Loading...
EPTAB Agenda 01/06/1992 EPTAB MEETING: 1/6/92 REVIEW OF MONROE COUNTY HABITAT PROTECTION POLICIES REVIEW OF PROPOSED HABITAT EVALUATION CRITERIA Overview of Monroe County approach: -Criteria to determine what type of habitat(s) are on a site: -By definition and plant lists -Pinewoods: high or low value by evaluation criteria -High and low hammocks: high, medium or low value by evaluation criteria -Once each habitat type is delineated on a site, a certain percentage of each is preserved, according to Section 9-809: Open Space Requirements (O. S.R. ) , pp. 201-202 . -The quality of the habitats are evaluated only for pinewoods and hammocks to determine % of preservation area required (O. S.R. ) -All other habitat types have fixed preservation requirements. -Section 9-809 (p. 201) : Open Space means area will not be cleared, there will be no disturbance of any vegetation, and the area must be maintained in its natural condition; similar to what we will require (preservation area requirements) . -example: 80% OSR for high quality hammock; 40% for low quality hammock; 20% for disturbed areas. -Definition for "disturbed" : very broad; room for conflicts. Especially seems to conflict with descriptions for low quality hammocks and pinewoods. Other Monroe County considerations, not in Habitat Protection Section: -Monroe County "Land Authority" buys land made undevelopable due to environmental rules, where possible. -It is written into the code that Environmental Design Criteria cannot be granted variances by the BCC. -A cap on growth by addressing hurricane evacuation problems; not in habitat protection section. -The Florida Keys are entirely within an ACSC, so that these habitat protection rules are written as per DCA. In Collier County, the ACSC (Big Cypress) area is addressed in the ST Division of the LDC. It allows only 10% of the site to be altered, with no more that 50% of this as non-permeable surfaces. Comparison of Monroe County and CCNRD proposed approaches: Monroe: CCNRD: -% preservation required for -Fixed % preservation area each habitat type on a site per site, with method to choose best area habitat(s) -Problem with fragmentation -Should help reduce fragmentation of habitats due to method problems -Loose definition for -Stricter def. for "native "disturbed" habitats" ; may get greater % preservation in some cases -Assures very high -May get just as high % of high pres. of high quality quality habitat: i.e. a project native habitat: 80-100% site with a very high quality habitat within it may preserve 100% of that habitat, with development clustered elsewhere on the site. Depends on % pres. required, and specifics of the site CRITERIA FOR HABITAT EVALUATION: -Monroe County only evaluates for pinewoods and hammoc but ome criteria we may want to add. -Sections 9-805A (pp. 189-191) , 9-806A (pp. 194-195) , and 9-808 ' (pp. 198-199) gives applicant list of information required; similar to our EIS requirements, but expanded. The table below addresses evaluation criteria that are located in the MonrojCounty Plan (HH = high hammock, LH = low hammock, PL = pinelands, CC = Collier County proposed criteria) . Criterion: HH LH PL CC 1. mean DBH of 10 largest trees of selected spp. + - - - 2 . mean soil humus layer + - - - 3 . # woody plant spp. + + - - 4 . # listed plant spp. + + + - 5. abundance of listed plant spp. (per acre) + + + - 6. # exotic nuisance plant spp. + + + - 7. abundance of exotic vegetation - + + + - 8. Listed animal spp. + + + + 9. Extent of disturbance, altered substrate + + + " 10. Size in acres of habitat + + + + 11. % of perimeter abutting scar/dev. land + + + 12 . % covered with soil humus - + - - 13 . size of contiguous hab. of which subject hab. is a part - - + - 14 . Existing structures in contiguous hab. - - + - -The Collier County plan also includes considerations for rarity, functions and values, and location with regard to proximity to corridors and other natural areas. -Items in the Monroe County plan not in the CC plan that may be appropriate to include are items 4 , 5, 7, and 11. -With regard to #9 above, the Monroe County criterion is more specific. We may consider modifying our item VII. Condition. -With regard to #11 above, it is similar to items V. and VI. , but considers proximity to disturbed lands, whereas ours considers proximity to natural high-value areas. We may consider adding � c176 -t-- hat consideration to our criteria as well: �� `r``' 4s*, "� ( 1 �YY\s�t . , cl`QP PROPOSED CHANGES At PER PREVIOUS EPTAB MEETING Preservation Standards: -Add to end of evaluation criteria: Where a project has included preservation of habitat required by State, Regional, and/or Federal agencies that exceeds X%, this policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of preservation area to meet the X% habitat preservation policy. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than X% of the site (modified from 3 .9. 5. 5. 3 : Vegetation Removal, Protection, and Preservation ordinance in the LDC) . -Create a "Required Information" section in front of the evaluation section: The number of acres of native habitat on the site shall be submitted to calculate the total acreage required for preservation. -In this section, also consider Monroe County section 9-805, which includes a list of required information from the applicant for habitat evaluation analysis. -Proposed Criteria Changes: -I. Rarity: give a value of 6 points to xeric scrub -II. Delete recreational value and aesthetics/natural amenities. Research an expanded list of function and values. -III.Listed species: A. 4 points for each listed species confirmed on site. C. Statements-in-A-ane -B-are-met-true--btt-tThe delineated habitat falls within the primary zone of one or more listed species, and: 1. that habitat is appropriate to support that species, or, 2 . disturbance of that habitat will endanger that species. -More staff time allocated to research critical minimum areas for certain species (i. e. gopher tortoise) . -V. Corridors, and VI . Location should be combined, with V. A. = 6 points, V. B. eliminated, and VI. A-D becoming V. B-E.