EPTAB Minutes 05/04/1992 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BO c„, �„a
Minutes of 4 May 1992 Meeting X7.1
- 44t,(� 'jq .„4,1
a / ria-*w1`gg+im 2. F ?k;.
ly.,raFS +n7
Present: David Addison Gary Beardsley Mike DaviRaY 7 1992 C
David Land David Maehr Tony Pires
Larry Richardson Glenn Simpson i4 f & r- ;„ ,�
MA
L ULJRCES
Absent: Steven Means (unexcused) AIVA ° '
Michael Saadeh (unexcused)
David Wilkison (unexcused)
Observers: Kevin Dugan, Cathy Owen & Fran Stallings (Collier Co.
NRD) , Bill Lorenz (Collier Co. Environmental Services Div. ) ;
Kim Polen & Barbara Prynoski (Collier Co. Project Review) ;
Nancy Payton & Chris Straten (Friends of the Bald Eagle) ;
Tony Polizos (Soil Conservation Service) .
1. Meeting called to order at 4 : 10 P.M. by Chairman Simpson.
2 . Chairman Simpson stated that David Wilkison would be late
(but he did not attend) . Bill Lorenz stated that no board
members had notified his office of their absence.
3 . Bill Lorenz gave an update on the current schedule for the
CZMP BCC evening public hearings - 20 May and 3 June. He
informed EPTAB that their role would be in future workshops
for the ordinances and LDC amendments per current CZMP
recommendations (Section I) .
► Gary Beardsley stated that EPTAB should take a supportive
role at the upcoming BCC public hearings. He then made a
motion that the Coastal Zone subcommittee meet before 18 May,
to review the CZMP Section I recommendations per recent
modifications re: CCPC hearing/public comment, & make any
further recommendations. The subcommittee will also
recommend to EPTAB at the next meeting (18 May) if EPTAB
should take a position for the 20 May hearing.
This motion was seconded and carried with one opposed (Tony
Pires) .
4 . The minutes of the 20 April 1992 meeting were approved.
5. Bill Lorenz introduced Dr. Fran Stallings, the new Collier
County Natural Resources Department Director.
6. Bill Lorenz gave an overview of the Habitat Protection
Ordinance (HPO) process and intent; he also informed EPTAB
that, according to the BCC approved strategic plan, EPTAB
would have to conduct a public workshop on the HPO by 30 May.
► Kevin Dugan then gave a presentation of how the habitat
ranking criteria (in the HPO) are applied, using 3 examples.
[EPTAB received a packet, including the current habitat
evaluation criteria, HPO process flowcharts, evaluation
criteria, & 3 examples (FLUCCS vegetation maps) . ]
EPTAB comments during the presentation included:
- consideration for SFWMD requirement of upland buffer around
preserved wetland;
- consideration of peripheral native vegetation buffers;
- concern about coordination with other wetland
jurisdictional agencies;
- it was noted that "600" as a FLUCCS = jurisdictional
wetland.
- to note "non-native non-jurisdictional wetlands" during
evaluation
- to include FUNCTION as a criterion again (this category is
currently deleted from the habitat evaluation criteria) ;
- to involve USFWS/FGFWFC agencies up-front
7. David Land expressed concern that, although some of the
technical information had been discussed during EPTAB
meetings, almost no policy decisions had been made (i.e. at
what point was taking, where & to what size parcel should the
HPO apply) . He felt that progress needed to be made, as the
summer was approaching; he wanted a solid draft (subsequent
to EPTAB public hearing at end of May) by mid-June.
He stated that the HPO needed to address the following 5
categories:
1) mandatory without opportunity for compensation
2) mandatory with mitigation potential
3) mandatory with opportunity for compensation
4) recommended with incentives potential (e.g. tax break)
5) recommended without incentives potential
► He then distributed a resolution to EPTAB members, entitled
"Proposed EPTAB Resolution Related to the Habitat Protection
Ordinance" , which addresses his concerns.
A discussion ensued among members re: habitat protection,
sustainable populations, function, equity, etc.
8. Upcoming EPTAB meeting dates were set for 18 May, 1 June, and
15 June.
9. Bill Lorenz stated that a revised HPO draft would be complete
by 18 May, showing where the HPO would amend the LDC, and
that the BCC-required public workshop could be conducted at
the 1 June EPTAB meeting. He will notify EPTAB if this
meeting can be held at the Commission chambers.
10. Brief public comment was received from Chris Straten.
11. Meeting adjourned at 6: 12 P.M.
Mr. Fran Stallings, Ph.D.
Natural Resources Dept.
N.B. THE FOLLOWING UNDERLINES AND STRIKETHROUGHS INDICATE SOME OF
THE AREAS OF THE LDC THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED HABITAT
PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
DIV. 3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS) .
SEC. 3.8.2 PURPOSE.
3.8.2.1 The purpose of this division is to provide a method
to objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed
development, site alteration, or project upon the
resources and environmental quality of the project
area and the community and to insure that planning
and zoning decisions are made with a complete
understanding of the impact of such decisions upon
the environment-, and to preserve appropriate native
vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. To
encourage projects and developments that will:
1. Protect, conserve and enhance,
2 . Minimize the future reduction. . . .
3 . Reduce the necessity for
4 . Manage and conserve important native County_
habitats and associated species.
SEC. 3.8.3 APPLICABILITY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
REQUIRED.
1. Any site with a ST or ACSC-ST overlay.
2 . All sites seaward of the Coastal Management
Boundary that are two and one half (2 . 5) or more
acres, unless a Rare, Unique, or Endangered (RUE)
habitat is present; an EIS shall be required for
any site where a RUE habitat is present.
3 . All sites landward of the Coastal Management
Boundary that are ten (10) or more acres, unless
a Rare, Unique, or Endangered (RUE) habitat is
present; an EIS shall be required for any site
where a RUE habitat is present.
4 . Any other development or site alteration which in
the opinion. . . .consistency with the Growth
Management Plan.
3.8.5.3 Mapping and support graphics.
-1-
1. General location maps.
2 . Native habitats and their boundaries shall be
identified photographic evidence.
3 . Results of Native Habitat Analysis (Sec. 3 .8. 6)
showing calculated rankings for the habitats
identified in "2 . " above.
3 4 . Topographic map showing upland, . . .
4 5. Existing land use. . .
5 6. Soils map at scale. . .
6 7 . Proposed drainage plan. . .
8 . Development plan including phasing program,
service area of existing and proposed public
facilities, and existing and proposed
transportation network in the impact area, and
proposed native habitat preservation area.
3.8.5.4.2 Public Facilities and Services
4 . Recreations open spaces and preservation areas
a. Acreage and facilities demand. . . .
b. Amount of public/park. . . .
c. Amount of land set aside in preservation area
pursuant to the Native Habitat Analysis (Sec.
3 . 8 . 6) .
ed. Management plans for any open. . .
de. Plans for recreational. . .
i€. Amounts of public recreation. . .
€g. Development and/or blockage. . .
SEC. 3.8.6 NATIVE HABITAT ANALYSIS (NHA) .
-2-
3.8. 6.1 The Purpose of the Native Habitat Analysis (NHA) is
to manage and conserve the native habitats and
associated species in Collier County, through the
identification, protection, conservation, and
appropriate use of native vegetative communities and
wildlife habitats.
3.8.6.2 For the purposes of this Division, native habitats
shall be defined as Dune and Strand, Xeric Scrub,
Hardwood Hammock, Pine Flatwood, Dry Prairie, and
Wetlands.
3.8.6.3 Criteria for Native Habitat Evaluation. Collier
County Project Review Staff shall utilize five
criteria (rarity, listed species, size, location, and
condition) , to assess the relative ecological value
of specific delineated native habitats within a
protect site. Points shall be assigned for each
criterion to determine an overall score for each
habitat. Resulting scores shall determine the
priority in which habitat preservation will occur
within the project site.
I. RARITY
Rarity of habitat type in Collier County is based on FGFWFC 1991
Landsat acreages. The rarest ("at risk") habitat types shall be
given the highest priority for preservation. Ranked from high to
low, these are:
HABITAT TYPE: POINTS
A - Xeric Scrub 6
B - Hardwood Hammock 4
C - Dry Prairie 3
D - Pine Flatwood 2
E - Wetlands 1
II. LISTED SPECIES
Listed species means any plant or animal species classified as
endangered, threatened, or as a species of special concern by the
USFWS, FGFWFC, or CITES, as listed in the current FGFWFC "Official
Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in
Florida" . The biological survey for the presence of listed
species shall follow the standards and criteria adopted by the
FGFWFC, in their "Wildlife Survey Methodology Guidelines" (1988) .
CATEGORY: POINTS
A - The delineated habitat is known (by study or
confirmed sighting) to support one or more listed
species, or, the delineated habitat exhibits
visible evidence of the presence of listed species
-3-
(i.e. burrows, nests, tracks, scat, etc. ) . 4!
B - The delineated habitat meets size, vegetative,
and other life history requirements to serve as a
probable habitat for one or more listed species.
(Appropriate scientific literature shall be
referenced) . 2
C - The delineated habitat falls within the review
zone of one or more listed species, and:
1. that habitat is appropriate for supporting the
species; or,
2 . disturbance of that habitat will endanger
the species. 1
D - None of the above statements is true. 0
A 4 points are to be given for each listed species
confirmed on the site.
III. SIZE (of delineated native habitat in acres) :
A - Coastal Zone B - All other areas POINTS
> 10 acres > 50 acres 3
2-10 acres 10-50 acres 2
0. 5-2 acres 0. 5-10 acres 1
< 0. 5 acres < 0. 5 acres 0
IV. LOCATION (of delineated habitat with respect to
proximate native areas or land uses) :
CATEGORY: POINTS
A - The delineated habitat is adiacent to or
contiguous with designated and/or functional (i.e.
riverine) corridors. If the delineated habitat area
is greater than the amount required for
preservation, then the greatest amount of the
delineated habitat area contiguous to the existing
corridor shall receive primary consideration for
preservation. 6
B - The delineated habitat is adjacent to or
contiguous with protected native habitats other than
corridors, such as preservation/conservation areas
or easements, or NRPA's. 4
C - The delineated habitat is not adjacent to
protected native habitats, and is adiacent to
functioning, non-protected native habitats. 3
D - The delineated habitat is not adiacent to
protected and/or other functioning native habitats,
and is adjacent to areas where existing use has
-4-
pinimum environmental impact, such as silviculture
and grazing activities and some forms of recreation
activities, where such activities have altered the
natural functioning of the native habitat. 2
E - The delineated habitat is not adiacent to
functioning native habitats or areas where existing
use has minimum environmental impact, and is
adjacent to disturbed areas, including areas
invaded by exotic plant species, and/or areas
utilized for agriculture other than silviculture or
grazing. 1
F - The delineated habitat is surrounded by
urbanized or developed areas. 0
If the delineated habitat area is greater than the
amount required for preservation, then the greatest
amount of the delineated habitat area contiguous to
the existing native habitat shall receive primary
consideration for preservation.
V. CONDITION (quality of delineated habitat with respect
to prior alteration/disturbance:
CATEGORY: POINTS
A - The delineated habitat is undisturbed, or has
recovered from prior disturbance/alteration. 3
B - The delineated habitat shows evidence of past
minor alteration or disturbance, concurrently, the
restoration potential is good. 2
C - The delineated habitat shows evidence of past
major alteration or disturbance (with loss of
function) , concurrently, the restoration potential
is fair. 1
D - The area in question is developed or barren,
concurrently, the restoration potential is poor. 0
3.8.6.3. 1 In the event of a conflict between Development
Services staff and the applicant, the conflict
will be brought before the Environmental
Advisory Board.
3.8.6.4 Ranking Procedure. All habitats listed in Sec.
3 . 8.6. 2 shall be ranked by applying criteria in Sec.
3 .8. 6. 3 . The total points resulting from this
criteria ranking shall be indicated on a FLUCCS
vegetation map (Sec. 3 .8 . 5. 3) and shown in tabular
format.
-5-