Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/15/2005 W (Listed Species Wildlife Management Program) February 15,2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP LISTED SPECIES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Naples, Florida, February 15,2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, and at five Collier County park and boat access locations with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred. W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Vice Chairman, District 2 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, Collier County Manager Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Joe Schmitt, Community Development Administrator Bill Lorenz, Director, Environmental Resources David Weigel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 CotNtr.County '-- '- --- - - Agenda Board of County Commissioners Workshop Listed Species Wildlife Management Program February 15. 2005 Board Room 9:00 AM -12:00 PM I. Staff Presentation William D. Lorenz, Jr. P.E., Director, Environmental Services /I. Public Comment III. BCC Discussion/Policy Direction \ ..,....."----------"-~. --~~-----~ -'."'._._>_._-_.~.. .-,. February 15, 2005 I. Board Chairman Commissioner Coyle opened the workshop at 9 a.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Schmitt presented an overview of the history regarding the June 2002 adoption of the current policy in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the resulting Glitch Amendment discovered in Policy 7.1.2. In 2004 staff was directed to secure input to address the glitch through the formation of the Listed Species Stakeholders group. An interim proposal to eliminate the glitch was presented to the BCC, at which time the board chose to leave the policy as is and asked staff to continue to work with the Stakeholders Group and bring a proposal back before the board. The Listed Species Stakeholders Group (LSSG) included an email group of more than 75 people with up to 20 people in attendance at 10 meetings held since March 2004. The last meeting was held Feb. 7. The goal of the meetings was to provide input, review draft materials and propose a general direction. Glitch within Policy 7.1.2(3) Policy states: "The county shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property containing listed species It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protections policies and any such change may be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan." Mr. Schmitt noted that the glitch resulted from the wording in the second paragraph where its states that it is recognized that the agencies on a case by case basis may change the recommendations but the county will deem those changes consistent with the GMP - then in another area of the GMP, the county is to prevent development in habitat areas. Staffs understanding of the GMP is that the county defaults to the standards applied and apply it to the projects. The standards can be customized for site specific standards with recommendations from wildlife agencies but the county will rely on those recommendations when provided. The county defers to state and federal and relies on those recommendations even when the recommendations result in a "take." Mr. Schmitt said the key is balance between environmental protection and development. Findings and Recommendations Page 2 February 15, 2005 Mr. Lorenz presented a Power Point presentation on the findings of the LSSG. He said the goal of the group was to establish a "consensus view" and noted that any changes to the GMP will need to go through the complete GMP amendment process. Possible elements included - Local Standards and guidelines - Incentives Program - More specific Criteria for the Glitch Amendment Regarding Local Standards- Do we want them? If so, which species do we need more standards or guidelines? What are the problems with existing guidelines? Are there other techniques to investigate? Mr. Lorenz said the consensus of the group was there is not a desire to craft specific guidelines different from the state and federal agencies beyond those current set regarding gopher tortoise. He said to do so would slow down the current permitting process. The group concluded: - Rely on the listed process of state and federal agencies - Continue to relay on current federal and state guidelines · Update the List of Federal and State Guidelines referenced in the GMP and LDC. - Formally evaluate the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Regarding Incentives Program - - How can we provide incentives for Habitat Restoration? · Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Sending Credits · Transfer Development Rights (TDR) program enhancements · Other federal or state programs Mr. Lorenz said the group recommends the county continue with RLSA Stewardship Credit program, consider restoration incentive in the TDR program, assist local landowners to obtain information from federal and state grants programs and evaluate GMP and LDC for other possible incentives. Revising Policy 7.1.2(3) Mitigation criteria to establish when mitigation provides a "benefit" to the Collier County listed species population\ · Policy vs. Science decision · Technical input Page 3 February 15, 2005 Not there yet. Framework appears to be possible but need further development Mitigation Criteria Accept agency recommendations for a Take Permit Accept Agency recommendations for proposed mitigation, excluding the location of the mitigation. · County staff will not evaluate the type of mitigation. · County staff will not evaluate the amount of mitigation Will evaluate the location of the proposed mitigation against our geographical criteria. Geographical Criteria for Mitigation Location · Must occur in Collier County for certain species · Allowed to occur outside of Collier County subj ect to various geographical conditions for other species · Presume that mitigation 109ced in Collier County is acceptable. Mr. Lorenz said staff and the LSSG recommends Policy 7.1.2(3) be amended to: rely on Agencies Recommendations for Take Permits, Collier County population of listed species should receive the benefit from mitigation actions Establish locational criteria for mitigation activities Define listed species in GMP and LDC Maintain currency of the guidelines listed in the GMP and LDC. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) Allows for a "take" in specific circumstances but developed to ensure overall listed species benefit Landscape planning vs. Project Permitting Group findings: Consider a Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) HCP and a prototype HCP. Other HCPs could follow Formal Feasibility Study to provide a move conclusive recommendation. Implementation to require: · Formal Advisory Committee · Tentative budget for FY '06 · BCC commitment by September '05 · Incorporation into GMP/LDC as appropriate Environmental Advisory Committee Recommendations Page 4 February 15, 2005 1. Adopt the proposed replacement policy with the following exceptions: that the policy be clarified to retain for Collier County the ability to raise concerns about takes from the state of federal government we have the ability, based on criteria other than geographic criteria which is included in the proposed replacement language for the current policy; and to introduce a structure to determine the successes for the mitigation presumably paid by the fees associated with permits 2. Recommend that staff continue to explore HCPs with the caveat that it proceed cautiously so that it not turn into a program that streamlines takes. Fiscal Impacts - Changes to Policy 7.1.2(3) · $500 +/- per project where "takes" are allowed HCP · Staff Coordinator (annual cost) - $60,000 · Consultant - $75,000 · Staff (per person annual cost) - $50,000 · Monitoring (annual cost) - $20,000 · Other - unknown Requested BCC Actions Consider findings and recommendations Public input Provide staff direction Commissioner Henning questioned where the data analysis was that shows a particular listed species in Collier County is on the decline. Mr. Lorenz said he does not have that information for each listed species. He noted that data from 1979 showed 8 eagle nests in Collier County and 17 nests in 1999. He said the information provided to the BCC was based on best information available. Commissioner Henning stated decisions should not be based on emotions but on scientific data. He said if data shows a listed species is declining, the county should determine what can be done to grow that species rather than grow government. Commissioner Fiala asked how much of a drain the current research on the issue has placed on environmental services staffing, noting it is already difficult to move through the permitting process due to lack of staff. Mr. Lorenz said he has been handling the bulk of the work, but an additional person would be needed if the board chose to move forward. Page 5 February 15, 2005 Commissioner Halas noted concern regarding actual bird counts and the area's proximity to the Everglades. He voiced support to pursue the HCP process and suggested groups like the Audubon Society could help with more specific counts of listed species. Commissioner Coyle said the BCC has an obligation to protect listed species in Collier County and voiced support for HCPs based on locational mitigation criteria as presented by staff. Commissioner Coletta stated he was not convinced ofthe need to amend current policy beyond state and federal recommendations. He said there is currently several programs in place to ensure protection oflisted species in Collier County including the Everglades Restoration, Rural Fringe Amendments and the Eastern Lands Amendment. He did not see the need to spend any more money to create additional restrictions on people's use of their land. Commissioner Halas noted that those programs were mandated by state and federal agencies because Collier County was not doing enough. He said HCPs will provide a proactive approach to protecting listed species. Commissioner Henning stated there is no indication in any of the data provided by staff that shows the county is failing to protect listed species. Commissioner Coyle stated the central issue is that the county sometimes disagrees with state and federal agencies issuing take permits. He said the BCC must decide to flat out accept those recommendations or work to eliminate the inconsistency it Policy 7.1.2(3). He suggested the board support staffs recommendations to pursue an HCP for RCWs. Mr. Lorenz noted that the HCP would also address Big Cypress Fox Squirrel and Black Bear populations to which Commissioner Henning questioned if there were any declines in those species. Commissioner Coyle said by approving the plan, the county will have a policy will be in place if those species do show any declines. Mr. Schmitt requested BCC direction as to whether to stay with the amended glitch or add more policy to that. He also requested for consideration for financial resources for additional staff and consultant fees if the BCC chooses to move forward with an HCP. There was a 10-minute break in the workshop. II. Public Comment. Page 6 February 15,2005 Nancy Payton, of the Florida Wildlife Federation, stated she participated in the LSSG and the meetings were productive. She said the HCP would address long-range plans for large areas of land rather than on a project-by-project basis and provides one plan that meets all obligations. She said the plan would provide certainty and predictability for all parties involved. She said a group of environmental and development representatives traveled to Riverside County, Calif. to review their multi-species HCP, which covers 1.3 million acres. She said the plan was county driven to address massive road construction projects and provides local control and long-term protection; ensures open space with public access; fast tracks the permitting process; and allows state and federal participation. She said Riverside officials were willing to come to Collier County to discuss how that county implemented the plan. She urged the BCC to support the recommendations ofthe LSSG to explore an HCP and meet with Riverside officials to discuss that county's experience. Nicole Ryan, of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, said her agency supports the replacement language for Policy 7.1.2(3) and explore the pros and cons HCP for RCW. She suggested the county ensure the HCP does not 1. set the bar too low in regard to recovery of species and 2. that there be a no surprises clause in the event that the plan is not effective. She said the county should also research failed HCPs to avoid the pitfalls of those plans. Donna Reed Caron, of the Estuary Conservation Association, said in the Collier County's GMP, Conservation and Coastal Management Element provides that the County conserve the habitats, species, natural shoreline and dune systems contained inside the county's coastal zone. She countered the premise that all listed species in Collier County are on the increase. She said according the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service figures show there were 19 bald eagle nests in Collier County in 1999 and 33 nests in Jan. 2000. She said in 2005, USFWS figures show there are 24 nests in Collier County. She supported the recommendations of the EAC has put forward to make the process stronger and opposed all take permits. Jeff Carter, of the Friends of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, said listed species are listed because they are in decline and there are concerns about them. He said Collier County is an environmental hot spot with more endangered species than any other area of the country. He said what happens "up stream" affects the balance of the whole lifecycle. He said HCPs can be a way to reach a middle ground with environmental and development interests and suggested the BCC learn from other areas that have implemented successful HCPs. Brad Cornell, of the Collier Audubon Society, stated the society had conducted research on birds for over 100 years, nationally, and for 30 years in Collier County. He said local populations of wood storks, brown pelican, RCW, scrub jay, piping plover and least terns have declined. He said there is a big gap in the implementation of state and federal laws due to lack of staffing and that gap is costing everyone in time and money. He said there is also a gap in resource and listed species protection in Northern Golden Gate Estates and the urban areas, which were excluded from the Page 7 February 15,2005 Governor's Order in 1999. He said there is also a gap in Collier County takes when the county does not agree with state and federal recommendations. He said the society supports the recommended policy language change and pursuing an HCP with assurances for recovery of listed species. Margaret Emblidge, of Collier Enterprises, said her group's primary concern is to protect the integrity of the Rural Lands Stewardship program. She said the program includes the protection of natural resources including multiple species within the area. She said an HCP could be a good program but is not the only program and the county should consider all programs that take a regional approach. She said this could streamline the permitting process and provide a blanket approval to ensure all local, state and federal issues are addressed. Rich Y ovanovich, of Signature Communities, said the process started with the issuance of a take for a pair of bald eagles. She said the process should not focus on individual but on the species as a whole. He voiced support for staffs recommendation and for researching the establishment of an HCP, starting with RCWs. He did not support the EAC recommendations, stating they were too open-ended. Doug Fee, of the North Bay Civic Association, stated the LSSG was able to come to a consensus with detailed language, providing a start to address the inconsistencies in the GMP language today. He said his group supports staffs recommendation. III - BCC Discussion/Policy Direction Commissioner Coletta questioned how many members of the LSSG actually live in the rural area to which Mr. Lorenz stated there were one or two residents who attended one or more of the meetings. Commissioner Coyle questioned if the HCP would require the Rural Land Stewardship Area to be readdressed to which Mr. Lorenz stated an inventory of the area's habitat may have to be conducted but the intent is to utilize existing mechanisms as part of the HCP. Commissioner Fiala proposed the board move forward with the HCP as both environmental and development interests are supporting the concept. She said the county should have a say in take permits and the environmental groups can provide considerable data. Commissioner Halas said the public input reinforced his stand that the board should move forward with an HCP. He suggested additional staff be hired to avoid further stress on current environmental services staff. Commissioner Henning said he would be in favor of an HCP if there is data provided for any listed species, stating he doe not favor approving an HCP solely to speed up the permitting process. Page 8 February 15, 2005 Commissioner Coyle noted that the HCP would speed up the process but what he heard the public saying was that the plan would remove the uncertainty on what will be permitted. He said it minimizes the intrusion of government and simplifies the process. He said it was foolish to proceed if there were not four members in support of the plan as it will require a super-majority vote to become part of the GMP. He asked for a straw poll of the board to proceed with an HCP with reasonable limits and cost limits and based on appropriate population counts and data. Commissioner Henning stated that if the data and analysis cover a time frame of at least 10 years in Collier County, he would support the plan. Commissioner Coletta stated he will not support the proposal as he is not convinced the current policy is broken. He said he does not have a problem with studying an HCP for RCW but noted concern with the direction the plan is taking and the fact that that the proposal was not brought forward by the public, but by a group of environmentalists and developers. Commissioner Coyle proposed the board direct staffto proceed with an HCP for RCW only with no additional staffing and limited consultant time and that the plan provide for a simpler process, not create additional cumbersome government with a time line as follows: 1. February 15 - BCC Workshop - Feb. 2005 2. Create Ad-hoc Committee as the HCP Steering Committee - Mar./Apr. 2005 3. Submit/BCC review of tentative FY06 budget for development phase - June 2005 4. Steering Committee Feasibility Report to BCC - September 2005 5. BCC adoption of FY06 Budget - September 2005 6. Request for Proposals for Consulting Services - October 2005 7. Contract with Consultant/Begin HCP Development - January 2006 8. Complete First Draft Proposal/BCC Direction - September 2006 9. Incorporate BCC Recommendations/Submit HCP to USFWS - January 2007 10. FY08 Budget Request - March 2007 11. USFWS Permit Processing/HCP Approval- September 2007 12. Implement Program - October 2007. Commissioner Henning questioned what will happen if the 10 years of habitat data is not sufficient. Commissioner Coyle stated if the BCC does not feel it is adequate, the process will be dropped. Mr. Schmitt questioned the board on the proposed language change to the GMP, stating the last vote on the matter was 3-2. Page 9 February 15,2005 Commissioner Henning stated the problem should be addressed in the LDC rather than a change to the GMP to which Marjorie Student stated there needs to be more "flesh" to the corrective language, rather than just a referral to the LDC, Commissioner Coyle requested staff come back with approved language to address the glitch. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was adjourned at 11 :50 AM. Collier County Board of County Commissioners '1uJ-W. ~ Chairman Fred Coyle ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~ i ~'!1v.~ A" : 4/'" j' , }.i. ,,' ' LJ -c, At st " ~~~1"""',~ s igMtut'è ~h"" '.;. f-' These rtlinut¢s appi¿~ 'bY th~ Board on ìJ1au}] 8.200S oj " ..'. .' - ~ . " 'r:" ~ .. J ' as correc;ed ,"oj.:,,)-\- ,~," , as presented / or ,. . . ...... < , (",. ,:¡-;~., "'''. ',1-·: . Page 1 0 ._~'-'-'-"'-~~-""-~-'--- ..._,.._---.,--_."~._._...