan, 1990) may be noted. [See also the "Summary of the Conditions and Quality of . Collier County's Natural Resources" ] B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . It is recommended that the word "Federal" be deleted within the Objective because the State has adopted the Federal water quality standards therefore it does not need to be referenced. 2 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 2 . 1 be amended to state "Wastewater Treatment Plants shall be allowed to dis- charge directly to rivers, canals or jurisdictional wetlands only per FDEP regulations and so as not to -23- violate other Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element. Copies of discharge reports, including time, duration, volume, and quality of material discharged shall be communicated to the County within 48 hours of the termination of the documented discharge. 3 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 2 . 2 be amended to state "In order to limit the specific and cumulative quantitative and qualitative impacts of stormwater run- off to the estuarine and freshwater systems, stormwater systems shall be designed in such a way that: discharge water does not degrade receiving waters; post-develop- ment ground water recharge characteristics are not altered from pre-development conditions; and an attempt is made to ameliorate the discharge timing of freshwater to pre-development conditions to the estuarine system. Non-structural methods such as retention of discharge and storage in wetlands are encouraged. " 4 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 2 . 4 be amended to state "Continue and expand the existing Inland Surface Water Quality Monitoring Programs for selected analytes, to establish seasonal background water quality values in each drainage basin, and maintain a sentinel station network. Report the data on an annual basis, and assess on a biannual basis . " 5 . The following water quality concerns should be addressed: 1 . Retrofitting, improving and upgrading the existing (substandardized) stormwater management systems that are not meeting State water quality treatment standards; 2 . Evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater manage- ment systems by inventorying existing systems; and 3 . Developing a Pollution Prevention Education Program for homeowners and businesses. -24- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [See the following "Objective Table Summary" ] -25- I • 11, C '0 >, ,I-4 4) ii • A •n C.) 0 Z J.) w C) - Jg U O •C -- " y MI C) 0 C 0 E L4 W E C T ro 4) 3o 0 0 M > •'i •^a 3 1J 4) 4. 4) 4) .i .0 •4) 'f0 U 0'7 b 0 R V ro Ul 0 00 � fl. 0 .sac2amC 'II R w Qr •-i 1J U .-4 a M . 0 4) • ro C 0 4 > 'fl 0 0 L4 C CU O • 0 3 Com) '"4 1J •^I ref roJ w),I W 1.) L. ••1 1:1•.y • 3.4 E 4-,�.-4 >, 0•C 0 1�.' C L., C to U 4! ro :1. E W 4)' 'D C L.4 ro 0 Ci C) c C.7 r ms L. 3 L. O a a� 4 ml CL 3 E 3 ON C' 0 A 3 CL 3 CL a H IX C) "' 0 1J ON 0 •C •„i*vCU im, 1 1J O $r 3. U) O .v J RI a IA C, E 0 1J .-4 . .-, .4 .,i - E C) CA M O CO 1J 0 Cl. 0 1J ro •C Cn 0' ro w aami ro C CL 030ao •- Uiuci 1J p 0 C) G Ems+ w 'J 0 C) 4)i C.:t C .- '0 U C C w . i Cbl 4I ro C] E co 1J rp C C) •-' ›. C 0 5. 1J U '0 X . )• E U ro E L• iJ •4 .0 L+ U U 1UJ) h Z w ro a CT • ,.4 7 .••moi C ro .II .�i II. E Cq cocf) 0 U) co V CL 1J ro ro 1J E ..� 0 3r 0 -1 3 n.1�J •-4 -4o W C•Z.e0 z U •� C. I y C E �1J 0) 1 C 0 ro • of O Io E U E C coo C) •W .' 4) C � ro �Ja� roU o� C •-+ C Cr O U �,= .0� ,-' 3 ro L1. 3, ro .1 ..� .-r CP ft M O 1J O M 0 � � O C p'"' 3� ro C 3 04.•W C a) aav •^4 :II 0 ..., wc0CL 0 ro = •� E Ce Or a� ro .-4 s,, 1J C 0 U 0 C) E 1J U .1 �0 O 0 •-•40,)3a a•'� L V) 3r 4-) CULroi 4J v v J: Q1 .y) L0� ..C.I w C.) 1cc OQ) C --4CrU U -4IJroCro1J a 3. O ro .-4 •.4 rp 34 0 R 0 �0 E w eo .� C' 0 ro C G. C 3 C.1J 3 0. C 3 E CL CL cn •e+ 0 Z O. elf U A •,.i .-i N 0 ,--I� ro CO C14 U w 4) • 4-10 > N - C N mf 4.) RI ly 4) -- 1 0 .aim 3 • I?) >I-I ro ro U) CP CD •-+ L2 -•-1 g 13 V U )�., ^0 •C L' al U rQ U 1�.M 0 O Q' ro "i 3•' 0 ••" '0 C) 0 L. C 1J .-1 0 .-i .-i c A ^i •-I ro .0 ^ C) C) 0C..W = � 0QL43U6Erou. 00• o -26- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I. CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 2 . 3 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 2 . 3 was to address the requirements of: 9J-5 . 012 (3) (b) 2 to "Maintain or improve estuarine environmental quality; " 9J-5 . 012 (3) (c) 13 to " . . . prevent estuarine pollution, . . . protect living marine resources; " 9J-5. 013 (2) (c) 6 to protect and conserve the " . . . natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, harbors, wetlands including estuarine marshes, freshwater beaches and shores, and marine habitats ; " B. The specific intent of Objective 2 . 3 was that estuarine water quality meet all applicable Federal, State and local standards . C. Prior to January 1989, the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: 1 . The entire coast of Collier County is comprised of a complex of interconnected estuarine systems (as many as 21 have been identified) . Freshwater arrives in these systems via sheetflow, streams, canals, other stormwater outfalls, and direct precipitation. As of January, 1989, it was recognized that essentially all of the County's estuaries had been altered to some degree by man's activities. Simpson et al. ( 1979) reported degradation of water quality in Naples Bay that was apparently related to human activities, including storm- water run-off. NOAA (1987) studies reported relatively high pesticide, arsenic, and tin levels in Naples Bay oyster tissue. Bowder (1985) reported that freshwater input impacted various estuarine invertebrate popula- tions, and Carter et al. (1973) reported concentrations of metals in sediments related to run-off. A number of other studies documented the impact of development in Collier County on the estuarine systems. Pesticides were reported from the estuaries (e.g. , Carter et al. , 1973 ; NOAA, 1987 ; Thoemke and Gyorkos, 1988) . D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: adequacy or inadequacy of the data documenting estuarine water quality conditions, coming to grips with the necessity of addressing the issue of continued water quality degradation of estuarine systems versus continued development in the County, and how to implement any remedial actions. In addressing this Objective, there were a -27- number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: 1 . Fiscal constraints preclude addressing the "all applicable standards" aspect of this Objective, not only in frequency of monitoring, but the number and density of monitoring locations, and analyte lists; 2 . That the quality and quantity of freshwater input into the estuarine system cannot be controlled and that back- ground water quality standards often exceed applicable standards . -28- II . CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . PCD Staff has implemented an Estuarine Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program which monitors thirteen (13) locations semiannually (where each station represents 4 . 3 linear miles of Collier County coastline or 0. 62 stations per each identified estuary in the County) . Sediment samples are collected from these same stations with each sample representing an area of 8 .76 square miles of estuarine substrate. 2 . The PCD's Strategic Water Quality Monitoring Plan (PC- SP-92-02) serves as a mechanism for optimizing fiscal and human resources by focusing monitoring efforts in different estuarine systems each year with a five-year rotation through the twenty-one (21) systems. At the end of the five-year cycle, the County will have a data- base on the background water quality of the estuarine systems. FY 94/95 is the fourth year of the program cycle. 3 . In terms of surface water quality findings during this evaluation period, the following statements are representative of initial background water quality determinations at 13 widely separated locations. Seasonal variability is noted in the salinity values, as would be expected with the dry-wet season climate regime. Likewise, there is a general correlation between dissolved oxygen and seasons. Total organic carbon appears generally related to variability in salinity. Phosphorus concentrations are also generally related to seasons and salinity levels, while nitrogen species appear to be related more to land use activities in drainage basins (i. e. , the uncontrollable input) rather than seasonal controls. In terms of estuarine sediment samples, there are very few standards against which to compare analyte values. The sediment sampling programs was initiated to ascertain background values in the County' s estuarine system. Findings from the initial survey indicate the following: Total Organic Carbon concentrations are generally higher in the wet season as compared to the dry season and generally comparable to other data (NOAA, 1991) ; Dry season organic nitrogen values appear comparable with values reported by Scholl (1963) and Lacerda and Rezende, 1990) , but clear-cut seasonal correlations are not possible with this data; Phosphorus concentrations appear higher in urban estuaries as compared to other areas, but other correlations are less certain; Heavy metals concentrations appear to be positively related to anthropogenic activities (urbanization and agricultural activities?) and in some areas appear to be at levels that could have some impact on benthic organisms (Naples -29- Bay, Cocohatchee River, Vanderbilt Lagoon, and Barron River estuarine areas being mentioned most frequently. Organochlorine pesticides (Aldrin, d-BHC, Endosulfan I , and Endrin) have been detected at the Naples Bay, Goodland Bay, Vanderbilt Lagoon and Blackwater River locations . [See also the "Summary of the Conditions and Quality of Collier County's Natural Resources" ] B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . It is recommended that the date be deleted and word "Federal" be deleted within the Objective. Because the State has adopted the Federal water quality standards, it does not need to be referenced. 2 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 3 . 1 be amended to state "All new, permitted, point source discharges shall meet applicable water quality standards and address maintenance of natural hydroperiod, including peak and duration of freshwater inflow to the estuarine systems" . 3 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 3 . 4 be amended to state "Expand and modify current estuarine water quality monitoring to include sentinel stations in all estuarine systems to be monitored seasonally. This is in addition to the current estuarine water quality and sediment monitoring performed within each watershed basin on an annual rotation. The data collected from the monitoring shall be incorporated into status reports and trend analysis" . Also, it is recommended that the date be deleted within the Policy. 4 . Since an Interlocal Agreement has been developed, it is recommended that the date should be deleted and the phrase "initiate the development of an" should be amended to "Continue to implement the" within Policy 2 . 3 . 5. -30- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [ See the following "Objective Table Summary" -31- �I1 I 0 �j C >I ~ 4 , i .M G UI 0 <:: o r--r C U w ., E o 0 v •ri L C C C l-• A O O Cl b U U. ... ...I 'v C) : MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I. CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 2 . 5 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 2 . 5 was to address the Data and Analysis Requirements and the Requirements for Goals, Objectives and Policies of 9J-5 . 012 (1) , (2) and (3) and 9J-5. 013 (1) and (2) . B. The specific intent of Objective 2 . 5 was to complete the development of an Estuarine Management Program by August 1, 1992 . C. Prior to January 1989, the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: the United States Army Corp. of Engineers has been the primary Federal agency exerting regulatory authority in Collier estuaries . The Corps. has permitted dredge and fill activities in navigable waters and wetlands. Projects have been reviewed relative to how they will affect navigability and production of the estuary. Dredge and fill projects have been required to prove that they will not degrade the surrounding waters beyond accepted standards. Destruction of tidal and submerged wetlands has no longer been allowed except when its been in the public interest or for certain property rights. USEPA also has regulated point source pollution discharges. The FDEP has been the lead State agency concerning the regulation of dredge and fill activities. The FDEP also, has regulated all potential stationary pollutant sources in Florida. The FDEP has promulgated domestic wastewater facility standards, stormwater permitting, and mangrove alteration. Pollution sources have been prohibited from discharging pollutants that could cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards in FAC 17-3 in the receiving waters. Pollution sources that have contributed to conditions causing violations of FAC 17-3 like oxygen depletions, algal blooms and nuisance conditions have not been strictly regulated because the FDEP has had potentially toxic and other environmentally destructive projects to regulate with limited manpower. The SFWMD has regulated stormwater discharges from projects greater than forty (40) acres. Collier County has regulated stormwater discharges from facilities of less than forty (40) acres. The regulatory structure has addressed most of the significant problems previously discussed on an initial -37- project-by-project basis . However, there has been very minimal post-construction follow-up inspections to find out if the projects are in compliance with the adopted Federal and State standards ( i . e. , maintenance and/or improvement of the environmental quality, etc. ) . The concept of developing and implementing a Comprehensive Estuarine Management Program did not exist. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: with the exception of Naples Bay, the water quality of Collier County's estuarine system is generally good but showing symptoms of being adversely impacted by man's activities. The major problem experienced by all the estuaries in the County is excess freshwater input to the system from canals. This input affects the balance of fresh and salt water leading to dissolved oxygen problems and declines in the productivity of the estuarine system. All estuaries in Collier County have been altered to some degree from man' s activities. The FDEP assessments rate the estuaries in Collier County as being fair to good. Naples Bay, however, is probably the most stressed estuary in the County. The nature of water quality problems in Naples Bay restricts the diversity of the aquatic populations, the numbers of individuals, and may at times pose some health threat to persons swimming in or having direct contact with the water. Conditions generally favor less desirable species rather than being uninhabitable. Nuisance algae concentra- tions and occasional oxygen deficits have occurred. E. In addressing this Objective, there were a number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: Policy constraints have prevented the funding of the Water- shed Management Plans, which would have addressed pollutant loadings to the County' s estuarine system. [See also the "Summary of the Conditions and Quality of Collier County's Natural Resources" ] -38- II . CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include : the County has implemented an Estuarine Management Program through the following associated components: - EIS Requirements (LDC 3 . 8 . 5 . 4 . 1) Stormwater Standards (Reference 2 . 3 . 1 & LDC 3 . 2 . 8 . 4 . 22) - Seagrass Monitoring (Reference Policy 6 . 6. 2) - Estuarine Monitoring Program (Reference Policy 2 . 3 . 4) Seagrass and Boat Dock Standards (LDC 2 . 6. 21) - Dune and Strand Protection Standards (LDC 3 . 12 . 5 . 4) - Mangrove Trimming (LDC 3 . 9 . 5 . 2 . 8) - Estuarine Management Plan - This Plan is based on the programs listed above and water quality, sediment, and benthic community data contained in various publications written by the County' s PCD (e . g. , PC-ar-93-07) . Guide- lines for mitigation and development standards are out- lined in the Estuarine Monitoring Plan for each coastal environment (e. g. , dune and strand) , biologically sensitive areas, and proposed land use activities. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . It is recommended that this Objective be retained and its language amended to reflect the addition of more detailed land use data and water quality information, and the the date should be amended. 2 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 5 . 1 be retained and amended to address concerns over the quality of data available relative to the scale at which land use interpretations are made in each watershed. This could potentially involve site specific field investigations to verify land use and revision/expansion of the Water Quality Monitoring Program. 3 . It is recommended that Policy 2 . 5. 2 be retained and that consideration be given to initiating drainage basin studies, so that Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans involving land use, stormwater run-off, water quality and quantity, ground water recharge, and freshwater/estuarine interaction can be generated. 4 . It is recommended that the following concept amend the original language: developing a Pollution Prevention Education Program for homeowners and businesses. -39- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [ See the following "Objective Table Summary" ) -40- t 4) V 4.' vl H 0I •r1' • r' •f" U •0 z 4J > N 0 CP 40 a) 0 C .0 •-. a 4)) v o > .0 4 U, v c ccycoca� � •"4 Q . 70csa0. 00 .C4) U "� 3 '3 ate^.. 3 ry C i) 4) - I :. > >. a 41 O N 4) C '0 y ,'ii 2 `4 s� � sacRvca� o (I) ! w+ CTC 0 v0-4 •.1 v+ U aN C i 0! 0 C) E o..,-- E 0 7,-- �� -L• Emn) •� 0 "0CUCL m a 0, a) t U •0- ti >I a) ascc) vcC^ = � ' w 4) .0 E C 7 r '0 2 0 0 0 'J) p - - a1• EE- � U ELI -. a ---- 1 E-. a I ' -� > c EV. 0 ^ 0 i r7 0 0 ti lvl U a! > ••> � 0, � ^ I.. ,•-•.,•-•. v ^•r w w ti r0E3C UE •.-, 0 , c� 0 --- 0 •'' '`• s. - rt3Oa `7 a v11 4-11:10C U '0 C C) C i-) C V; 0.' C 0,E-I to C v •. v N • b �I C a) C r0 N •--. CJ M 4) C CrC •• '3 •••Ci 0 . C 4) Q� "0 •0 N O ,0 N U41 •PA 0 a Sa a 75 •-I 0 4.) 0 '0 1. .-4 CJ n; C (0 0 14 • •.r 0 > • C +0 1r f.. X X 0 - ,Q 0 C 0 O 0 N O Sa • l i O 0 c-t t0 U •C 3 w ac +' r-, caNacc �° oc � oN �+ •'� �� r � s� h W E0 C U O C a) a) 0,� 1 a -+ C • •-. 0 • 0 •..- 0,U 41 CN � c •• Q L O N C C 'c C •ata N n) EU -0 (0 C 0'c0 C C O C 0 R3 ••i 0 R3 N O .0 0 n! E •., •.1 .� .0 0 n) E 0 C C • 0 a) • cA O t0 0 sa • 4) +) • � •-. 1Cr) (NXa (, wEE --oaV) t-14V) m 7 CP C 4-) 0) •-i 0 0 01 4) C > N CC 0 0 .0 0 •,-. N .•-. 00 4 •-•INI) 1-. 'CI -•-1 •'•1 1) C f.r rp •.i 0.4 4•) o a v v 0 '0 41 .14 y 0 c 41 40 osa lrRf �i `° a0ivv COC.) *•'4 at n •^4 a 0 U a) N aa) w 14,m 0 > • ` 4) 4) .1-1 N .0 4J C •—i 4.) C --44J 4) -� = v 34 n. 0 E • E A c = >10.) 04-) 0)vr MI 0 4• < h ^. a c) c ,Y O, •A >.000vcm3 ° Oro •-I O U '0 •i E a -41- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I . CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 4 . 1 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 4 . 1 was to address the requirements of: 9J-5 . 013 ( 1) (c) identify and analyze current and projected water needs, and potable water use. B. The specific intent of Objective 4 . 1 was to establish a mechanism to collect and evaluate data relative to arrival at an accurate estimate of water use in Collier County. C. Prior to January 1989 , the following conditions existed relative to this Objective : such a compilation was not available in the County and formal and informal data sharing had not been initiated. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: the lack of a data base and the inability to obtain accurate data for a number of the users, including agriculture and private potable and irrigation wells. E. In addressing this Objective, there were a number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: 1. Duplication of effort . Much of this data is routinely compiled by the SFWMD, hence was not compiled by County Staff ; and 2 . No gauges on most irrigation wells so only data avail- able is that from consumptive use permits. -59- II . CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include : 1 . Utilization of the SFWMD database, summaries of which are published in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan [See also the "Summary of the Conditions and Quality of Collier County's Natural Resources" ] ; 2 . Implementation of in-house database, tracking all permitted wells and all wells with consumptive use permits; and 3 . Working cooperatively with other agencies to ensure access the databases. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include : 1. It is recommended that the date be deleted and the language be amended within the Objective, to state "The County shall continue to collect and evaluate data and information designed to more accurately determine anthropogenic and natural systems water use in Collier County" . 2 . It is recommended that the language be amended within Policy 4 . 1 . 2 to include the implementation of the recommendations within the SFWMD Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan regarding local water resource strategies. 3 . It is recommended that the language be amended within Policy 4 . 1 . 3 to state "Implement water conservation strategies that will serve to maintain identified native biomes, e.g. , native plant and animal associations. -60- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [See the following "Objective Table Su-.;nary" ; -61- • 1 44 ly 41 i iC > H 41 � • A rr-1U 0 i 1 iC v O >•. Li C 0 it • 0) O IC CO 4) C •.i •i-i CI) Iiii a � � U3 >, w d C 0 N 7 14 4..1 4) O V - (1) 3O. a •••1 4+ IC C ..-1 C 0 7 (I) w A 0 +r ••04-J04000 0 it 7 ••i 04 C 1:1 0) 4) 01 $4 •t7 C 0 t1+13 43 .0 CD 4) 0 I 0 43 4 7 O C 0 ,4 ,-•i rp >4:a •,i 4J U 41 C..•••4 cr C ••i 4) U1 C •••+ W >I E it it 7 R1 T M O. U p4 a 3 UO UC E+ >4 N 14) C1 Cf y • Z A Cl E In ( C4 b 01 C) U G] 7 u, L r0 > 1, 4)I C� H br, C El •4,1 E ), CO 0 E0C 0 ,• 43 C w rg .� . '7 I 0 C .0 1 .0 0 7 4) N C c0 C 13 41 C N >, 0 a O U te) 'II • U '^i 0 iC ••1 V) 'C 00 4N) •C C O •i-i) > 3 7 1?' V71 43 t O .4 C.Z "1 44 U N W U C U O 1� LOi •.C•I 1; •'i •-`4 E i) ) V 0 "+ it 0 C CO }7, E 'i U U Le- CP 4) O Q+LI R U U w • 41 CC CL.Q L, 310 0 C E U '1 C U b U O U R1 0) U) E .0 N O 404 v .moi 0 L+ 10 C .4 •.•1 w 10 U U 0) 1� C E ZT 1,) 0) C •Q Ch C W C DI W C "� M ..0 0 •Ci •M•I UC •330 001-1 00 43 0 CC O N .0 a 4Cfn C 4Cl 0-4 0 U 3 E O •••+ U N 0..0 y E C, • N 0 0 P4 •� 43 M ••+ vi) 01 ED • - 4) N 4J it •.•1 > a .0E1II11:1430433 ,•-+ •pi 4.) % M N Ca E L, "4 U •C it> 7 C) 0 4) •,y aJ C) it 1) 4.) w v U •.Ci U • A J C t U 'C C C MI E C >, 1O 41 h 0T C a; " x •40) v C A >,^ E O > C C)O Q, N O O m — 2 U cr iri 'II E 'v C U -b2- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I. CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 4 . 2 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 4 . 2 was to address the Data and Analysis Requirements and the Requirements for Goals, Objectives and Policies of 9J-5 . 012 (1) , (2) and (3) and 9J-5 . 013 (1) and (2 ) . B. The specific intent of Objective 4 . 2 was that the County will promote conservation of its water supply and by January 1, 1991, develop a comprehensive conservation strategy which will identify specific goals for reducing per capita potable water consumption. C. Prior to January, 1989 , the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: the SFWMD' s Governing Board has had the authority to declare when a water shortage exists and when a temporary reduction in use can be required to protect water resources from serious harm. When emergency conditions have existed, the District has issued emergency orders to require apportioning, rotating, limiting or prohibiting the use of the water resources. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: the County should continue to rely on the District for taking the appropriate steps for conserving water during emergency situations . However, the County should develop a program to encourage conservation. The County's program should parallel the District' s Demand Management Program. Specific emphasis should be placed on reducing the demand for landscape irrigation, through effluent reuse and the use of drought-tolerant landscaping. Also, reduction in water demand through the use of water-saving plumbing fixtures . -63- II . CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . Section 2 . 4 . 4 of the LDC requires that native plants (trees and shrubs) shall be utilized in the required landscape design. 2 . Low flow plumbing fixtures are required as part of the 1994 Standard Plumbing Code . 3 . A rate structure promoting water conservation was adopted in 1991. 4 . Wastewater effluent is commonly used for golf course irrigation. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1. It is recommended that this Objective be retained and the date should be amended. 2 . It is recommended that the phrase "effluent disposal" be amended to state "re-use water" within Policy 4 . 2 . 3 . 3 . It is recommended that the phrase "effluent disposal" be amended to state "re-use water" within Policy 4 . 2 . 3 . 4 . It is recommended that Policy 4 . 2 . 5 be deleted. 5. It is recommended that the date be deleted and the language be amended within Policy 4 . 2 . 6 , to state "Evaluate and make recommendations, where appropriate, for plumbing fixtures and landscapes that are designed for water conservation purposes" . -64- III . EVALUAT'ION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS See the following "Objective Table Summary" -65- i a ID d 4.) 4) a > N 0 •r., • A I'm U' 'A a! 0 iO t z R: 0 i a 0 L C s0,c 0 0 E: 7 4-) G ) C •, a) .. 4) 0 l� Sr a. .^. 7 1 CT 1w - > 7 w (6 rJ .0 CT^•. C 7 V) • w 'C3 0 C 0 .0 C) U E C) •- Sa It •-+ w v •.. "'4 (1) L V) 7 Sa G 11 U C) 3 ON C) N A 1J `Zr V: '7 —■ .7 E 7 l-) ',C 7 U •C • VI C Cr 7 L C ^-4 L 0 c' O C C 1 Sa -•• 3 0 C) >. C) • U • •- -- 0 0 r.,1.) •-i = S, 0 W VI 7 0. 7 "3 "3 -•+ V) '0 C) C !7 3 0 7 •^, 0� L • C 7' 0 C., 0 «) ••- > "J U E 0 i% ti 1•- 0 0 "v " \ :. LL. (7.1L J 1+ E U "' 1 0 PP 7 2. .i - ^0 E a. T 0 — •-, >' CT.. 0 U "'S •-+ 0' x ... •7 < 0 a 0 3 i a, Cr. c, � .. 0 :;_ , o L E., C .y C) 0 ,v ^ c X 4 0 E 1-4 0 0 m E a. 7 0 a. . - S. A C . , 0 v a. E a • 0' 4la CO ' a } 5.1 O 0! U •-• C > to 4) •-•• •.•i N O O F 0 I, ..0 4-4 m E a- c..) a+•^, .^I U •o (13 U �: ZI 7 l) �1 ...• ). :: U ).• y 0 C 0 --I 0,-, CJ o s •av7sr00m 0 E-• •-+ C a. 0. 7a. 3 >, > a U RS rC 'c 4.1 df C .0 4) '7 N � R O, U• 0 4J I.i A .-I 0 C C) • -pc 94 W C 0 C >, 0 C - —4A V) • •'4 E •� 'O Gtr. E U C 4) •4.3 � C ON 4.) U 01 V 0 4.3 4) C) •-a V • 0 lr 1.) •-• •-• 4 w $., MO C 'O 0 CJ ms& 7 C • 7 0 •5 •�-i .c 0 WO : 0 X 0 M R •-i N E sa W a. 0 •-4 sa N it 4) 3 U 4) Cn 3 T 0 •1 4) 0 w cps.. ^i a. 7 3 w .-•• 4.4 •p '••i 0 .0 0 N •-4 >, a. 4) 0 >,--4 > . 3 C A 0 > c •-• w ro a+ 4) • 0 ^•• •.-• 0 t ..i 0 C 1) C +3 4! l) lr C 4-• > C 3 C U � 3 •�0 U > C ( (1) ( v v RS > 0 U 7 ••-• 4.3 0 •'•1 7 W > +3 >,17 .0 > Cr'0 •-1 -a a. 41 a. A U O 0 (1) 3 „ C U 7 O Cl E 0 a. a — a. U -4 r •r•+ O O C 0 a. C E C L -4 U L L C i 40 .0 S.. 0 7 7 0 0 - 0 • • 0. 0 0 I 0E- a. U •-•• 07, .-400030 a- aU -66- MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) 1989-1995 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL ELEMENTS/SUB-ELEMENTS I . CONDITION OF OBJECTIVE 6. 1 AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL GROWTH MANAGE- MENT PLAN ADOPTION, 10 JANUARY, 1989 A. The overall intent of Objective 6. 1 was to address the Data and Analysis Requirements and the Requirements for Goals, Objectives and Policies of 9J-5. 012 (1) , (2) and (3) and 9J-5. 013 (1) and (2) . B. The specific intent of Objective 6 . 1 was to identify, define, and prepare development standards and criteria for all important native County habitats by August 1, 1992 . Until the adoption of specific development criteria, the County will continue to follow current practices of habitat and species protection through negotiations between County Staff and development interests as part of the public hearing process. These negotiations are based on provisions in County Ordinances including Ordinance 75-21 , the Tree Removal Ordinance; Ordinance 77-66 , the Environmental Impact Statement Ordinance; Ordinance 80-19, the Coastal Construction Control Line Ordinance; Ordinance 82-37 , the Exotic Plants Ordinance; and Ordinance 74-9 , the Exotic Fish Ordinance. C. Prior to January 1989 , the following conditions existed relative to this Objective: State and Federal regulatory agencies have restricted development primarily in wetland communities. The establishment of environmental regulation protecting these habitat areas has been a major step forward for natural resource conservation, but the protection of up- land habitats has received relatively little attention. At the County level, protection of these upland habitats has been achieved in some cases by stipulated land use restric- tions or suggested modifications during planning and rezoning, site development, or land clearing review. D. The primary issues facing the community relative to this Objective include: Collier County's rapid growth, both in the housing and agriculture industries, is destroying an increas- ing amount of limited upland habitat and wetland. Incentives could be created which would allow development to continue, but at the same time would also insure that some of the most ecologically sensitive habitat and vegetative communities are retained. Currently the vegetation retained according to LDC Section 3 . 9 . 5. 5, depending on its quality, could potentially i be used for landscaping, recreation, and stormwater manage- ment; thus it is not always provided with long-term preservation. Options and incentives should be developed to encourage retention of quality habitat in an undisturbed state. -84- E. In addressing this Objective , there were a number of problems and obstacles that had to be addressed. These included: 1 . The BCC deferred the review of the Habitat Protection Ordinance , which proposes land development standards for various habitats, until the Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA) Program has been developed. 2 . The BCC delayed the NRPA Program for re-evaluation. -85- II. CONDITION OF THE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATI=ON OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) A. The accomplishments that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include : 1 . Staff has developed a Habitat Protection Ordinance and presented it to the BCC on June 16, 1993 . 2 . Staff has been creating a current habitat inventory by gathering habitat data from County development orders and analyzing the data with the State's habitat inven- tory for Collier County. B. The recommendations that have resulted from the implementa- tion of this Objective include: 1 . It is recommended that this Objective be retained and the the date should be amended. 2 . Within Policy 6 . 1 . 1 it is recommended that the date be amended. 3 . Within Policy 6 . 1 . 2 it is recommended that the date be amended. 4 . Within Policy 6 . 1 . 3 it is recommended that the date be amended. 5 . Incentives should be created which would allow development to continue, but at the same time would also insure that some of the most ecologically sensitive habitat and vegetative communities are retained. 6 . In the event that the County adopts an open space recreational system, consideration should be given to incorporating the linkage and protection objectives of the retained habitat. -86- III . EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AGAINST RESULTS [ See the following "Objective Table Summary" ; -87- n 'e a w' L 4) C >. !~ • 41 I •� • ,C lO Z 0 Q • a mi a1 �) a) c > CU 04 r2 O E "4a 0 = OR � VE COJalt~ 0 R U N F W w N ro V w W -> 4 N -4 . 0 'i O '0 (I) �II >,� 't: CL CJ to t ro ,.4 .'r 2 0 ! � aac •-0+ •-i w a a a� ooros. � a 4 v � � roro az r~ roacn > c F WI CG =g C •w; vaI • a,-1 0 . C .0 0 XI C! C 3 0 4; ro 2 y b 0 W C U L. �+.J E3 O >CLI ,u 0 V U N C C •0 0 0 IA �I fro .-� aroaz zU ro O N 4.4 tO O E 0 . II •-C+ h U N ro C N 0 ro 0 7, o 0 � OroULrCL+ $.+ 0 a roUZ -- a7 CLO ZT ro I0 =I ••• 0 ,1C � OCC4-+ IN ,.1 4�I E 0 4-) ..] X N U. U y ,,� C U U C rn R7 >, rQ V^ 0 v r, U I it L4 E L+ o (m G C •-1 N > ro Z1 4 L+ I C.) Z 13 1 E1 C C �I +p k 01 nWC Ego00N .- c LI UONC4 F., cnc000c0 a. --- - >" C !> �p ., C 0 ro C 1.. U -, U w C C 0 C l y I C 'J C w C 0,•...+ C 0 L+ 0 0 C 0 0 RS L E" 0 0 -� i al 0 4) J L L. C j •4:4) N 3 ro E 3 ro O U N 0 .. C ..i C J7 rp 0 •"1 C O N to �.n �'"" O E V 0.o � 7-4 E (0 ) C U U � y � 4 U C E J -) W 0 0 U3 C � oroL+ EC1ro CES+ t • +� aJO 0 0 3 y •.. > V O L+ >. C 3 • 4 rp G! U �C+•-roi OC1 MI O CII 4.4 W 0 U N AI v1 •.i C I z h ~ a 0 C �.+ > . • -- O 4.3 .^ 0 .,� CI C 0 w .� L+ u ro y >, ro G^ +. CY > to , -i � � f G 4.3 C � � U •.+ C.) 4..) 0 0 3w (13 4j C A >, 0 L. > L. r, it 'C C w > L+ O O 0 $4 IV C) 0 L T 4J IV Litz' U 0 > C •.•+ � 'C ^ a� 0roCcoov0u wacuain.uC . °' CR L°+ cra, os � 71 • •4 aaac R au° o -88-