The URL can be used to link to this page

EPTAB Habitat Protection Sub Committee & Ordinance April 3, 1992 tony pires gary beardsley Dear Sir: A meeting of the EPTAB HPO subcommittee was held on Thursday, April 2 , 1992 at 3 : 00 P.M. I 'm sending you the latest draft of the HPO. We have incorporated some of the changes that came out of the first subcommittee meeting. Since not much has transpired at the subsequent meetings, we are looking for more input. Please provide us with some written comments by the next subcommittee meeting, which will be held April 16, 1992 . If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 774-8454 . Sincerely, Kevin H. Dugan Sr. Environmental Specialist y.: NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: William D. orenz Jr. , P.E. , Administrator L FROM: Kevin H. Dd. . Sr. Environmental Specialist DATE: April 2 , 1992 SUBJECT: HPO Intent ' This is a copy of the HPO Intent Statement. I hope this will help clear up the problems which seem to arise over what is intended with wetlands, and what type of habitats are to be protected. I wanted you to look this over before it was distributed to the subcommittee. Feel free to make any changes as I will probably j'' revise this draft. NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Lorenz, Administrator, Environmental Services Division FROM: Catherine B. Owen, Environmental Specialist II DATE: 2 April 1992 RE: Definition of and recommendation to avoid use of "Viable" According to dictionary usage, "viable" means "capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions" . According to basic ecological theory, a viable population can be expected to persist in perpetuity; persistence implies reproduction and survival. However, to ascertain whether or not a species or population is "viable" (implying persistence) almost always requires extensive long-term study of extant populations. A review of recent literature pertaining to conservation biology (Soule, 1986 and 1987) supports the conclusion that the term "viable" should be avoided, and is not necessary for usage in the assessment of native habitats for the Habitat Protection Ordinance. The following quotations from this literature give an idea of the context (i.e. ecological theory) in which this term is typically utilized: 1) " . . .What are the minimum conditions for the long-term persistence and adaptation of a species or a population in a given place? This is one of the most difficult and challenging intellectual problems in conservation biology. . .because it requires a prediction based on a synthesis of all of the biotic and abiotic factors in the spatial-temporal continuum. " Long-term persistence means "the capacity of the group to maintain itself without significant demographic or genetic manipulation for the foreseeable ecological future (usually centuries) with a certain agreed on, degree of certitude, say 95%. The probabilistic qualification is necessary, because it would be impossible to guarantee absolutely the survival of a group. " Adaptation "implies that the group maintains a normal level of immediate fitness (individual vigor, fertility, fecundity) , and has sufficient genetic variation to adapt by natural selection to changing environmental conditions within the predicted range of frequency and amplitude of disturbance and change. " (Fitness is a measure of relative reproductive rate, or the reproductive contribution of an organism or genotype to following generations) . 2) "Conservationists. . .wish to maintain the health and diversity of natural systems - ecosystems, communities, habitats, as well as species. Until recently, however, most of the emphasis has been on the protection of whole systems. The favored technique, since the early decades of this century, has been the setting aside of areas for this purpose. The management of such 'set asides ' is becoming increasingly difficult and sophisticated, in part because of the growing number of humans. " "These difficulties have led biologists to ask 'What are the (minimum) conditions for the viability of natural systems' community ecologists have focused on minimum areas for system viability. . . .Population biologists have focused on the minimum population sizes or densities for target species. These two tracks are now coming together because of the realization that often the most pragmatic way to define system viability is to do so in terms of the viability of critical or keystone species within the system. This is not to say that other, more holistic criteria, such as preserving entire watersheds, are not equally or more important in some circumstances. " 3) "During the last few decades, there has been an exponential increase in the estimates of population sizes that ensure viability. One reason is the changing interpretation of the term 'viability' . In the early days it meant short-term persistence in a constant environment, or resilience. In other words, the time scale of concern was short. Since 1980, the time scale has increased because biologists started to consider threats such as epidemics, catastrophes, and genetic drift. " 4) "Viable population" is defined as "the survival of a population in a state that maintains its vigor and its potential for evolutionary adaptation". (Again, an example of the utilization of the term as it typically applies, i.e. , in the context of ecological theory. ) 5) Also see discussion of mathematical models for calculation of the MVP (minimum viable population) in "Viable Populations for Conservation" (Soule, 1987) . In summary, the term "viable", when utilized, is applied to the species or population - not to the physical environment in which the species (plant or animal) resides, i.e. the habitat. Therefore, the language adopted with reference to this term in the CCME of the GMP (e.g. , "viable naturally functioning habitat") is not necessarily biologically accurate. Interestingly, Soule (1986) points out that "the term 'minimum viable population' has come into vogue, possibly because of an injunction from the Congress of the U. S. (National Forest Management Act of 1976) to the U. S. Forest Service to maintain 'viable populations ' of all native vertebrate species in each National Forest. " Lastly, in recent conversations with both Stuart Santos (1 April) and Jim Burch (25 March) , they both strongly recommended avoiding the use of the term "viable" . c: Kevin H. Dugan, Senior Environmental Specialist Martha Howell, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Cacchione, Chief Planner, Growth Planning Barbara Prynoski, Chief Environmental Specialist, Project Review Services MEMORANDUM /6„,„_,) ,f1 Virik'T,_ / } DATE: March 31, 1992 kA7E TO: John Madajewski, P.E. Yrf � Project Review Services ManagerMA1 LI ES GLI ENT FROM: Martha N.Y}Howell, Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Authority to Consult State and Federal Agencies RLD DPR92021401 Section 163 . 3194 , F.S. , provides that until such time as LDR's are adopted or made consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan govern all development. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County GMP specifically provides that policies contained within the element will serve as interim environmental resources protection and management standards. CCME 1. 1. 2 . Until the comprehensive environmental resources management program, as required by CCME objective 1. 1, is developed, land development regulations will incorporate interim criteria and standards from the CCME. CCME 1. 1.2 . Policy 6. 1. 7, CCME, requires that "until definitions for habitat associations and standards for development are adopted as land development standards, criteria specified in other objectives and policies of this element will apply. " Policy 7 . 1.2 , CCME, specifies that "the County will coordinate its activities with the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Marine Extension Office and other appropriate agencies. (emphasis added) . Policy 7 . 3 .4 , CCME, requires that local government evaluate and apply recommendations of technical assistance from the GFWFC and apply U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service federal guidelines regarding the protection of species of special status as stipulations to development orders. Taken together, these policies make it clear that staff not only has the authority but is indeed obligated to request technical assistance from GFWFC and to coordinate with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the application of federal guidelines during the development order review process when the subject property has protected, state federally listed, wildlife on-site. There is no question that the intent of the CCME is for staff to request technical assistance from GFWFC or other appropriate sources. Bill Laverty' s memorandum dated April 22 , 1991, details the history of policy 7 . 3 . 4 and clarifies the intent of the GMP. As required by the CCME, Division 3 . 11, LDC, contains interim standards and guidelines for the protection of endangered or threatened species or species of special concern or status. Section 3 . 11. 3 . 1, LDC, is consistent with the aforementioned CCME policies. "Plans shall be submitted for review and subject to approval by the Project Review Services Department, of the Development Services Division, for the management of habitat and wildlife, including measures for protection and/or relocation of species of special status. Such plans shall comply with current federal, state and local policies. " This Section mandates compliance with federal, state and local policies, which necessitates consultation to the appropriate agencies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me. cc: Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney William D. Lorenz, Jr. , P.E. Administrator / Kevin H. Dugan, Environmental Specialist II ✓ William Laverty, Planner II, Growth Management MNIi/mmd/1780 -2- PINK—L7- 1 WED t.. :; 1 P. 61 --, i)4 motto */ ,. ji — ,,,,riy eie,.,/,1 ;,,.* - • A f)i' 2, i r f ! \ `t '{ ¢ y�, 4, )le.,.. ,, ri. ,:._ i ? �.\.)NsuL l�f�N-f:,w, i,' ,:Ll,7 r,i, Sly 11 ), 7 i i ) : i / 2)96 1 3t:1 1/4,t1.,..t.,IN, 0,0114,_ .....4/ 5.7.---29.z_.' A 1 ,,,,,, i t _ (ii ,, N 1+6, R.ra) 3 3i4r ': - hit \l}/illt i` ,' ' i're,t'ilAile . ! ,), f) , Alt ..........................4 1 f f FAKE TO _.., :: ti F - i rfri j ,,, ii*, i p4 -1 . . -44 -fri _.,7,-- TIME: e%00 ,, hrs RM , . M _ D RTIC: ( .E".,� } NUMBER OF PAGES FAHEU /174"* ."---.. l'Nh -REA i . 1 Jes J ) i ... ENT- 11 7 __J, .-- *t , ''''''.. li We);04 0 P ' )4 .iLSI\ \ it C .'0 . : 0 .-P"!74/.;..71' 'Sil A" Comments by SENDER: , e(r-00. P."- ;,, - 7---,.:, ,., ,' -- .iii, - ( 14 --(\/....) , ,,, ; , i ..„.,i ,.. , . ,,, . /i7:0„,,, (0;44 , , ii, ( ,,,, fr '4.Jk ''''e' / , i .4., _ 04-...,,, / )....„aototboioi tf, /4„),,,r, d 1,,',;p I,,,./.!. cw0r::Ir ( .' ," ...-- . I ‘.04 ,,, ,. ei . ,„. , , No, % istisk,\QN ' ' 2,1 ) le efry .yed,i4.. . /12,.( 'e;11 frt / l) ,..,,,._ _ ilk) ..... If , 1 .‘ , ,t4 il f..., k.„,,j, ,N., ,,x v/ t ., r io Ni!. ic: 4,7,-74 (444,1 e'rn ) , . 1. sk.. L. , 1/4,,,,: s.k4i... , ; ; ,,(.4 ,, . N, , ' , ,,, es-, e/i iyi a t4,,,A / ,, f,—. . i e* t i ry >,- ,, /5 A' 1/4/4,'" 4-77 LI , ,t .�l` oIli ,40/Cakt7 i (°°' �i'�Tw °�,",1. ��f.�`y{ ,,apt r ',4 ,....' f:viffee 4+17.Z.,' ,tt, /I k.. , , ''''' ‘c.,,,, v, iNk .„. ..,,, 4, ,.. , , } , , .: : :,, i 44,. ,e - i 1404,-,r -(---.'''))1'.-) i ,. ; ' /7 ii. -, ,;.; \A, did, ii tei I vi// i , , i 41:, , 4 ,, y, e c ` ,r ,, . ./P (1',„,e; 1 ; „-•"(...-ite,u i ' $. . ire), ,j ,r1. r pi/es\ ii ♦9,4/1 . 1 /if/ .. ' ("e--,47340,4 . ' , , oid.,,,,t-, / / • K •�e� , 41 ' '! 1p` f'Yr ! . � ' .= #" ' 1 ,i ' / • } r( ---- . ,i .,tilik 6"‘o1/ f� 1).21 , . 2/ ..„) i i -/i ,.„/ -_____.... , 4 • Vie! ; ; :: ii 'i 6 .1 . 4 All other species association that may be defined as a discrete habitat community will be considered for development criteria and standards for land clearing p� as part of this process . V.\ , Iii‘ 6 .1 . 5 The above developed criteria and standards shall be Or modified as appropriate as individual watershed U`�rp�i� management plans and NRPAs are developed. VV 6. 1 . 6 Flexibility, in the form of area trade-offs or `mitigation, should be allowed in the determination of areas within and among developments to be preserved. 6. 1 .7 Until definitions for habitat associations and standards for development are adopted as land development standards , criteria specified in other objectives and policies of this element will apply. OBJECTIVE 6. 2 There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands , excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in Ojective 6 . 3 . POLICY .6 . 2 . 1 Until such time that Natural Resource Protection programs/plans (Objectives 1 . 3 , 2 . 5 and 11 . 6) and development standards for habitat areas (Objective (/ , v01, 1.,64A, 6 . 1) are adopted, thefollowingpoliciesshallserveVas interim criteria for incorporation into all ) /�/ development orders . P11. ! . 2 . 2 Al]. wetlands are designated as environmentally 01,A sensitive areas . r i� 6 .2. 3 Altered or disturbed wetlands are con ' ered to be } not viable, not naturall functioning, d raded wetland ecosystems . % j-ofe ,-, a 9wt._ rise 0 , ee4 Giiri 17* 6 . 2 . 4 The following policies sFf11`Ta"'11`b`t.,..' �� n:�:d.... t o, M �..�.,,....M._ , prevent timbering operations so long as timbering )11 / V +`�� ) operations utilize best management practices to y�6 G / minimize the effects on the wetlands . CI- fei ) \, 6 . 2 . 5 Creation of new wetlands, where mitigation is el required, is encouraged first in upland areas where `t. fexotics dominate . rA/\ !jf6 . 2 . 6 Marine wetlands are defined as areas with a water regime determined primarily by tides and the dominant C-I-14 ,.t,r ,„,,, I , • ci,c „ (,,, , )) i r � f1 vegetation is salt tolerant plant species including those species listed in Subsection 17-4. 02 (17) , Florida Administrative Code, "Submerged Marine Species” and seaward of the Coastal Management Boundary as shown on the Future Land Use map, exclusive of subtidal habitats as addressed in Objective 6 . 6 . 6 . 2 . 7 Mitigation for development in altered marine wetlands shall include enhancement or restoration of other altered wetlands or creation of new wetlands either on at least an equal area basis or where an alternative found appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners mitigates any altered wetlands in order f?:- to limit cumulative and specific impacts on Coastal wetland and wildlife resources . P, #0 ,,, 6.2. 8 . All mitigation for development in Coastal area \J17 wetlands should occur in the Coastal area. 6. 2 . 9 Wetlands , including transitional wetlands , shall be defined pursuant to the current definitions of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation-------------7(‘14'f‹,\ �-� 6 . 2 . 10 Any development activity within a viable naturall ? functioning freshwater wetland not part of a V I - contiguous flow way shall b- „ ' . .an,..7 ` w t curren outh Florida Water Management District mi Lis;atZ Mitigation may a so inc ude -"—" �" restoration of previously disturbed wetlands or /01 acquisition for public preservation of similar 1 habitat. 5. 2 . 11 For mitigation of freshwater wetlands outside of the Coastal area, first consideration shall be given to mitigation on site , followed by mitigation in the adjacent contiguous area, followed by mitigation in the same watershed, followed by mitigation in adjacent watersheds . 6 . 2 . 12 For projects that require wetland mitigation an entity shall be designated responsible to monitor the compliance of the mitigation stipulation. 6 . 2 .13 Proposed development on parcels containing viable naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cluster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the predevelopment hydroperiod. C-I-15 I i MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Cookson, Administrative Secretary Environmental Services Division FROM: Kevin H. Ig n, Sr. Environmnetal Spec. Natural Resources Department DATE: 23 March 1992 SUBJECT: EPTAB Subcommittee (HPO) The next scheduled subcommittee meeting is set for Thursday April 2 , 1992 . Could you please make arrangements for a conference room at Development Services for 3 : 00 - 5: 00. The agenda is The LDC and How It Relates to the GMP. If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you. i Eisz,!`e "` [ DATE: 3124 �� t MEMORANDUM i"r;TION: GC fel-- U" ,'�15 TO: Bill Lorenz, Administrator Environ axil Services Div. 41 FROM: Martha N. Howell, Assistant County Atter-nay FELE: DATE: March 23 , 1992 /1)) .- � _ �� h D. � RE: Interim Standards, Land Development Regulations and the Growth Management Plan. RLS number NRS91123101 The purpose of Chapter 163 , Part II, F.S. , is to enable local governments to guide and control land development. 163. 3161 (2) , F. S. Section 163 . 3167, F.S. , requires that each local government prepare a comprehensive plan. During the past several years, local governments throughout Florida haveprepared such plans and submitted them to the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") for review and approval. Those comprehensive plans are intended to "set general guidelines and principles. " 163 . 3194 (4) (b) , F. S. The enabling statute also provides that the comprehensive plan shall be implemented by land development regulations ("LDR' s") . [T]he adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development of land or the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for an area shall be based on, be related to, and be a means for implementation for an adopted comprehensive plan. 163 . 3201, F.S. Section 163 . 3202 , F. S. , specifically mandates that LDR's be adopted; the LDR's must contain "specific and detailed provisions necessary or desirable to implement the adopted comprehensive plan. " Among other subject areas, LDR's must be adopted to "ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands designated in the comprehensive plan. " 163 . 3202 (2) (e) , F.S. Once the comprehensive plan is adopted by the local government, all LDR' s which are enacted and all previously existing LDR's must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. 163 . 3194 (1) (b) . Until such time as the LDR's are made consistent with the comprehensive plan, the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan governs all development. 163. 3194 (1) (b) . Nonetheless, it is clear that LDR's must be adopted. The statute explicitly provides that the comprehensive plan consists of general principles and guidelines and that the LDR' s shall provide specific and detailed means to implement the necessarily general goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is not intended to serve as or in place of the local government's LDR's. "Land development regulations" means ordinances enacted by governing bodies for the regulation of any aspect of development and includes any local government zoning, rezoning, subdivision, building construction or sign regulations, or any other regulations controlling the development of land. 163 . 3164 (22) emphasis added. In addition to providing more detail to those subject areas specifically enumerated in 163 . 3202 (2) , F.S. , Rule 9J-24. 003 (j) • provides that LDR' s shall be adopted to govern "other specific and detailed provisions necessary or desirable to implement the comprehensive plan, including regulations which are specifically required in the objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan. " Thus, where a local government has specified in its comprehensive plan that certain LDR's will be adopted which go beyond the subject areas enumerated in 163. 3202 (2) or Rule 9J-24 . 003 , the local government is obligated, indeed mandated, to enact those additional LDR's. Land development regulations are required by 163 . 3202 (2) (e) and 9J-24 . 003 (f) to protect environmentally sensitive land from the impacts of development. The definition of "environmentally sensitive lands" reads as follows: [a]reas of land or water designated in the plan as being needed to serve the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as protection of soils, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, shorelines, fisheries and wildlife management, protection of vegetative communities or protection of wildlife habitats. 9J-24 . 002 (6) , F.A.C. This definition is inclusive of general conditions in the County as well as specifically identified geographical areas. "Vegetative communities" means all ecological communities including, but not limited to, coastal strands, oak hammocks, and cypress swamps, which are classified based on the presence of certain soils, vegetation and animals. 9J-5. 004 (100) , F.A.C. Needless to say, the Land Development Code (LDC) and ordinances such as the Groundwater Protection Ordinance only partially satisfy the mandates of 163 . 3202 (2) (e) , F.S, and 9J-24. 003 (f) , F.A.C. The broad definition of "environmentally sensitive lands" coupled with the vast array of objectives and policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP") which require the adoption of specific LDR's, necessitate adoption of numerous additional LDR' s. Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. , establishes the minimum criteria for preparation of a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plans were written on the basis of the "minimum" standards contained in and required by Rule 9J-5. These standards have governed development since the adoption of the comprehensive plan in -2- Collier County only to the extent that the GMP is required, by law, to govern development during the interim between plan adoption and until such time as "specific" and "detailed" LDR's are adopted. The LDR' s emanating from the comprehensive plan necessarily will contain standards (numerical and otherwise) which go beyond those minimum, baseline standards found in the comprehensive plan. Likewise, because the comprehensive plan is the foundation for planning and development in the community, standards contained in the resultant LDR's must not drop below those baseline standards found in the comprehensive plan, unless the local governing body determines as a matter of policy or based on sound scientific analyses that in certain circumstances something less is needed. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) intended that policies contained within the element were considered as interim when incorporated as LDR's. By the time mandated for the adoption of. land development regulations pursuant to Chapter 163 . 3202, F.S. , including any amendments thereto August 1, 1989 incorporated the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this Element into the County's land development regulations as interim environmental resources protection and management standards. CCME 1. 1.2 (emphasis added) My understanding is that staff has proceeded on the premise that criteria and standards adopted in the January 1989 GMP and incorporated into the LDC are interim criteria and subject to change as the comprehensive environmental resources management program required by CCME Objective 1. 1 is developed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me. cc: Ken Cuyler, County Attorney Bill Laverty John Madajewski f'+arjorie S . Student , Assistant County Attorney -3- L Cda-LA--"L 3./ t 4.2-b © C fit'✓` c2 evt c_f2�5 vL[ 'L /C C < � ( ;Z- A1C`C t C`C �� / 7— Ul AGENDA ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE TO: Bill Lorenz (E-Mail) Ilene Barnett (E-Mail via NRD1) Kevin Dugan (E-Mail) John Boldt (E-Mail) John Madajewski (E-Mail) Barbara Burgeson (E-Mail via Earlene Weber) Kim Polen (E-Mail via Earlene Weber) Fred Reischl (E-Mail via Earlene Weber) Barbara Prynoski (E-Mail via Earlene Weber) Marco Espinar (E-Mail via Johnson_C) Clyde Fugate (E-Mail via Johnson_C) Mike Kirby (E-Mail via Johnson C) Kenneth Baginski (E-Mail) Frank Brutt (E-Mail via Gebhardt) David Pettrow (E-Mail) Joe Magri (E-Mail) Stephanie Smith (E-Mail) George Yilmaz (E-Mail Cornelisse) Barbara Cacchione (E-Mail) DATE: March 19, 1992 TIME: 3 : 00 p.m. PLACE: Development Services Conference Room C 1. Habitat Protection Ordinance - The Habitat Protection sub-committee of the Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Board will be discussing the intent of the policy creating the proposed Habitat Ordinance and also the format and content of the Ordinance. WDL:pc ipTROPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL I \ CONSULTANTS ( 1'� _'396 13th Street,North N,ii1c,, Florida 33940 I'li()n & Fax 263-0077 ( ) A BACKGROUND HE: Conseruation and Coastal Element Relative to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the C.C.E. Compiled by: G. L. Beardsley (March 18, 1992) The following narrative follows the specific language of the Conservation and Coastal Element however it has been "rearranged somewhat" in order to develop a more logical "flow". The reader is encouraged to refer to specific Goals, Objectives and Policies cited to verify the intent. Note-An Executive Summary is provided but instead is located at the end, this in order not to influence the reader. Some general statements found in the C. Cr C. Element are as follows: -Develop a County Environmental Resources Management Program (Policy 1.1 .1 ) -EPTAB will provide guidance to the county (Policy 1 .1 .1 ) -The county will have in place a staff capable of implementing the County Environmental Resources Management Program (Policy 1 .1 .3) -Annual (phasing) implementation of the Environmental Resources Management Program (Policy 1 .1 .7) -A Natural Resource Protection Areas Program (N.R.P.A's) (Objective 1 .3 Of Policy 1 .3.1 , R - GI To include: 1 . Identify N.R.P.A's on a map. 2. Map to be incorporated into the Future Land Use Map. 3. Develop a means, in the N.R.P.A's program, to protect and restore natural resource values -page 1 of FIRE- ® ,,, , ,, ,,, IUE- ® a / .r� TROPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2396 13th Street,North pp,ip Naples, Florida 33940 1 Phone& Fax (813) 263-0077 and functions. 4. Implement a process during the counties development review that insures that all site- specific and cumulative environmental impacts are adequately addressed. 5. The N.R.P.A's protection program shall also include incentives such as taH reductions, transfer of development rights, and [purchase of select development rights] fee simple purchase. -The EPTAB will begin on a yearly basis (beginning August 1 , 1990) to develop and adopt management guidelines and performance guidelines and standards for all the counties N.R.P.A's (Policy 1 .3.3) -The county will, along with implementation of the N.R.P.A's program, identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use its native vegetation communities and wildlife habitat (Goal 6) -The county will phase in this protection of native plants, animals and their habitat as follows: by August 1 , 1990 prepare development standards first for intertidal and coastal strands, undeveloped coastal barriers, Heric scrub habitats (Policy 6.1 .1 ) then by Aug. 1 , 91 ...marine, freshwater, transitional zone wetlands and hardwood hammocks (Policy 6.1 .2) then by Aug. 1 , 92 ...pine flatwoods and dry prairie habitats (Policy 6.1 .3) -page 2 of FIVE- ® R, yckd Pnper Allill lir r CTROONSULTANTSPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 2 396 I ith Street, North aiiiFloridaNaples, 33940 Phone& Fax (813) 263-0077 Ak then by Rug. 1 , 92 ...all other important native habitats will also be addressed (Ob jectiue 6.1 ) -The above habitat protection programs will be adopted, criteria and standards implemented and modified as N.R.P.R's are phased in on a yearly basis. This process will include consideration of individual watershed management plans (Policy 6.1 .5). -The county shall also maintain, on a development, the largest contiguous wetland [viable, naturally functioning] area practicable (Policy 6.2.3). -The county shall also preserve/retain an appropriate portion o each viable naturally functioning non-wetland native habitat type I? no definition ? l(Qb jectiue 6.4). -The Land Development Code will require that viable naturally functioning native habitat [wetland and non-wetland] communities will be identified, and that some of the habitat Li all be preserved (Policy 6.4.2). -All new residential developments in the Coastal Area greater Iran 2.5 acres shall retain 25% of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site (Policy 6.4.6) -All new residential developments in the Coastal Urban Zone shall retain 25% of the viable, naturally functioning native vegetation on site (Policy 6.4.6). -fill other types of new development [within the entire county] shall preserve an appropriate portion of the native vegetation on the site. This appropriate portion shall be determined through the County development review process. (Policy 6.4.7). Preservation of different contiguous habitats is encouraged. -page 3 of FIVE- ®Rrcvded rape 1 TROPICAL ENVIRONMEN AL 1) CONSULTANTS 2396 13th Street, Noun�� NapIc,, Florida 33940 Phone& Fax (813) 263-0077 A. -The county will prepare, by August 1 , 1989, management guidelines for eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers, the Florida panther, the woodstork habitat (Policg 7.3.3). -The county will prepare and implement management guideline for all other species (animals] of special status by January 1 , 199rm (Policg 7.3.3) -The county will adopt by August 1 , 199.0, a Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program (Ob jec#iue 11 .6). -The estuarine habitat and the coastal barriers are considered fart of the N.R.P.R's (Policy 11 .6.1 0 1 .3.2) ERECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Conservation and Coastal Element clearly requires the county 'a develop, on a yearly basis, a program to conserve, preserve and appropriately use its' natural resources. This program clearly states and includes the incorporation, again Et ► a yearly basis, watershed management plans, specific habitat types and Natural Resource Protection Areas. The specific time table for development of N.R.P.A's management plans, as well as standards and criteria for Land Development Regulations, is clearly set forth. Also, following the prioritized habitat types, protection plans are Ii be developed and incorporated into appropriate watershed plans . id N.R.P.A's. The Natural Resource Department (N. R.D.) has decided, without thy- approval of the citizens, or the Department of Community Affairs, it -page 4 of FIVE - ®Rccydrd Paper Adm. t----, , ha 2 TROPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2396 13th Street,North pt0 Naples, Florida 33940 ® Phone&Fax(813) 263-0077 without even going through the required comprehensive plan ammendment process to disregard the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies and work toward their own ends, using arbitrary measurable dates, plans and programs. There has been no public imput, no hearings (as required) although the Board of County Commissioner have given the N. R. D. approval to seek approval from the Department of Community Affairs to ammend the Plan. This approval from D. C. R. has never been requested! ! The proposed Habitat Ordinance attempts to put in place a proceedure to identify and rank native habitats. The N. R. D. has not begun any aspect of the N.R.P.R's program although the Conservation and Coastal 1 Element required them to do so. Valuable habitats and associated functions have been lost through inadequate development review due to the failure of the Board of Commissioners to adequately fund, staff and provide direction to the Natural Resource Department. , '',) - , ,‘‘:4(-,:'(/ 'I , - ,:ei ' . .---' 1/771''t -page 5 of F I VE- ®Recycled Paper _ Environmental Inventories Development Suitability Planning&Design Wetland/Upland Mapping Environmental Impact Studies Permitting/Mitigation/Habitat Restoration Habitat/Landscape Management • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION fj: EE, $ MEMORANDUM xl< MAR 1992 TO: Martha Howell, Assistant County Attorney log= NATUNAL FROM: William D. Lorenz Jr. , P.E. , Administrator Environmental Services Division MAi` AGEMEF i DATE: 17-Mar-1992 SUBJECT: Strategy for meeting the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element t At the 9 March 1992 EPTAB meeting, several members of the public questioned the authority and appropriateness for staff to be proposing land development standards for protecting various habitats. I have developed the enclosed report to address these questions and to describe for EPTAB and other observers our present approach to implementing the requirements of the Coastal and Conservation Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. I thought that you might find some of the information useful to your future activities in this area. Please let me know if you have any questions about the material contained within this report. WDL:pc Attachment c: Barbara Cacchione, Chief Planner Kevin Dugan, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Services File A DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STRATEGY FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT WILLIAM D. LORENZ JR. , P.E Environmental Services Administrator MARCH 17 , 1992 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Growth Management Plan has the most Goals, Objectives and Policies of any element of the Plan. The CCME provides the direction for the development of a very ambitious and comprehensive program with many interrelated elements and deadlines for completion. Adopted in January 1989 , the CCME established a five-year plan with deadlines beginning as early as August 1, 1989 with the final program completed by August 1, 1994 . Although the CCME provides an overall strategy and certain guiding policies for accomplishing the numerous deadlines for program components, many details concerning the exact nature and scope of the programs are understandably missing. These details, of course, are to be developed as the County implements the Plan' s requirements. As staff has endeavored to meet these requirements, there has been questions as to how the program's requirements are related and how they are to be implemented. Questions have also arose over the authority for staff to even work on additional land development standards, some of which were included in the 1989 Plan. -2- The purpose of this report, therefore, is to describe staff' s, current strategy for developing and implementing the comprehensive environmental resources management program. The report will also establish the authority for staff to propose additional land development standards designed to protect both habitats and endangered wildlife species. 2 .0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2 . 1 A Comprehensive Environmental Resources Management Program During the development of the CCME between August 1988 and January 1989, staff assisted and advised the Board-appointed advisory committee to ensure that the proposed element met DCA' s minimum 9J5 requirements. This was critical since the County had already forwarded a proposed plan to DCA in July 1988 which DCA rejected and found lacking in many areas. At the same time, it was recognized that the immediate deadline for plan adoption precluded the committee from developing a more extensive program that was advocated by certain committee members. Staff therefore understood that the intent of the January 1989 plan was (1) to initially meet the minimum standards imposed by DCA and (2) to continue to develop a more comprehensive environmental resources -3- management program to be completed by August 1, 1994 . Minimum standards contained in the January 1989 Plan were adopted as land development regulations in the summer and fall of 1989. For the most part, these standards were adopted as free standing ordinances incorporating the same language used in the Plan itself. Since this time, the County adopted the ULDC incorporating these ordinances and added additional language to meet some of the Plan's requirements, i.e. soil erosion control standards. Once the initial LDRs were adopted, staff turned its attention to the developing the Comprehensive Environmental Resources Program. By August 1, 1994, the County will complete the development and implementation of a comprehensive environmental management and conservation program that will ensure that the natural resources, including species of special status, of Collier County are properly, appropriately, and effectively identified, managed, and protected. Species of special status are defined as species 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. - CCME 1. 1 By August 1, 1994, complete the phased preparation and adoption of all natural resources management and environmental protection standards and criteria needed for use in the Collier County land development review process. - CCME 1. 1.7 The comprehensive program consists of mechanisms designed to -4- protect specific habitats, larger natural resource protection areas (NRPAs) that may span many types of habitats, and specific endangered/threatened wildlife species. Staff has proceeded on the premise that the standards adopted in the January 1989 Plan and initial set of LDRs are interim and subject to evaluation and potential change as the comprehensive program is developed. By the time mandated for the adoption of land development regulations pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, F.S. , including any amendments thereto August 1, 1989 incorporate the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this Element into the County' s land development regulations as interim environmental resources protection and management standards.- CCME 1. 1. 2 (emphasis added) Until definitions for habitat associations and standards for development are adopted as land development standards, criteria specified in other objectives and policies of this element will apply. - CCME 6. 1. 7 Indeed, the Plan recognized that the process of developing and proposing new standards that may supersede criteria specified in the objectives and policies of the CCME would require the input of a specially empowered advisory committee. The CCME thus required that a technical advisory committee be established to guide the development of the comprehensive program. By August 1, 1989, appoint, and establish operational procedures for a technical advisory committee to advise and assist the County in the activities involved in the development and implementation of the County Environmental Resources Management Program. - CCME 1. 1. 1 -5- In March 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved an ordinance creating the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board (EPTAB) . EPTAB functions as the technical advisory committee to assist staff and advise the Board regarding the development of the environmental resource management program. It was therefore recognized that a process would unfold where new programs and standards would be added to and possibly change the initial programs and standards originally required by the Plan. Staff is therefore meeting the stated requirements of the Plan by developing proposals for consideration by EPTAB which in some cases may supersede those contained in the Plan and initially incorporated in the ULDC. 2 .2 Coastal Zone Management Plan The Growth Management Plan (GMP) recognizes certain priorities in the development of the environmental resource management program. The intent of the original GMP committee was to specify the Coastal Area as a priority resource protection area. After the initial set of land development regulations were completed, staff began work on a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) to address numerous protection and conservation objectives. -6- By August 1, 1990, designate and adopt management guidelines for the undeveloped coastal barrier and estuarine natural resources protection area.- CCME 1. 3 . 2 There shall be no net loss of important, viable, naturally occurring, submerged, marine habitat.- CCME 6 . 6 By August 1, 1990, identify, inventory, and map both disturbed and undisturbed sea grass beds and other submerged marine habitats that are deemed important. -CCME 6. 6. 1 By August 1, 1991, regulate boat traffic and other uses and activities as necessary to conserve, protect, and enhance, as appropriate, these habitats. - CCME 6. 6. 2 Where applicable guidelines of Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Regulations for Outstanding Florida Waters and Aquatic Preserves shall be considered to review land development projects in and near sea grass beds. - CCME 6. 6. 3 By August 1, 1990, the County shall adopt a Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program. - CCME 11. 6 The program shall include the management, guidelines and performance standards prepared for the undeveloped coastal barriers contained within the coastal barrier and estuarine NRPA (Policy 1.3 .2) . - CCME 11. 6. 1 The program shall address County resource management policies and procedures for all County jurisdiction beaches, dunes and coastal barriers (both developed and undeveloped) . - CCME 11. 6. 2 The program shall be based in part on the beach, dune and coastal barrier data, analyses and management recommendations contained in the County' s coastal management program technical reports and the Collier County Beach Management Studies. - CCME 11. 6. 3 The program shall consider the implications of a potential rise in sea level. - CCME 11.6.4 In addition to the above, the CZMP addresses Objectives 11. 1 -7- through 11. 5 and their attendant policies. Since the CZMP was developed as a comprehensive environmental management and conservation program per CCME 1. 1, it addressed a broad spectrum of natural resources and management issues. Recommendations were provided for sea turtles, coastal birds and manatees. Guidelines for development on coastal barriers include development standards for various coastal habitats including open beach, dune and strand, coastal hammocks, xeric scrub, mangrove and back bay systems and seagrass meadows. The CZMP also provides recommendations for inlet management and beach nourishment. A public workshop draft was completed on February 15, 1991 and workshops were conducted with the Environmental Advisory Council for initial public input prior to the scheduled hearing with the Planning Commission on October 3 , 1991. The Planning Commission has yet to hear the item. Staff is now working on a management plan for the estuarine natural resources protection area. Much of the information already developed for the. CZMP will be used for this effort. Additionally, staff will be developing techniques for estimating effects of watershed land use impacts on the county' s estuarine system. By August 1, 1992, the County will complete the development of an estuarine management program. - CCME 2 . 5 Identify land use activities that have the potential to degrade the estuarine environmental quality. - CCME -8- Exotic Fish Ordinance. - CCME 6. 1 By August 1, 1990, inventory, define and prepare development standards and criteria, based on the presence of dominant or indicative species for intertidal and coastal strands, undeveloped coastal barriers, and xeric scrub habitats, with criteria for development and standards for land clearing in these habitat areas. - CCME 6. 1. 1 By August 1, 1991, inventory, define and prepare development standards and criteria, based on the presence of dominant or indicative species, for marine, freshwater, and transitional zone wetlands, and hardwood hammocks. - CCME 6. 1. 2 By August 1, 1992, inventory, define and prepare development standards and criteria, based on the presence of dominant or indicative species, for pine flatwoods and dry prairie habitats. - CCME 6. 1. 3 All other species associations that may be defined as a discrete habitat community will be considered for development criteria and standards for land clearing as part of this process. - CCME 6. 1. 4 The above developed criteria and standards shall be modified as appropriate as individual watershed management plans and NRPAs are developed. - CCME 6. 1. 5 The proposed Habitat Protection Ordinance currently under review by EPTAB is the mechanism to address 6. 1 and its attendant policies. Using these and other policies as guiding principles, staff developed and circulated for comment in June 1991 a white paper outlining a proposed strategy for addressing habitat protection. This Preliminary Strategy for Developing Land Use Regulations to Protect Native Habitats, June 1991 recommends that a single ordinance be developed to address all habitats rather than develop separate ordinances over a period of time. The -10- strategy document lists many advantages for this approach. Already behind schedule in meeting the interim deadlines, staff considered this as an appropriate strategy in order to also meet the final August 1992 deadline (CCME 6. 1) . Staff intended that the HPO would (1) provide for minimum standards for preserving the highest quality habitats in the county, (2) confirm or revise as envisioned by CCME Policy 1. 1. 2 the interim environmental resources protection and management standards (specifically the "25%" requirement of CCME Policy 6. 4 . 6 and broad language of CCME Policy 6. 4 . 7) , and (3) meet the intent of CCME Objective 6. 1 and its attendant policies. It was recognized that the minimum standards could also be modified by requirements of NRPAs once these are developed (CCME 6. 1. 5) 2 .4 Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) Definition 145 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan describes an NRPA as a portion of the County identified as being of extreme importance for one or more critical ecological functions. Some of these critical ecological functions are: aquifer recharge, stormwater detention, protected and unprotected wildlife habitat, and normal conveyance of water to the County's estuaries. Types of areas of critical county concern are: -11- 1. Water Conservation and Protection Areas 2 . Estuarine and Coastal Barriers 3 . Critical Ecological Corridors 4 . Rare, Unique and Endangered Habitats. Staff has already addressed, in part, Estuarine and Coastal Barrier NRPAs through the development of the Coastal Management Plan. The Ground Water Protection Ordinance addresses some aspects of Water Conservation and Protection Areas with staff continuing to work on mapping High Recharge areas as required by the Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Areas Element. In addition to the HPO, EPTAB and staff are now beginning to address the other types of NRPAs. By August 1, 1994, complete the phased delineation, data gathering, 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 Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission) and their habitats. - CCME 1. 3 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; -12- 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. - CCME 1. 3 . 1 By August 1, 1990, designate and adopt management guidelines for the undeveloped coastal barrier and estuarine natural resources protection area. - CCME 1. 3 . 2 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. - CCME 1. 3 . 3 Where possible, the implementation of the NRPA program shall be coordinated with the preparation and implementation of watershed and sub-basin management plans. - CCME 1. 3 .4 Identification of proposed NRPAs was started by EPTAB as part of the effort to develop a land acquisition program for environmentally important lands (CCME 1. 3 . 1e and 1. 3 . 1g) . Although the County has delayed the proposed referendum for funding the program, work continues to identify NRPAs and their -13- EPTAB. Whether these areas can be incorporated into the current scope of the Habitat Protection Ordinance and maintain the existing schedule still remains to be established. One alternative is to develop management plans for each type of NRPA as a first step. As in the Coastal Zone Management Plan, this strategy will help focus the effort on an area so that a series of protection and management mechanisms can be tailored for a particular NRPA or type of NRPA. Once the plan is workshopped with the public and Board of County Commissioners, then the implementation steps (regulatory, acquisition, or other type of operational program) can then be initiated. 2 . 5 Guiding Policies The CCME does provide policies that are designed to guide the development of the comprehensive program. For instance, several policies provide for an acquisition program as a preference to a regulatory program. 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; - CCME 1. 3 . 1e The County shall seek assistance from and support state (e.g. CARL, SOR) or Federal land acquisition programs -15- for County areas qualifying as NRPAs. - CCME 1. 3 . 1g EPTAB has recognized this principle and has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the County fund a land acquisition program for environmentally important land i.e. certain NRPAs. The Board decided that the time was not right to embark upon such a program. EPTAB continues to work on the mapping of areas that are appropriate for some type of acquisition, either fee simple purchase or property use rights. These types of guiding principles for program development reflect a position that the costs for protecting land benefiting the public should be borne by the public at large. The CCME specifically addresses this equity issue as a guideline for the development of the conservation program. When developing the County conservation program, attempt to equitably balance the relationship between the benefits derived and the costs incurred to both the public and private sectors. - CCME 1. 1. 6 A major task for EPTAB is to provide this balance. Who should bear the cost of preventing a harm to the public or providing a benefit for the public is a critical issue for EPTAB to address. Other guiding principles relate to the requirement to justify more stringent standards and to avoid duplication of effort. In fact, Goal 14 states that "the County shall avoid unnecessary -16- duplication of existing regulatory programs" . Avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and continue coordination and cooperation with private, Regional, State, and Federal agencies and organizations. Work with other local governments to identify and manage shared natural resources. - CCME 1. 1. 5 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. - CCME 14 . 1 There will be no unnecessary duplication of existing regional, state, or federal permitting programs. - CCME 14 . 1. 1 The County may adopt regulations to strengthen existing permitting programs. - CCME 14 . 1. 2 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. - CCME 14 . 1. 3 3.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Growth Management Plan envisioned that a process would unfold where policies and criteria adopted in the January 1989 Plan would be reviewed and added to/amended as the County developed -17- its comprehensive environmental resources program. The comprehensive program would address mechanisms designed to protect specific habitats, larger natural resource protection areas (NRPAs) and specific listed wildlife. The Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board was approved in March 1991 to function as the technical advisory committee to guide the program' s development. The CCME provides many programmatic policies as well as policies designed to guide the development of the comprehensive environmental resources management program. Staff has been in the process of meeting these requirements with the assistance and guidance of EPTAB. The first priority has been the development of the Coastal Zone Management Plan which was developed in response to many policies and has proposed guidelines for protecting various types of habitats and listed wildlife species in the Coastal area. EPTAB was not yet formed when staff began the public input process; the old EAC was used to forward recommended policies to the Planning Commission. EPTAB will help staff formulate the implementing ordinances. EPTAB is now reviewing the Habitat Protection Ordinance (HPO) and developing the detailed design of the NRPA program. The HPO is proposed as the implementation vehicle for meeting CCME policies addressing land development standards for protecting various -18- types of habitats. This process recognizes that the initial protection criteria were "interim environmental resources protection and management standards" (CCME 1. 1. 2) . The process itself is therefore consistent with the intent of the CCME. EPTAB' s task is now to shape these efforts by meeting the intent of the comprehensive environmental resources management program using the guiding principles contained within other CCME policies. -19- ej Y 1 :y 1 ,41 4,11; ALAR ,, ry +s amu! : Memorandum p i; v , ,,0 CES TO: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Catherine, Owen Environmental Specialist II Barbara Prynowski, Chief Environmental Specialist FROM: Barbara A. Cacchione, Chief Planner DATE: March 10, 1992 RE: Habitat Protection Ordinance (Draft 2/28/92) I have reviewed the Habitat Protection Ordinance and offer the following comments for your review. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any further please' give me a call. Section 1. 2 Legislative Authority The Growth Management // Plan could be added to this section as it is also legislative authority that requires the preparation of this Ordinance. Section 3 . 16. 4 . 1 Native Habitat Analysis The way this is written, the only time the Native Habitat Analysis would be required is if an SDP is required. It does not address Subdivision Master Plans, or rezone or conditional use process. It is my understanding that we would like to establish the Habitat Protection Areas at the earliest stage (rezone or conditional use) rather than waiting until the property is rezoned and they are filing for SDP. This section needs to add that the rezones or conditional use applications will require this habitat analysis and also Subdivision Master Plans. v Section 3 . 16. 4 . 1 Native Habitat Analysis I. 4 . We have received new soil maps from the Soil Conservation Service that you may want to look at. The mapping is much better and so is the land use description. Let me know if you want to look at this information. J #5 Should read - Zoning District, Future Land Use Designation and existing land uses. Section 3 . 16. 4 . 2 Criteria for Conservation Easements Is 25% the number we want to start with in the first draft? I think a statement should be added that would clarify that the Habitat Protection Area can be used for calculating density and to meet the requirements in the ULDC to preserve a certain amount of open space. What about Agricultural uses in the Urban Designated areas? 7771r There is a lot of commercial zoning that will remain outside of the Activity Centers, therefore you should drop the language in regard to ACtivity Centers. Also why should the standard be less for commercial, particularly in the Activity Centers where we have been trying to encourage these areas as focal points in the County and typically requiring more landscaping and buffer areas. What about Industrial land uses, is their requirement 15%? Who is required to Maintain the conservation easement area the Property owner, this should be clarified. Is the P-ST only applied to those under government ownership, if privately owned can it be designated P-ST? If an EIS is required will the petitioners still be required to do a Native Habitat Analysis? Is it required that the petitioner and staff agree in writing on the methodology for habitat dominance? Since wetlands are already well protected by our GMP, should we delete them from this Ordinance and let the plan regulate their use. Section 3 . 16. 6 Criteria for Habitat Evaluation Item IV What is Agricultural/Wilderness If you are using GMP designation the Wilderness designation does not exist. Item VI This note should apply to more items than just the condition of the Habitat. Perhaps an appeal section to the EAB should be added if there are any questions or disagreements between staff and the petitioner on any items for Criteria for Habitat Evaluation. Section 3 . 16. 7 Development Regulations The entity responsible for maintenance should also be identified. How does the 25% preservation requirement work if the habitat is xeric scrub, hardwood hammock or dune and strand habitat. Under Wetlands, it seems that the process should be better defined as to what happens in the event of a conflict. Even language which says the stricter requirement will apply. Otherwise you might be in a situation where the agencies and the county are working against each other. Section 3 . 16. 8 Mitigation Criteria What is the criteria for determining if it is necessary for the public, health or welfare? The first part of this section says that destruction of 41.17.17‘ native habitat can not be mitigated then it goes on to describe the criteria for a mitigation plan. I think it should be very clear when a property owner will be permitted to mitigate. Section 3 . 16. 9 Exemptions This section should be better defined. What if one single family dwelling exists on a tract 20 acres in size is the whole tract exempt. Would this language exempt a subdivision master plan which includes a number of single family lots within a tract of land. Should this exemption only apply to recorded subdivisions which existed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance where the lots are less than one acre in size? Section 3 . 16. 10 Variance Procedures Should this section be written to require an appeal first of a decision to the EAB, if denied then a variance petition is required. If it is termed a variance rather than an appeal to the BCC, there are specific criteria that are involved to approve a variance which are very difficult tests to meet. One of the criteria is that special circumstances exist which through no fault of the petitioner create an undue hardship. (Section 2 . 5. 11 Variances of the Land Development Code) Is this the test you want to apply? The procedures for variances are also outlined in the Code Section 2 . 7 . 5, these procedures should be consistent with each other. Section 3 . 16. 11 Native Habitat Analysis Time Limits. There are now time limits I believe for most development orders. We may want to run the habitat analysis time limit along with the development order it was issued with. This would make it easier to enforce. Section 3 . 16. 13 It seems that auood yenalty tbe this section would be to not issue any futuredevelopmentto orders until the violation is corrected. In some cases this may be more effective than the monetary fines. I think we should have both of them. Section 3 . 16. 14 Appeal from Enforcement This section should have procedures and requirements that must be met to file an appeal. cc: Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director Elly Soto, Planner II EPTAB Habitat Protection Subcommittee Meeting 3/5/92 r1r � � f� Members Present: Beardsley, Pires, Means, Wilkison Staff: Dugan, Owen, Lorenz, Prynoski, Reischl, Burgeson, Polen Public present: Barbara Cawley & Clay Carithers of WMBP; Ed Griffith & Susan Watts (EAB) of Westinghouse/Pelican Bay; Mark Morton of Barron Collier Beardsley submitted written comments 3/4 (via FAX) Pires submitted written comments 3/5 @ meeting err i l � _ Major Concerns: A need for more flexibility overall. Concern re: % preservation rqmts = EPTAB policy. 3 . 16. 3 (p. 9) - suggestion for waivers (e.g. barren, AG) ; make "1. " a greater size than >2 . 5 acres. 3 . 16.4 (p. 11) - wording problems wrt higher %; should the maintenance plan be recorded w/ the CE; suggestion to delete "P-ST" rqmt. 3 . 16. 5 (pp. 11-12) - what if no vegetation, only soil & FLUCCS; better definition for dominance, decrease # spp. in habitat species lists; change wording "by the dominance of one or a combination of the following characteristic vegetative species" ; suggestion to delete "as delineated at the time of adoption of this division of the LDC" (1st para under 3 . 16. 5. 1) . 3 . 16.5. 6 (p. 19) - use SFWMD def. of function rather than DER spp. list; add in A FLUCCS code. 3 . 16. 6 (p. 19) : I. remove wetlands from RARITY and from the ranking criteria. II. problems with this criterion; suggestion to reduce # functions, change current format. III. plants are not protected by State law. V. & VI. suggestion to include "invasion by exotics" category. 3 . 16. 7 (p. 22) - change maintenance plan to management plan or management stewardship; problem w/ hydrological requirements, change to "restore hydroperiod"?; use of clustering techniques; take zoning & setback requirements into consideration. Next Meeting set for 3/19 „..p.,,,fTi,.-)r-zt-,, . , I..4m „ _ (74 :,..,,,,„, -.—,,,., ,-..., . . , ,,.L., i ..,. . - . ... 1 ' N _, .d, ,, ,...1,A. k i ;-----g o,144,1 -ie-- (I: Z':1L i - ' ilif k (-1°* 1 ' 1 '-'7‘ ' I ' ' ' . ' - ' -'' - d /7 1 P>iii -41 '''\4 '''' :: :. ': n''' ' '''' : ' tc) 1 1111 4'° "Ill 11PP ' A l'i. '- ..-. : \ ,,-',.! i\ 7,',-,2.-,--- . V ill, it v _____77g ‘..7,07/7,..1 , , Attention- /1.--.,44//17. Urn 1, fes-,% - / T<.. or : '___%7-051) limp: t )(41...9------ I1hrL4 PP'!‘,1 i f TE: _ NIIPAPER OF v n6ES rtn uo / 74---- :'-'1) j -REA t - _ ENT- . edtvl -G� } -� � - -'- -� - � �- ; �P), )044 : jr7 ie:4i,„4,,r_i ,:: . !..1.:... .:,7:4!, ,6 , _. , ro (2r p Comments b+ij SENDER: ` /77140',1- .. ” ‘97"--/ -7d'/,f-,///t,. 9. /j''' '''. . '/-e7/:*,/".1//?Zi:1-,(1e ,:f 7/7 - ,,,,v-i/P1 i //.-/ .e • -2._air ..e._s q9 ;:37/.., 4,,;4-e ...,,./47--'--,=::://7)e,f.:1:,/e." ? --i , G, f,iffro ,xf. , (i a- 1"(-f r r" -F ��' '`r/ .,, `-.' Me-- ? '..: __= /-' 4./e'VP -t#1:.; a‘' .,./.37.‘,// ,41:-:--7(''''',-...-/. // 97; I i / , 7/ (//ye i ,pv, ,f)(aoli „2:7c.',. . ha ' /,,,,(,)/--,,„7.„--,/ --2--7,-,?..„--fy i i ?//,/:-/ 7/7 (---f.... /i7Harit7. -re- ,„,77,fri -44# -.),-i-,/e,-/i -t;--,,-;.' .(5/>---c...,,,--gil.ektotproitil-- -37)- j I -'-'4-e4,/ki -/' ., i' /1 , . -7,4 / .. .-/.(vi .., ,,,)//tof-/1. / , _ . .i-c) ,- 4.‘,...: ,2 . /ni,,,,/(4'71/Via ' 4A1 ii/e/?,;( le 2;4,../0„1/,' /.1/210, 'i ,j; e'll 1/ --- , .,..._ v._,_, , loipy . . 3 ii , � Vii - = / M _ '/' ' fr y 6.---7.e.41,41 (� 0, 6, ..`/t--° .F `fir'` +�' c75--- -2:;r4' f'�G ','IN /':1.,;.;:/•--' 7,.-_' ll7ot bek: r (—ea,„4 ' f -' e7 } / ' / 1 ,- ,1 s •, r _ `)J C T YY `f '/`-% _e 2/28/92 , 1- dews cods DRAFT lipTE: THE FOLLOWING IS IN LDC FORMAT: / 4P(ir i jt ) tl :. _/4 (2 , y . , DIV. 3. 16 NATIVE HABITAT PROTECTION -"' ` 41rte -1(. ' F . /y /A I/f �MIGrpt.//7-•.,..,., 44,6 h. ,� t T {, ili S:�C. 3. 16. 1 TITLE AND CITATION. This division shall be known g, ' ' and may be cited as the "Collier County Habitat Protection l ,r'r�„�y ' ') R==gulations” : rr.er, .._. )� r „y SEC. am4 _. 27 ' 3. 16.2 PURPOSE. s �+ � fr{�� / 6 4},. Tae purpose of this vision is to manage and conserve the C y:•iffi,- ;f ,t native habitats and associated species in Collier Countrl through 1 ;.' tie identification, protection, conservation, and ate-u'"s' `•, of n ative vegetative communities and wildlife habitats. ,„ / ..ii /14.1 /-R0/474atit/v/A ik Ci-P, SEC. 3. 16.3 APPLICABILITY. - =J�°r"C; '1"'"- ja , z., 2/28/92 DRAFT I alteration or site development: I . Maps, surveys and support graphics. 1 . General location map. 2 . Native habitats and their boundaries identified and delineated on an aerial photograph, having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet, of the site extending at least two hundred (200) feet outside ,/ the arcel boundary (according to Sec. 3 . 16. 5) . /11 � identification will be consistent with the 51.4,,,,,57;;/' �f lorida Department of Transportation - Florida Land l C Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) , -'"� /v/t i '- ".. An appropriate protected species survey using methodology of the Florida' Game and Fresh Water ,� Fish Commission. An appropriate protected species / ,4$� , ..- survey should include consideration for species f)( known or likely to occur in or around habitats in `-1, , / 0, , , ty''/ `4 , the development ar�- 3. .,.J _ �_ , - ' 47/i f!<" iS G -! U7 .,7 � .� 1 xte• �-� .moi ';ci,)/ �, d < . 71117_:4 . Sol ,:,ap' t a scale consistent with that used for ' ' , t, Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Ctassificat ' on 'r`'' ` � ' y �' System (FLUCCS) determination. f 'I,, /:,,,,f/,,,e,:)4 r': 5 Zoning design -- the ..-?-1,51,.4,,t. C3is ''7 J : designation ancl 'lana uss on subject ar.0 ,,.,� ,,,, / , ' i 5 t LP adjacent properties. \-- ------______-- I ( �U _c ' �1I `; 'A1` 6, tvl `. A Ranking of the Native Habitats according to Sec. U ,, ' 3 . 16 . 6 . This ran :ing Tsh?all not apply tb dune and~ �'' y. strand habitat, as it is the most rare, unique, anc ,-- E , '' ;, � } � endangered habitat in Collier County. , y. dt /c"Gl-JCC;, � � ) �i ' 7 'Otai number of acres of Native Habitat'90 the site ) . r { '/ in order to calculate the total acreage required 4/i� i /by, �'" st 4n 'jfo pre erv�/atio r .- / r,. fy, - y , kt-. 9 f'rL ;1.. J,! i i N l' A ^C,.- /t j4. 41 � L c,f,j,'C l-"fit" e[ , 'I4-f' rte,' /',4";/,i, rev, i, '/ " �� tri`- . T e Development Services Director, or his designee /a ) f,. )4 # ,'1 -#. ¢ may require that the Applicant include such , ,>'�,� � , � additional information which is reasonable and j z,�" `g necessary for adequate administration oA this _2 f, t f p J Division. ` , Ot : /I (.21 ' 3. 16. 4 .2 CRITERIA CONSERVATIQN ``EASEMENTS. 7,° ,fin f1 l.t a minimum, 25 of the 4,i-g-fiest ranked Native Habitat (according -r�, to Sec. 3 .16,,,.&4- shall be placed in.' a Conservation Area, and c.edicated under a Conservation Easement which shall be recorded -_ as such in the Official Record of 01 '.er County , rior to, F, .nal , Development Order Approval. f. '� „, ,j /�. )„,..,.. because of their rare, unique, and endangered status (refer to�[-''' -10 �„"" , ,:. 11),,, /':u 'A, >I`T_ r !,', .1.1,- ,P., // 1,�s�s /e/--: f'+9 e !.r ,f./I A 1 /.tAv/.-..MI 1 W. 2/28/92 DRAFT CCME Appendix M) , dune and strand, xeric scrub, and hardwood hammock habitats shall merit a higher level of protection, as follows: /' When the site to be developed is composed of at least 75% : dune and strand, a minimum of . shall. be preserved. /3 .'76-40(/---1 ‘v/W/7"4. 1 . da } When the site to be developed _is ,composed of least 75% / � hardwood hammock, a minimum of % shall be preserved, 401 . 0 . When the site to be develo.-, is composed of at least 75% ,M/# .-----: xeric scrub, a minimum of 0% shall be p eserved i 65 J\ 1 Bona fide agricultural development located onl • in the Rural "ANYAgricultural District- an , RS -s ates Distrias described or. the Fut�:re.�:> �1'se (FLU) Map of .e .,a___-c ounty Growth ,Management Plan and the Collier County Official Zoning Atlas, �, j „all be required to preserve 1 ss kh9,n 15% of Native Habitat 9 . 1 __a� described in Sec. 3 . 16 . 6. �i6, - `X , . .s. /—�yr! ` l4.2/4.. .'% II! i.. . ! —p) �r :development 7 4-..,2 �-t� n.....,.,.,�-.. 1 4 ' 7 1 h -(- ; ,,i t'- .//A- ..,,4. '4 r._,j • ill(A r k-cfmfllercial velopment - locates Within 4V.Ilmercla.. ni.i.. ,T /� v .„ f f I( C€.nters, as described on__ fhse eFL1J Ma • of Collier County, shall be ,..17 required to preserve no less t lan 15s of P:ative Hab. at—a,4 .. t ,; d€,cribed in Sec. 3 . 16 . . �g �v ._- ' -,,,,,,;,„,,, .♦ a 1z� ranee pian r the conservat-. •,>n� Area sna.11. ..be-> ecoried it `�, :51-,:' . jab. 1 ,) ,. he Official Reecrds of Cnl..•l-ser -Coon}', and sna . �. clu3`e----),(4 --.,_-.__.r't ' . ,,fi�r' V requirements--a-s`I"isted in Sec 3 . 167 . ,- ',Tile requirement for recording a Conservation Easement shall be �,1%- -- , ..i._ �f' waived when a Deed is recorded which transfers all interest in ,� ' 1 h r p ilie Conservation _Easement to a Public Entity or a private _-,_._ .;, , cnservation Group approved by the; nviron�ienta y /- );:ii” Prior to Final Development Order Approval a '.1F-ST" r n?ng cverlay -- ' =_ shall be placed on the Cans- ' - eer/t �- eec. 2 . 2 . 24 . 2 . 2 . /+ y ' ° e),/.t_ Gly S .C. 3. 16. 5 HABITAT IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY. . a t e�-_, [Habitats consist of one or a combination of biologically, 4.,,/, f�"v t.,..,_ hydrologically or geologically delineated areal units which are 2.. -', usually occupied by a characteristic species specific fauna "and -!;; flora.;] The following habitats will be included for management , ,-' under ,this 'Division of the ;code:1 1) Dune and Strand, 2) Xeric ;,r Scrub, 3) Harthzoo Hammock, 4) •ine Flatwood, 5) Dry Prairie, and-.h 6 Wetlands. Habi - at type ay be ,identified by soil type, a dominance of charas er'. eic vegetative species, occurrence in a certain position i e landscape,) or a combination o any of<-the above. C� f ;e: ' As an in tial estimate f the extent of the native habitats containedwithin the pr•.osed development prior to an on-site / •7 -11- 2/28/92 DRAFT visual inspection, theline demarcating these habitats may be determined by aerial photointerpretation. Any such depictions shall be consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use, Cover and Fortes Classification System (FLUCCS) . Native habitats and their boundaries shall be delineated, on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to 200 feet when available from the county, otherwise, a scale of one inch equal to 400 feet _is acceptable. Thepiction of the habitats shall extend to at least two hundre (200)jfeet outside the parcel boundary, n n on-site inspectionperformed for the determination of dominance, visual estimation will be the first method of choice. In those instances where the applicant and the County cannot reach agreement as to dominance, a quantitative method may be utilized. The determination of vegetative dominance may be performed by using any appropriate quantitative method, Suc h as but not limited to those found in Grieg-Smith ( ) , Quantitative Plant Ecology, as long as the Development Services Director, or his designee, and the applicant both agree, in writing, to the method used. J //j/d*Vt4' °)/- 3. 16.5. 1 DUNE AND STRAND. ^ _„.41 The dune and strand--f abitat shall be ide ,t i ec3 by ccat from ± n to 750 feet`'of the Mean High Water (MH1.) line, as de.L; reated at the time of adoption of this division of the LDC, of the Gulf of Mexico and its associated bays and inland waters and by the dcminance of one or a combination of the following characteristic vegetative species* : Cakile edentula sea rocket Cakile lanceolate sea rocket Canavalia rosea (maritime) beach bean, bay bean Casuarina spp. Australian pine Chamaesyce mesembr}=anthemifolium beach spurge Ccccoloba uvifera sea grape Croton punctatus beach croton, beach tea Distichlis spicata salt grass Helianthus debilis beach sunflower Ipomoea pes-caprae railroad vine Iva imbricate beach elder Limonium-carolinianum sea lavender •ntzelia floridana poor-man 's patch NE•ptunia pubescens sensitive plant Oenothera humifusa evening primrose Pespalum distichurrr seashore paspalum ee Sebal palmetto sabal palm Sc-aevola plumieri inkberry Serenoa repens saw palmetto Sesuvium portulacastrum sea purslane Sparti,na patens beach cordgrass Sporobolus` yirginicus beach dropseed -12- 2128/92 f23/92 DRAFT nai.lax , aurifQlia i11ngaa aquatica corkwood SLipulicida setacea - TTsixicoderi ron radicans poison ivy Vrccinjum myrsinites blueberry mprbesina virginica frostweed Mitis aestivalis ' summer grape Yltis `munsoniana muscadine grape Vitis shuttleworthii Calusa grape ,Xyris jupicai yellow-eyed grass Ximenia americana tallow wood * Austin, D.F. January, 1992. letter: indicator species lists for Collier County habitats. This habitat is often found in association with areas in the FLUCCS, including but not limited to numbers 310, 321 . 316. 5. 6 WETLANDS. Wetland habitathall bidentified as that portionof surface waters, including areas that are isolated from Waters of the State, that are dominated by the presence of one or a combination of the species listed in F.A. C. 17-301 . Dpminance shall be, determined according to e methodology specif iod in F.P : ^. B:EC. 3 .16. 6 CRITERIA FOR HABITAT EVALUATION. Collier County Project Review Staff shall utilize si> ;ri _a _a (rarity, functions and values, listed species , size, location, and condition) , to assess the relative ecological value of specific delineated habitats within a project site. Resulting scores shall determine the priority in which habitat preservation slould occur within the project site. I. RARITY �/ j4121 Rarity oft")habitat type in Collier County is based on FOFWFC 1986 Landat acreages. The rarest ("at risk") habitat types shall be given the highest priority for preservation. , , Ranked from high to low, these are: -W,, �: ffi"(11 �.� C r'At, 1,L , (6) A Xeric Scrub It' )4 'III i ' , ,f/ir 1)v c r i ', 8 - Hardwood Hammock ... jfir (2) C Pine Flatwood (2) D :�ry Prairie �{� '''''f,--� ;� E - �4'etland � 1 c ' , ,, 7 .,ir( V •, v 11. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ) 1-)r ierT ti , i i iii441, .1 ,f,-r ,, , leTt i' ... ..„,...11,,rrr.1( MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Cacchione, Chief Planner, Growth Planning Department FROM: Catherine Owen, Environmental Specialist II, Natural Resources Department DATE: 2 March 1992 SUBJECT: DRAFT Habitat Protection Ordinance Attached is a draft of the proposed language and LDC format for the Natural Resources Department's Habitat Protection Ordinance. Only "Division 3 . 16" is being sent out, as this is the section of the ordinance that we are primarily concerned with at this time. The first section (standard ordinance format) , definitions, and technical information are not attached (to reduce confusion) . This is an early draft; it has not yet been approved by the EPTAB habitat protection subcommittee, and it has not gone to an EPTAB public hearing. We will try to keep you informed as to our progress, by sending you revised drafts, as well as notifying you of upcoming EPTAB meetings which you may be interested in attending (later this month) . Please don't hesitate to call either Kevin Dugan or myself if you have any questions. c: Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director February 28, 1992 EPTAB Subcommittee Members Dear Subcommittee Member: Please find enclosed the Draft for the Habitat Protection Ordinance. This draft will be presented at the next meeting of the subcommittee. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 774-8454 . Sincerely, Kevin H. Dugan Sr. Environmental Specialist February 12, 1992 EPTAB Subcommittee Members Dear Subcommittee member; Please find enclosed the latest updates and additions to the Habitat Protection Ordinance. These will be discussed at the next scheduled meeting on Feb. 25, 1992 . If you have any questions or wish to comment on the enclosed material before the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me at 774-8454 . Th nk yo , Kevin H.`Duo .n Sr. Environmental Specialist 3.16.X NATIVE HABITAT REVIEW PROCEDURES A mandatory pre-application meeting shall be conducted by the Development Services Director, or his designee. At such meeting the Petitioner shall be advised, among other requirements, that a Native Habitat Analysis and establishment of a Conservation Easement shall precede other County Review. 3.16.X.1 Native Habitat Analysis As part of an application for site alteration or Site Development Plan (Div. 3 . 3) in Collier County, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Native Habitat Analysis (NHA) . The NHA shall be prepared by a practicing environmental consultant. The following shall be submitted in an application for site alteration or site development: I. Maps, surveys and support graphics. 1. General location map. 2 . Native habitats and their boundaries identified and delineated on an aerial photograph, having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet, of the site extending at least two hundred (200) feet outside the parcel boundary (according to Sec. 3 . 16.X) . Habitat identification will be consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) . 3 . An appropriate protected species survey using methodology of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. An appropriate protected species survey should include consideration for species known or likely to occur in or around habitats in the development area. 4 . Soils map at a scale consistent with that used for the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) determination. 5. Zoning designation and land uses on the subject and adjacent properties. 6. A ranking of the Native Habitats according to Section 3 . 16.X. 7. Total number of acres of Native Habitat on the site in order to calculate the total acreage required for preservation. 8 . The Development Services Director, or his designee, may require that the Applicant include such additional information which is reasonable and necessary for adequate administration of this Division. 3. 16.X.2 Criteria for Conservation Easements At a minimum, XX% of the Native Habitat shall be placed under a Conservation Easement, and be recorded as such in the Official Records of Collier County prior to Final Development Order Approval. The Conservation Easement shall allow construction of boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive recreational or educational facilities after the a Site Development Plan has been Reviewed and approved by Staff and the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) . A Maintenance Plan for the Conservation Easement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, and shall include: 1. An Exotic Vegetation Removal and Maintenance Plan per Section 3 . 9 . 6. 6. 5. 2 . Maintenance of Hydrological Requirements. 3 . A Management Plan for Listed Species per Section 3 . 11. 3 . 4 . The Entity responsible for implementation of the Management Plan. 5. Any Additional Information required by the Development Services Director. The requirement for recording a Conservation Easement shall be waived when a Deed is recorded which transfers all interest in the Conservation Easement to a Public Entity or a private Conservation Group approved by the EAB. Prior to Final Development Order Approval a "P-ST" zoning overlay shall be placed on the Conservation Easement per Section 2 . 2 . 24 .2 . 2 . 3. 16.3 APPLICABILITY All development, with the exception of a single lot, less than two and one half (2 . 5) acres, or parcel proposing a single family detached unit or a duplex unit, shall be subject to a Native Habitat Analysis and Conservation Easement review and approval. The Native Habitat Analysis and Conservation Easement, when required, shall be reviewed and approved prior to the submittal of a final site development plan (Sec. 3 . 3 . 5. 5) . Sec. 3. 16.X NATIVE HABITAT ANALYSIS TIME LIMITS Approved Native Habitat Analyses shall remain in effect for two (2) years. If no development (site alteration) has commenced within two years, the Native Habitat Analysis shall expire. One (1) one-year extension may be granted for good cause shown upon written application submitted to the Development Services Director prior to expiration of the preceding approval. When extending the Native Habitat Analysis, the Development Services Director shall require the approval to be modified to bring the plan into compliance with any new provisions of this Code in effect at the time of the extension request.