Agenda 05/27/2008 Item #10A
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 1 of 58
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review and approve the February, 2008 Report of the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Committee entitled, "Rural Land Stewardship Area Five-
Year Review, Phase I-Technical Report" for use in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Overlay District Phase 2 Report and authorize transmittal to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs
OBJECTIVE: That the Collier County Board of County Commissions [BCC] review
and approve the attached "Rural Land Stewardship Area Five-Year Review, Phase 1-
Technical Report", as approved and accepted by the I3-member Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Committee ["Committee"] during its February 5, 2008 regular
meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Council [EAC]
and Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC], and to authOlize transmittal to the
Department of Community Affairs for its review in accordance with Policy 1.22 of the
Rural Land Stewardship Overlay [RLSAO] of the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan [GMP].
,-
The Phase I Report documents actual data and experience in the RLSAO since its
inception in 2002 and will be utilized as a partial basis for Committee deliberations
during the preparation of the Phase 2 Report, scheduled to be released for review in late
2008, which will include possible recommendations to amend the RLSAO as set forth in
the GMP.
CONSIDERATIONS: Attached is a list of the Committee members appointed by the
BCC for one-year terms in accordance with Resolution 2007-173 and its schedule to
complete its review of the RLSAO. The RLSAO is implemented by Section 4.08.00 of
the Land Development Code [LDC]. The RLSAO has been recognized in Florida,
regionally and nationally for visionary methodology to preserve environmentally
significant land, to protect agricultural land, and to direct compact growth to suitable
locations with limited environmental and habitat value. The RLSAO District and the
LDC amendments, which implement the RLSAO District, are known broadly as the
"Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed in response to
Administration Commission Final Order No. AC99-002, requiring a "Rural and
Agricultural Assessment".
Prior to the establishment of the State of Florida Rural Lands Stewardship Area program
in 2001 under section 163.3177(11 )(d), Florida Statutes, Collier County initiated a rural
lands program for its eastern rural lands to meet the requirements of the Final Order of
the Administrative Commission. The Collier County RLSAO program is not currently
subject to the requirements of the RLSA statute.
('
1
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 2 of 58
Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO requires a comprehensive review of the RLSAO upon the
five-year anniversary of the adoption of the RLSAO into the Land Development Code.
This review is due in 2008. The following is Policy 1.22.
Policy 1.22
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a
planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and
strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have
yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the
Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the
Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the
adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDe. The purpose of the
review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the
Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set
forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows:
I. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs
and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location ofland designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated. assigned or held for future
use.
4, A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at
the time ofa Study and time of review.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with
and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its
adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources
local, state, federal and private revenues desclibed in Policy U8.
7. The amount, location and type ofrestoration through participation in the
Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
During its March 6, 2008 meeting, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) approved
and accepted the report as submitted by the Committee with the following
recommendations/comments:
o Page 3....WRA-Water Retention Area. Better define or qualify what is meant by
the words, "that provide water quality and other natural resource value".
o Page 8.. .Section 3. Add a cross reference, and include as an exhibit to the Phase
I report, Table I of the Stage #1 RLSA report entitled, "Data Sets and
Publications Obtained for Use in the Immokalee Area Study".
o Page 13.. . add a concluding paragraph.
oVery good report overall.
The EAC's comments have not yet been incorporated into the Phase I report pending
further direction from the BCe.
2
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 3 of 58
During its May I, 2008 meeting, the Collier County Planning Commission recommended
to the BCC the acceptance of the Phase 1 Technical Report with the proviso that the BCC
requests the Committee, during its Phase 2 deliberations, to address the attached nine-
page list of questions and concerns as provided to staff during the May 1 meeting.
Attached are copies of February 12 and March 24, 2008 letters addressed to Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) Secretary Thomas G. Pelham in response to the DCA's
critical comments regarding the Collier County RLSAO as contained in the report
entitled, "Rural Land Stewardship ilrea Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature"
dated December 31, 2007.
Staff has a major concern that the DCA may require a major overhaul of the RLSAO
even though the RLSAO is not subject to the statutory rural lands stewardship program.
This concern is evidenced by the highly critical remarks set forth in the DCA's statutorily
mandated Annual Report, dated December 31, 2007, pertaining to statutory rural land
stewardship progranls throughout Florida. Even though Collier County's RLSAO is not
subject to the Florida Statutes Rural Lands Stewardship Program, the inclusion of the
review of the Collier County RLSAO program was without mcrit and in direct conflict
with the statutory review provisions. It should be noted that the BCC will have to provide
direction regarding scheduling proposed amendments, either a part of the regular once a
year GMP amendment cycle or as a special cycle during the 2009 calendar year. It is
possible that the Legislature in the future may attempt to limit local governments to one
amendment cycle per year. This provision was set forth in Growth Management Plan
Legislation which failed to pass during the past Legislative session which ended on May
4, 2008. During the Legislative session, it was noted that the DCA could be charged with
preparing a massive rewrite of Chapter 163 which would include changes to GMP
amendment cycles and exemptions from cycle limitations.
LEGAL CONSIDERA nONS: Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO requires a five-year review
to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting
the GoaL Objective and Policies set forth within the RLSAO. The Phase I report issued
by the Committee represents the first step in this review and assessment and is consistent
with Policy 1.22. Approved by Jeff Wright, Assistant COWlty Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact was detailed within the Executive Summary
related to BCC Rcsolution 2007-173 and includes expenses incurred for placing
advertisements in the newspaper for committee meetings, staff liaison time
(Comprehensive Planning Department, Transportation Division, Environmental Services
Department, and the County Attorney's Office) , and related out-of-pocket costs. These
costs are being paid through the FY07 and FY08 approved budgets.
Future costs will most likely result from proposed amendments, to the RLSAO of the
GMP, to the LDC, and potentially the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan. Proposed amendments by the BCC will be based upon
recommendations from the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee, the EAC, the
CCPC, and objections, recommendations, and comments from the DCA. The fiscal
3
Agenda item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 4 of 58
impacts of the specific amendments cannot be determined at this time and will be
contingent on the extent of the amendments proposed after completion of the public
participation phase of the review and subsequent BCC direction.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [GMP1IMPACT: The preparation of the Phase
I report and the preparation of the Phase 2 report (currently underway) is consistent with
Policy 1.22 of the RLSAO of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management
Plan. Additionally, any approved amendments to the GMP will result in the appropriate
amendments to the LDC, to be presented to the BCC for its approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners review and approve
the February, 2008 Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee entitled,
"Rural Land Stewardship Area Five-Year Review, Phase I-Technical Report" for use in
the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District Phase 2 Report and Authorize Transmittal
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
PREPARED BY: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
4
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page 1 of2
Agenda item No, lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 5 of 58
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10A
This item to be heard at 11:00 a,m Recommendation to revIew and approve the February
2008 Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee entitled, Rural Land
Stewardship Area Five-Year RevIew, Phase 1-Technical Report for use in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Overlay District Phase 2 Report and authorize transmittal to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, (Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner,
Comprehensive Planning Department, COES)
5/27/20089:0000 AM
Prepared By
Thomas Greenwood
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Principal Planner
Date
Comprehensive Planning
5/6/20087:15:07 AM
A pproved By
Randall J. Cohen
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Comprehensive Planning Department
Director
Date
Comprehensive Planning
5/6/20087:37 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
6/712008 9:20 AM
Approved By
David Weeks, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Comprehensive Planning
5/7/200812:21 PM
Approved By
Jeff Wright
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
5/9/200811:02 AM
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
51111200810:21 AM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
(
County Manager's Office
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
5112/20084:25 PM
file://C:\Agenda T est\Export\ I 08-May%2027, %202008\ I O. %20COUNTY%20MANAGER...
5/21/2008
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No, lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 6 of 58
John A. Y onkosky
Director of the Office of Management
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
511312008 8:08 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager
Date
County Manager's Office
51191200811:13 AM
file://C:\AgendaT est\Export\ 1 08-May%202 7, %202008\ 10. %20COUNTY%20MANAGER...
5/21/2008
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 7 of 58
I
Q
"i "
In 2002 the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) was adopted into the
County's growth management initiatives, Nowhere in Florida or the nation had this type
of landmark planning initiative taken place, and the implementation and outcome were
uncertain. Over the past three months, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee has had the opportunity to assess the achievements of the program during its
first five years in operation.
The learning curve was steep, and a great deal of committee time and energy was spent
on becoming reacquainted with the complex mechanics of the program. I am glad to say
the committee was successful in absorbing the details of the program and evaluating the
status to date.
The report before you, provides a quantitative synopsis of how far along the program has
come in protecting environmentally valuable lands and establishing communities in the
far eastern lands of the county. This Phase I Technical Review is the first step in a
comprehensive review ofthe program. It lays the foundation to evaluate how the
objectives and policies have resulted in reaching the goals of the RLSA.
The Committee has worked very well together, and on Feb 5th, voted unanimously to
forward the Phase I Technical Review to the Environmental Advisory Council, the
Collier County Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the
Department of Community Affairs.
Ron Hamel, Chairman
Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee
~
Agenda item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 8 of 58
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA FIvE- YEAR REvIEW
PHAsE I - TECHNICAL REVIEW
This Phase I - Technical Review is a requirement of the Collier County Growth Management
Plan (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22), The review is intended to provide an assessment of activity that
has occurred within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) over the past five years, 2003-
2008. It is the roie of the committee to assist in determining whether the activity presented in the
review supports or does not support the goals of the Collier County RLSA, which is to:
protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses
direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat
enable the conversion of rural iand to other uses in appropriate locations
discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that utilizes creative land
use planning techniques
The Phase I review is intended to focus on the specifiC items detailed in Policy 1.22 (see below,)
An evaluation of the RLSA Group 1-5 policies will occur during the Phase II of the review
process.
The information presented in this report represents the current status of the RLSA program. The
intention of the program is to encourage the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA)
that private landowners voluntarily limit land-uses on through a Stewardship Easement in
exchange for Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRA).
GMP FLUE 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a
planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are
new, innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A
comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and
the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation
in and effectiveness of the RLSA program in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth
herein.
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of a Study and time of review,
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources
Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18,
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption,
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
The RLSA program was created through a collaborative community based planning process involving county residents, area
property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight
committee. The creation of the program was driven by data and evaluated by the committee and public over the course of 33
meetings. For more information on the sources of data used and analysis methods, see the Rural Lands Study Stage I and the
Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee. Both are available
through Collier County Government. htto:!!www.coflieraov.neUlndex.asDx?oaae=2300
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page fl10f 58
Definitions flOC 4.08.01):
ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern
Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generaliy higher intensity agricultural uses including:
row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses.
Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generaliy lower intensity agricultural uses including:
pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses.
Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the
ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the
ACSC. The early entry bonus shali be available for five years from the effective date of the
adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC.
Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the
future.
FSA - Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay
Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the
RLSA District.
Future land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007
GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE).
HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat with natural characterislics, thus forming a continuum of
iandscape that can augment habitat values.
land Use layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of
a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use
Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential
Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses,
Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture - Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2.
Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabuiation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the
Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 B.4., with each Land Use Layer displayed as a
single column.
Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural
resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land
and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the
Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay
Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, WRA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface
Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
(- Open Lands. Areas outside the ACSC or HSA, FSA, or WRA with Natural Resource Index
values less than 1.2.
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 1 CBof 58
Restoration Zone. Privately owned iands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located
within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA.
R1. (GMP RLSA Policy 3.1), Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration
activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner
to receive credits.
R2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits
are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable
success criteria.
SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the development of a Hamiet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
SSA _ Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or
more Land Use Layers.
Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and
consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development
of one acre of land as provided in Section 4,08,06 B.
Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural
resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle
compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the naturai resources being
preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can
be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through
the designation of SRAs,
WRA _ Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and
that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value.
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 1140f 58
1. Identify the amount of land designated as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA), and other' Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSA).
'Other SSA lands include Open designated lands
Attached Map 1 shows an overview of the entire Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) with
lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA and Open. Table 1-A provides a summary of the acreage
of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending
Areas since the RLSA program inception (5-yrs). The 5-yr percentage column shows that of all
lands within the RLSA designations, a total of thirteen percent have been protected to date
within a SSA. Thirty percent of all FSA and HSA designated land has been protected to date.
The acreages in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1 D where
exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre.
Table 1-A
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved
RLSA Total RLSA SSA Acres Approved 5-yr Percentage
Desillnation Acres
FSA 31,100 9,206 30%
HSA 40,000 12,283 31%
WRA 18,200 44 0,2%
Open 93,100 2,593 3%
Total 182,400 24,126 13%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Note- Acreages listed in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1 D
where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre, Margin of error may
be +/-1%.
Table 1-8
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentage
Desianation
FSA 31,100 10,619 34%
HSA 40,000 17,703 44%
WRA 18,200 3,034 17%
Open 93,100 474 < 1%
Total 182,400 31,830 17%
Source: SSAs under review and property owners
('
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 27,2008
Page 1 :Sof 58
Table 1-C
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Approved & 5-yr Percentage
Desianation Pending
FSA 31,100 19,825 64%
HSA 40,000 29,986 75%
WRA 18,200 3,078 17%
ODen 93,100 3,067 3%
Total 182,400 55,956 31%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners
A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their
designations,
. Map 1A iliustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 1 B illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 1 C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 1 D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones,
within SSAs approved and pending; and
. Map 1 E illustrates all 55,956 acres of all lands within SSAs approved and pending,
Note- ali map acreages are rounded to the nearest acre, margin of error +/-1%,
To provide further information on the approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas,
Table1-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and
land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been
approved by the county.
Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with
the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Coliier County and one of
the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The
Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA
property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses
that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be
undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures.
Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agriculturai uses remain, including: row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar
activities, including agricultural support uses, Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain,
including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related
support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture
use. AIi other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land,
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 1::00158
Table 1-0
Each SSA Approved & Pending Acreage Type and Land Use Levels Remaining
(""
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-l Ag-2 Other Total Acres
Tvpe
SSA 1 FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58
FSA 653.65 704.14 704.14
SSA2
HSA 50.49
FSA 509 1,078.64 2,116,91 3,195,54
SSA3
HSA 2,686
SSA 3a HSA 248,9 220,6 n/a*
FSA 198.18 654,01 585,91 1,239,92
SSA4
HSA 1,041.74
FSA 196,0
SSA 5 HSA 1,629,8 1,852,3 1,852.3
Open 26.5
FSA 1.7 651.3 n/a*
SSA 5a Conservation
HSA 649,6
FSA 4,926,2 2,712,7 7,198.4 9,911.1
SSA6
HSA 4,984,9
FSA 399,6
SSA 7 HSA 486.5 985.4 985.4
Open 99,3
FSA 1,619,9
SSA8 HSA 1.247,9 815,0 4,484,5 5,299,5
Open 2,432,0
Open 34,2
SSA9 FSA 556.5 739,3 50,1 789.4
WRA 43,5 Earth Mining
HSA 155.2
Total Approved 24,123,88 5,260.35 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88
FSA 0
SSA 10** HSA 5,854
Application WRA 1 5,861
Submitted
Open 6
FSA 1,191
SSA 11 ** HSA 2,212
Application WRA 198 3,700
Submitted
Open 99
FSA 1,788
SSA 12** HSA 2,933 4,791
Pre-app meeting held WRA 0
Onen 70
FSA 4,232
SSA 13** HSA 1,313 7,430
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1.616
Onen 269
Agenda Item No. lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 1470158
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-l Ag-2 Other Total Acres
Tvne
SSA 14** FSA 1,048
Application HSA 663 1,713
Submitted WRA 1
Onen 0
FSA 2,196
SSA 15** HSA 1,827 5,259
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1.209
Onen 27
FSA 164
SSA 16** HSA 2,901 3,077
Pre-app meeting held WRA 9
Onen 3
Total Pending 31,830 n/a** o/a** o/a** 31,830
Total 55,953.88 55,953.88
Approved + Pending
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary,
SSAs under review, and property owners
. SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to include restoration areas. Acreage is already
included in 3 & 5.
.. SSAs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 have yet to be approved by the county and data is included
where available as inlormational only,
The FSA and HSA overlays were designed to incentivize protection of the major regional
f10wways within the RLSA and the large landscape-scale mosaic of native habitats and
agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs, These lands provide major hydrological and ecological
linkages within the region.
As depicted on Map 1 E, of the 31,100 acres designated as FSA, 19,825 acres of FSA (64% of
total FSA) are protected via approved and pending SSA designations. Approved and pending
SSAs also account for 29,986 acres of HSA overlay areas (75% of total HSA).
Map 1 F illustrates the existing and pending SSA lands protect from intensive development a
large extent of lands targeted for public acquisition by Florida Forever and its predecessor
programs. SSAs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 protect the vast majority of Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands within the RLSA, which were first delineated in the
1970's. SSAs 8 and 11 protect lands within the Collier County portion of the Devil's Garden
Florida Forever project.
Additionally, SSAs 3, 4, and 5 were designated specifically to protect an important landscape
linkage for the Florida panther across CR 846, which has a high incidence of panther-vehicle
interactions. These designated SSAs will allow for the eventual establishment of fenced wildlife
crossings. SSAs 6,10, and 12 comprise 20,000 acres along the southern portion of the RLSA,
protecting high-quality panther habitats that are directly adjacent to the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP),
Agenda Item No, lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 1 [801 58
2. The amount and location of land designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA).
As shown in Table 2-A, the Town of Ave Marie SRA approved by the county in 2002 contains
5,027 acres, Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria
University.
The proposed Town of Big Cypress is anticipated to be the second SRA proposed in the Collier
RLSA. The pre-application and DRI information list the town as 2,798 acres, The SRA
application is expected to be filed in the summer of 2008,
Table 2-A
SRA Acreage
SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit
Uses (Acres)
Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027
Town of Big Cypress SRA* 2,798 pending
Total 6,798 1,027
*proposed
The attached Map 2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria SRA and the
proposed location of the Town of Big Cypress,
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which
one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned
lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA, however, lands having high
ecological vale, such as lands within an FSA or HSA, generate more credits per acre than the
"Open" designated lands, Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of
Stewardship Sending Areas using the methodology for the calculation of Credits, The
methodology includes:
1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and
2) The number of land use layers being eliminated.
There are also additional incentive Credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs
within the RLSA District; such as early entry bonus Credits, slough/strand index upgrade (buffer
area Credits), and restoration (R1 and R-2) Credits,
Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4,10 or for land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4,19,
A. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED
,r'
As of December, 2007, there have been a total of 9 SSAs that have been approved;
totaling 24,126 acres, As shown in Table 3-A these 9 SSAs have been assigned a
total of 59,451.49 Stewardship Credits including Early Entry, R-1 and R-2 Credits,
However, the R-2 Credits that have been assigned are not available for utilization
and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed,
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 11901 58
Table 3-A
Stewardship Credit Summary
SSA# Acres Total Credits Assianed R-2 Credits
1 146.58 263,6 0
2 704,14 1,268,1 0
3 3,195,54 4,675,3 0
3A* 0 606,6 0
4 1,239,92 1,676,7 0
5 1,852,3 2,938.3 0
5A* 0 1,504,9 0
6 9,911,1 25,525,1 4,286.4
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835,9
8 5,299,5 7,876.1 299,6
9 789.4 7,246,6 2,765,5
TOTAL 24,123.88 59,451.49 9,187.4
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
. SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas,
Acreage is already included in SSAs 3 & 5,
B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE
As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA, The Town of Ave Maria utilized
28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B),
Table 3-B
Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria
Credits Credits Held for
Total Credits Transferred and
SSA# Acres Assigned Utilized for Town Future Use (includes
of Ave Maria R-2)
1 146,58. 263.6 263,6 0
'2 704,14 1,268,1 1,268,1 0
3* 3,195.54 4,675,2 4,675,3 0
4 1,239,92 1,676,7 i 1,676,7 0
5* 1,852,3 2,938,31 2,938.3 0
6 9,911,1 25,525,1 I 17,836,5 7,688,6
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements,
*SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were
transferred and utilized for Ave Maria,
SSAs 6,7,8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C),
The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517,9, Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits
and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully
completed, There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and
R-2 Credits,
Agenda Item No, lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 'tliOo1 58
Table 3-C
Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use
SSA# Acres Total Credits R-2 Credits Credits Currently
Assigned and Assigned Available for
not Utilized Utilization
3A 0 606,6 0 606,6
5A 0 1,504,9 0 1,504,9
6 9,911,1 7,688,6 4,286.4 3,402,2
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835,9 4,034,2
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299,6 7,576.5
9 789.4 7,246,6 2,765,5 4,481,1
TOTAL 16,985.4 30,792.9 9,187.4 21,605.5
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each,
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of study and time of review.
Maps 4, 4A and 4B illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002,
and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some
change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land
cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C).
Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of
agriculture uses in 2007, Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without
the RLSA program are shown. The agricultural land cover categories Include all FLUCCS 200-
level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. Free-range cattle grazing
within naturally vegetated communities accounts for approximately 65,000 acres, but are not
included in the 2002 or 2007 data, It should be noted that of the 65,000 free-range cattle
grazing acres, the approved SSAs have protected 15,690 acres of this agriculture use,
Table 4-A below summarizes agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the uses 2007 and shows
the relative percentage change of each.
Table 4-A
2002/2007 Agricultural Type Comparison
~.
I
2002 With Without New 2007 %
Agricultural Type ACRES RLSA RLSA Ag ACRES CHANGE
Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3,13%
Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35%
Pasture/Ranqeland 17,863 16,129 -9,71%
Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9,10%
S pecia Itv 1,651 1,201 -27.26%
TOTAL 94,498 -5,058 -480 +427 89,397:t.01 % -5.40%
Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property
Owners, and aerial photo interpretation,
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 'till 01 58
Table 4-8
2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses
2002
Aaricultural Tvoe ACRES
Citrus 839
Fallow 177
Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Aq) 572
Pasture/Ranaeland 429
Row Craa 2,562
Soecialtv 449
TOTAL 5,027+
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program-
Approximateiy 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture uses
since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses
within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining, Map 4 illustrates
the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions.
Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program-
A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from
agricultural usage without using the RLSA program, Two areas totaling 233 acres received
Conditional Use approval from Collier County to convert from agricultural use to earth mining
and recreational activities. Land was purchased by Collier County and converted to
conservation containing 237 acres of agriculture, Two conditional use excavations are pending
and total 1 ,126.65 acres, In addition, there is 427 acres of new agriculture,
Table 5-A
2007 Land Converted to Non-agricultural Use
Without With
RLSA RLSA
Aa Land Conversion Proaram Proaram
Conditional Use for earth mininq -210
Conditional Use for recreation -33
Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned
aq) -237
Ave Maria -4,455
SSA Conservation -553
SSA mininq -50
TOTAL ACRES -480 -5,058
New Aqriculture +427
Sources: Conditional Use Approvals GU-02-AR-3537, CU-01-AR1225, Ave Mana
Stewardship Receiving Area Resolution, SSA 3A and 5A, SSA 9 and Collier County
Property Appraiser
Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions,
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page m201 58
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local,
State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
A total of 15 acres have been purchased in the RLSA by the South Florida Water Management
District (unknown amount), Conservation Collier purchased 367,7 acres, The total purchase
price of the properly was $5.3 million, with a $300,000 contribution from the Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust.
7, The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
Table 7-A documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within
approved SSAs. To date, restoration activities have been initiated on SSAs 6, 8, and 9,
Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program. Restoration 1 (R1)
lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation
of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive (R1) credits (GMP RLSA
Policy 3,11). Restoration 2 (R2) lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for
restoration activities, Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration
activities have met applicable success criteria,
To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration
Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program
details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land
management measures required after restoration occurs,
The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration
design, data collection (e,g" water table data), obtaining of state and federal permits for
restoration, and/or multiple years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria,
The types of restoration listed in Table7-A are described below:
Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities
resulting in a functional increase in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee f1owways, May also
include areas where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors,
Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and or exotic removal within drained areas or
excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging
distance of a rookery,
Other Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to
support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes, Could include
restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA.
Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or
connecting with existing occupied habitat.
f See Map 3A for the location of all areas designated for restoration,
Agenda Item No, 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 20301 58
Table 7-A
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Location Restoration Tvce Acres
SSA 3A Wadino Bird (R1 248.9
SSA 5A Wadino Bird (R1 651.3
Flow wav (R1, R2) 575.0
SSA6 Other Listed Soecies (R1, R2) 619.2
Wadino Bird IR1, R2) 24.8
Lame Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 331.9
SSA 7 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 75,7
WadinaBird (R1, R2) 51.4
SSA8 Wadino Bird (R1, R2) 74,9
Flow wav (R1, R2) 571,5
SSA 9 Laroe Mammal Corridor (R1, R2\ 61,0
Wadino Bird (R1, R2) 58,9
TOTAL 3344.5
Total R1 acres = 900:t
Total R2 acres = 2444.5+
Source: SSA applications
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
The RLSA Program as adopted does not allow for the use of Credits outside of the RLSA
Overlay Area, nor is there any existing method to use such Credits in the Urban designation of
the Coilier County Grow1h Management Plan (GMP). Such a change would require thorough
anaiysis and an amendment to the GMP and RLSA Overlay Area Goais, Objectives and
Policies,
gen a em o. OA
May 27, 08
Page 21 58
("
c/"J
J:A'N.l
~"'q.
[
.
~
.
~
~
.
(lJLWEURD
1__ WR4
L,
~TI
?).i:i~.
j: (
f' ~- \ i
'V:;\:J
. \ ...
\l
\.j\
-1;~ I
~I' ....r-
(;()f,DENGATE BLVD
I. 'I' G r N 0
o Rural Land SlewardsnipAreaBound81)'
Arell of Crttlcal Slale Concern
t~'50o-FOOIRestoratjOnZone
_FlowwsySI9WardShlpAres
_Hab~atStewardShIPAr8a
o OpenStew8rdshipAree
(~perm~ted'NaterReten\ionAre8
.-i
N
~
o , 2
Miles
RLSA OVERLAY
MAP 1
COLLIER RlSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~!
~'~-' -1 I'
r.........--~L_
~~i I
~:~
,
I
I
!
1 WOKALEE
)
!
I
~[
~l
~
<l
1
~
~
..
I
OIL WELL RD'I
i!l
~
0:
~,
~i
..",
GOLDE GATE BLVD
I "mo !
l@) SSA-Approved \Mth Flowway :
.:.. . SSA.Pending With Flowway ;
o R,~I L,"' S'_"'oh,p Are, 'oecd'" I
1-"-""-"'oh'P""
L-.... _..... _
d
i'~
-I
"
I
I
I
~I
~
, A roved SSA Flowwa
'SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
,SSA5
SSA6
I:SSA7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
Pendin SSA
,SSA10 0
ISSA11 1191
SSA 12 17BB
SSA 13 4232
SSA 14 1,048
SSA 15 2196
I SSA 16 164
'Subtotal 10619
Total Acres 19,825
Ii Margin of error +/~1% due to rounding
~
N
~
o , 2
Miles
FLOWWAY OVERVIEW: MAP lA
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
OA
08
58
Acres
147
654
509
198
196
4926
400
1,620
557
9,206
s~e2
...It"R
- ~4.~
:'",'7
~
~
~
~
<)
C1i
>i
~'
~
~
:\
<>
'"
~
OIL WELL RD
GOLDEN GA TE BL VD
~.
~ j
~J
,',~
~,
'Jil~
:\\i
\,
/75
L E co END
(""
(Z~ SSA.Approved V'litl1 Habitst
SSA-Pending\rVi1t1 Habitat
o RUTlII Land Stewardship Area Boundary I
_ Habitat StewsrdshlpArea
I '
..'\
N
HABITAT OVERVIEW: MAP IB
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~
o 1 2
Miles
gen a em 0, OA
27, 08
PaQ 23 58
.I"
pr
tJ.
-~
t~ ~. ,"~.>.'..:..,c:'1
U v '5'
~f ~~
I
t
~
~
S;
'A roved SSA
ISSA 1
ISSA2
SSA3
SSA4
:SSA5
,SSA6
ISSA 7
SSA8
ISSA9
Subtotal
Pendin SSA
SSA 10 5854
SSA 2212
SSA 12 2,933
SSA 13 1313
SSA 14 663
SSA 15 1,827
SSA 16 2,901
, Subtotal 17,703
I Toial Acres 29,986
i Margin of elTOr +/-1% due to rounding
Habitat Acres
o
51
2,686
1042
1,630
4985
487
1,248
155
12,283
, A roved SSA
SSA 1
SSA2
SSA3
ISSA4
'SSA5
SSA6
~SSA7
SSA6
~~~l~tal
'Pendin SSA
SSA 10 1
SSA 11 198
SSA 12 0
SSA 13 1616
SSA 14 1
: SSA 15 1209
ISSA16 9
I Subtotal 3 034
Total Acres 3,078
!Marg;n'orerror+/~1%due to rounding ,
C", Ii: ''i~'L}:i ~\ \y
I ~:, c I'. ~J '-'(}." '-.'.,<." ". 'J'
I' ',,, \ >-----""""';f ~ , " " "
~ /~ ~,( ~'-.'~I'" f,","',,",~~":'
'\J \ (' r' '" I
""""~'c.\ (-\ ....J '" _,'j",,_"
I('::"~~'... (~;:. ~7\_..... '~)~"<:': --. .> ",J',><,'
"-.......:~}-J---, - '{'-.........-.{ \", "" '.1'-,', ".
r '0 ~.' \.,f! ~~,i ". -,,-,.
~ ' U-;'-. --,',
, .......,
'1:~
SRS2c:/
-"
j..J\
=,
~"
--re,
I 'o10KALEE
"'-
"',-""-""':,
_ '.. ':.-I -.;'
,,'0 1., "-
,( .", \ f"-~"':;
'. '.' r" '.
""~ f', _:__~
1""_.,,\ /.,'" ~
~,;,;...,":,.(>~;:-;
" -"~'I
" 'I!
i'.'1
.-J
J-::?
:;,.;
:=)
",
1,'
,~,:..~
~
~
~
~
~
"
~
w
,- -.,j '\ i"_.1
,_\\ -.- '
-~ <.,''''-,
\'-'. 07.\ ~
r", ..,.) ~- J,~'<::'-'--"t;'
'".....-....:'1-.,.._ ,'.. ,;~ n
>.JMMbKALEE RD j'\.,:--' ".,';r",). /
~ '~-~~''-><~i .~' ']~)J~"
_ '\.'..~......,'I~...< [}~___rc::::'~I---
'"~r',_1~"-y,_) !:2
pc',,; ..- ~
\"'--> . ~I
'~".' "I
-~ '~h ~
,~
r:'i I
(' {",
.; ,--:...
I, :-,.\___'~-
f~
",
[':$""
~/,'
~~j
,
,
.~
':c\
--')'--',
(-'
I v 1"\, \, __,L)
(/ - /'r.--::;.,' ~,'J ",1'1'
-.-t r?'"" ".
c/c::-t'~kY-' "7],j
t~/
S.
"
[C~,
r~t)!
\
,
I
~',
~.
( >".
rJ] ;~'."",~-,.~
,/_ J "', ~l""-- I
J l{: \,..,"_ -',,''',
"j' I)" ", ']
- ,1; _,t':~Cl"'1
iI, il,,11Y::1 {
n j,; l~] "j:-J
I 11_ \ ,1L,,--".1
I L~"'~"l t',-'- '.: )
) :_I_J',-)!
\, -' T--~
\.-::~\ r'
jJ-,.r
OfL WELL RD
,,<.
/~~.~-~.:=-:~~
v "<Ceo,!
':L:,~c .
.....
!{ll
,_:'
':~,i
GOLDJ GA TE aL VO
I
I
I
-.
~
5;
["'J"
.f
J
/75
LEGEND
W SSA-Approvecl With water Retention I
SSA-PendinlllJ'vllh water Retention I
o Rural LandStewardsl1ipAreaBounoary
o Water Retention Stewardship Area
..-\
N
~ WATER RETENTION OVERVIEW: MAP Ie
o , 2
M"o; COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
gen a tem o. OA
27, 08
Pag 24 58
...
...
CR84
...
~
~
(Lr9 IX.
, t?-..r~-,(;;)
;~>
l![J -'~-o
Cl
\..-j
\;""l
~
~
....
Water Retention Acres
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
44
44
SR8;':"
"
u
~
'k,1
,~',.,-0
., ""-'" !~....'...... '....,-'....-",,~, \
',,"y 1',',......'., .. "'-
:_....-...." ' Jr"','" '~-'<'- ,:',>'.:-....,'.,,',',,'-',;
I......... ....i, :f('.,\.",\~", ..".',"..... ".,;1::;
".:' (I' ,~;;, '>< r~llP
''Sc~,jJ ~.' 1\
,~':~ e:'.:' \i L-"'....'-,
: , '~ ,C>,J '----'--'-"'1,,,,,., ~,~
). I ,', c:'.,J fi' '-" " " \~
'J (,<,<*\._ 1'::::"....,.....'.,_'.''1'',>)
l >.i> '~~JMMc;KALEE RD ! "t, ", ....j-0
'~, "",,,~
'\~f::.:)
d).,\....... ',,-'~ '
\,'-"-."~-'
, '
.em..
i.....;;, ,
. "-\"
;::
-'j<,'-.
,~(-
,:-.c',
f<:':~~ I
',',', "i
\~:~~ .
r.... ' '- .'
r . '~> 1
--~"<. .
g
~
..
!
~
~
~
GOLDE GA TE BL VD
~I
J\
175
LEG END
("
@ SSA-Appro'led IfIIith Open Land
SSA-Pending \Nith Open Land
o Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary
~j50Q.-FoOIReSloralionZone
<:@[)OpenLandDesigrlation
OA
08
58
...
CRB<
...
fifjv
0'
<"
)
--c.
.-.:;l'\
,#
f
~
~
~
u
@
'"
~
!l;
Il
""""""'1
1
L.,
~
"
OIL WELL RD
...
11111
:;
,
I
n Land and 500 Ft Restoration Zone Acres
o
o
o
o
27
o
99
2432
34
2593
A roved SSA 0
SSA 1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
PendinSSA
SSA1D
SSk11
SSk12
SSk13
SSA'14
SSk15
SSA 16
Subtotal
Total Acres
Margin of error +/-1% due to_rounding
6
99
70
269
o
27
3
474
.3,067
.-\
N
~
o 1 2
Miles
I
OPEN LAND OVERVIEW: MAP ID
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~
'r,] ['n"T
Slie2C-
I. ','" ",1"
IL (~""b
\~ 'i~1Fi'
Agenda ,Il~~ NO" OA
27" 08
Pag 26 c 58
~("
r: .
(, (,:1 ..-
Q ! -~
~
~
il!
u
~ ~i~
'~", " r:JI
~~"" ""t.!
I:.~ ~',"~i- -.:+ :'., i
i:< ~ );~I" \':r~ "
~~:--, ,~" ',~,
f;:~~ ~} ~:."~ ~~~~'~~~
\ "~'.. 7C:::~:{il .
.-' '\ ','. "'.'.
. . ~,V;(,.<
-,'- '.
~. ,,;':
..'. \.
,JttOKALEE
~I
:',!;(~ '//7 /. /. /. /.,
'\~~> :/0)/ /. /.
\\,~" ~~
L ,- ,," '//.
.1r0 ") /
] -.- p"t;7'7"' / ~
f . '- TiCS"/' /'f'" ~
- "."'1;;- /./
,'" /. /,./..,
ry/,/,
;,"vA'.! V//
r'i.. (r~}x:,c~_~'
.,..... " r
">':" c ;\~j:c~ ~~
. '~':.",.:~-~.:
j ;
~"~
--;: " .
i:<~>),'>
'. ~:~'::>~;':i;::
! ).:~::>~:~ ::'
~
-oj,
i
c~,
-]"I
~l "
", ~-:,"
:;;:-;_~..I::=,
[;;:; SSA7
I
I'
.J
&l
~
ie." ~
ill
)c_6 ~~, ~J
, ~~~~. '/~ OIL WELL RD il _.____' : ,:
_" /. ,)ti'.;~~+:,~~~~~~~~::L:";~(:;~
.~1~~~;~V1~~~~1~~~I~i
~)!~;~:J% :1
!);,,~~ I
~ . \
tc<~~ roved SSA FloWoMl Acres Habitat Acre5 Weier Retention Acres 0
SSA1 147 0 0
\\,', iSSA2 654 51 0
~\ ISSA 3 509 2686 0
SSA4 198 1042 0
SSA5 196 1630 0
SSA6 4826 4985 0
SSA7 400 487 0
SSA8 1620 12480
SSA9 557 155 44
Subtotlil 9206 12283 44
Pendln SSA
SSA10 0 5854 1 6 5861
SSA 11 1191 2212 198 993699
SSA12 1788 2933 0 70 .4191
SSA 13 4232 1313 1616 269 7430
SSA14 1048 663 1 1 1,714
SSA 15 2196 1827 1209 27 5259
SSA 16 164 2901 9 33076
Subtou/ 10619 1770' 3034 474 31"830
,Total Acres 19,826 29,988 3,078 3,067 66,966
, Notl!: Acres In this table hllVlI'bllllnrounded to It v.kJole acre. Ma In,of error ma be +1-, 1%.
,
~
-
~
W
Q
:l
Q
~
~
I
GOLDE~ GATE BLVD
lEG END
nlandAcres TotalAcres
o 147
o 7'"
o 3196
o 1240
27 1852
o 9911
99 985
2432 5300
34 189
2683 24126
/75
@SSA-Approved
('...." SSA-Pending
o Rural Lend StewerdshipArea Boundary
_ FiowwayStl!W'ardshipArea I
'~HabitatStewardShipArea
-- i
o Open StBwardshipAreB I
o Water Retention SteWardSh~:Area J
.-\
N
~ LAND DESIGNATION OVERVIEW: MAP IE
o 1 2
''''" COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
,/'""'
S'?82
>~
~
~
~
",i
"
~
!!
<Ii
'"
!l;
<l
3!: llJ
~ ,
'"
'"
01
~.
"
'"
~
~
OIL WELL RD
GOLDE GATE BLVD
tZ..:2? SSA-Approved
SSA-Pending
o Rural Land StewardshipAreIl Boundary
~ExistingPublicLllnd8
_FloridaForeverTargetedLandS
.-\
N
~
o 0.8 1.6
Miles
CONSERVATION LANDS OVERVIEW: MAP 1F
COllIER RlSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
I ENDNY COLyrr
CJl.UEJI COli\TY
OA
08
58
~ I
~
.~
'"
Ii
".
,,,
)
IMII101i4LEERlI
,
~
~
.
~
~
.
OlIUTURD
,'I
,
fllLWE/JRD
i
(;()J.nENGATERlV[)
OSRA.APProved
8SRA-Pfl>pclSed
o Rur8lLaodSlewBl'dst1ipArl'BBoundary
o ExlsllngPubllcLands
.-\
N
~
o 1 2
Miles
SRA LOCATIONS
MAP 2
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
.
.
~
.
,
~
~
8
I
A2'
IMMOIiALEE RD
'~""} l
OA
08
58
ENDR I' COUNTY
C JLUERCOUN,JI'
c'
J'N8~
\,~" -\
~,.:? 'I:', n
~ ~;ir, SSA:7 'j~_--J II
~ O~_~' 5,870.1 credltsq I
: ;=:;~:~i-) ~-
k; :::: ,,::) ~
~ ~;.J} i f
V
J,~ MOKALEE
O/I.WEHRlJ
SSA 1 ~
263.6 crediI~
SSA
7,246,6 cl dlts
OILWEHRn
SSA'6
25.525.1 Credits
I
G()LDENGATE nrVD
I
l. E. CF N D
r
c:> Approved SSA
o Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary
_ Flowway Stewardship Area
_ Habltat Stewardship kea
o Open Stewardship Area
o Permitted Water Relel'ltion Area
...\
N
rc....r--J
o 1 2
Miles
SSA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS: MAP 3
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
$",,,.>
;;.... ~:l" '. ..SSA"
t--- -;tiS9RestoratlonAcres/I
.... ..':'.," '>' .;,...::....:,..". '." .
..;8,. .~'-..
::; ~~Y1 -...
~.....
~......);
...J~,;. (L
'-'
~,
~'imf;;IY
",,,"',.
~; ~"'.I
'~'c!-,:2( . .' I
;~ '~1~-'-;~,~{:~r~{":" ~'~~""'~~:~~-",,;C(;}"k"<~"'\-< "-,,
~_r1';~-',c,':' '\ ii;'; ~.'
'....c',..
~...>I....
Agen
OA
08
58
......c. SSA8
~~~~~r~tJf'.!:l_ ,4.~~~~___
l"t'i __', i
~;'~;t
SS" 5
551,3 Restol~on A~t;;
I~ MOKALEE
c
SSA4
Ii ~
"
,.
Ii
I
I
I
i
J
Ig
I"~
~
~
.
,
I
,
SSA8
691.4 Restorat~on Acres
fMMOliALEE RD
\-...--..., ..,-
~:s,'O 13
Ii'
'i"LTSSA2
r'.: .".', ',_
I::'
t':'", ,.. SSA1
\':
I
G()LDENGATE BLVD
nil. WEU ND
I
",:;",i-,~_.-";,,,,,,_-i:"";"""'b
",".h iCe
ti:
~-
di::
;""~
""~'.
P'~ _~-.,
Ff,'....L",".j"
.
S:,,l _
",ssUJ ;F~(_- A~r'.;s
~
SSAG
1.219 Restoration Acres
LEGFND
R Approved SSA
r----..> Pending SSA
. SSA Restoration
~ Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary
. Flowway Stewardship Area
Habitat Stewardship Area
Open Stewardship Area
~ Permitted Water Retention Area
l.
SSA RESTORATION ACRES: MAP 3A
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~
N
~
o 1 2
Miles
r--.
~
N
~
o 1 2
Miles
LAND USE CONVERSION: MAP 4
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
Land Use Change
_ Ag to Conservation, Approved
_ Intensify, Approved
C) Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary
.. Existing Public Lands
C=) Ag Type Change
C=) No Change
..\
N
2002 LANDUSE
MAP4A
~
o 1 2
t\"llles
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
Fallow
Nat. Uplands & Wetlands
Pasture
Row Crops
Specialty
(""
OA
08
58
Row Crop
Specialty
Ag to Non Ag
_ Conservation, Approved
_lntensify,Approved
.~
N
~
o 1 2
Miles
2007 LANDUSE
MAP 4B
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
2002 Land Use
Fallow
Nat. Uplands & Wetlands
~~~ Pasture
Row Crops
Specialty
/\ rl.......r"I
~o 1,000 2,000
N Feel
AVE MARIA 2002 LAND USE: MAP 4C
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
I,
<("''''
00",
~o~
.-..... 0
"'
,""'
, !!2J
g CO::':1
=::;:q;;
ro
v
c:
Q)
OJ
<(
(~ ~
~
T 46 S
,
~! ~ i
'I ilU
-I
~I
~I
I I i
"i' !
~~~~~~!
, ! d! !~!ii ! !j
~ ~ ~ _lH:' U ili I h
l!. . ~ ',~<,"" Ol~ :i Ol ~
:t~~ ~ ~~i;~!!i~~ ~ ~~
I""", j" j.,
5. ~ ~~~~ "!' c,
..rnOEJ =C~~
~
~,
~I
~ i
~I! :
:( ~ ~ ~
f2' ~ i ~
~IR Ii' 8 I(
"I~~~~~
.. " ~ ~ ~ ~
~ iDOI]El!
~,
~I
Q
~
~
'!!il:!
~
~
~
--,--
/
j
::/
::
~
~
"
~
~
a..
<
:::E
.... .
en ~
::l 0
0;
Cl ;
Z ;
0
< U
..... ,
0
.... -0
u
a:::
::l
I-
::l
...
. " !
~
~
=
T 47 S
T 48 S
T 50 S
T 51 S
T 49 S
d
~ ~ ~
~ ~ i~
!, ,!
j ~ ~ ~~;
~ ~ ~~
~ < ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ O\~
I Dill!]
';>1' --"",-,,r
; .
i g
~ c ~I 5
l'I ....' 0
; :;; ~ ~ :::: i!l
0;: ~ ~ lS
l! H ~I i,
I ~ ~ Il .... IS
I ~ ~ ~ ~I
~ y ~ ii ... "I
DIDO III 0
i
,
,
!
'~ I
~ ~ ~
,',
, ~.
!Ii
~ ~ ~~
" ,
.:' ~ ~~
..,
~; ~~
q~~
~Hi
~,; ::;~
~ ~ i~
~ ~;~
H~~
eq~
rh~
~H~
~ ~ ~i
,
"
I
,
,
.I;
Ii
"
i!
"
i
~ i i
I^'
.II,
;; ~ ~ ~
~ ~ : ~~ ~~
~~~8~~~~i
I' Ii! ~l all!!!
;} ~~ "0 ~.
!P ~~ ~~,~ ~~
~~EHH~ni~
~;!~O...
!
!
~,
.
r'
ltIi
T 52 S
T 53 S
W;C:: T:]V'
/~
;:
~
=
I
,
,
~
~
=
;;
=
:;
~
"
~
, ~ "
l " ::
~ =
!
;, ,1
~~ fl
~~ ~~
-~ ""
~-'''''''
~.~<~i~~;{'2;:F!';~~;l~~~~. -
-,
~~ Gl/!. f
"
oJ
\,jc
S L'\I.l
S 8'\1 1
S tS 1
S 6'\1 .l
S OS 1
::
=
~
::
,:~,;F '
_ ':"r&-~~!-
-t.~, ,~v;~~~
t t~
, ,
I
~
::
=
" !
S t!i 1
...
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 36 of 58
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Members
Ron Hamel Chair
Neno Spagna Vice-chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Tammie Nemecek
Fred Thomas
Dave Wolfley
Meetinl!s:
1" Tuesday of the month, 9-12 PM, Ave Maria University
Technical Review (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22)
Meetinl! Dates
November 20
December 4
January 18, 2008 Workshop
January 22
February 5, Ave Maria University (AMU)
Review GMP Policies
Meetinl! Dates
March 4, AMU
o Begin review of Group 2 policies (Agriculture)
o Fritz Roka, UP, IFAS presentation
oGene Macvoy, IF AS extension
April I, AMU
o Group 2 Policies
May 6, AMU
o Begin Review of Group 3& 5 policies (Environmental)
o Eric Drapier, Audubon (Invited)
o Clarence Tears, SFWMD
June 3, AMU
o Group 3 & 5 policies
o Dr. Timm Kroeger, Defenders of Wildlife
July I, AMU
o Group 3 & 5 policies
August 5, AMU
o Begin review of Group 4 policies (planning)
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 37 of 58
o Steve Siebert, Executive Director Century Commission
(Invited)
September 2, CDES
o Group 4 policies
October 7, CDES
o Wrapup.."
Present Technical Review to:
Present GMP and LDC Policy
Recommendations to:
EAC, March 6, 2008
CCPC, May 1, 2008
BCC, May 27, 2008
To DCA, June 23, 2008
EAC November 12, 2008
CCPC December 1, 2008
BCC January 29, 2009
To DCA Februarv 27, 2009
(
Agenda Item No. 10A
r'" _ I ~ r\1.BY2~~
L TDk~<";~~e_-~::Jl
F~ .:::L.
fl?cej ve-c<
RLSADlSCUSSION ITEMS ~..:f m~ ~ ?/'7)f1
CePe. ~8ff
c/'7~
Updated 4-28-08 se-../ 12e.~
This is a draft listing of concerns noted during the implementation of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) in Collier County. The pUlJlose of this list is to document
issues that need to be addressed at the 5-year review of the RLSA amendments.
Compiled by Mark Strain from December 2005
Concerns Post RLSA:
1. Fiscal impact analysis model (flAM) minimum standards should be no less than
minimum county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is
acquired. This will provide the maximum protection to the taxpayers, The
analysis needs to be re-visited and the development provided corrections made
every year and include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales
demographics, all of which have significant effects on the outcome of the FlAM.
2, The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been
reviewed and applied in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The
averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future adjustments
should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach
for taxpayers,
3. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate
analysis, Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and
affordable housing as example, were not adequately addressed and minimum
standards should be considered as guidelines for SRA approvaL
4. The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are
proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports
arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where development
was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands
were much smaller in comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2
lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural states, the fact
they are not truly conservation lands is misleading.
5. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not
include an analysis of what amount of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be
permitted, This produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally
sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even
as 5 or 10 acre home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited,
I
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 39 of 58
6, The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and
only increased the magnitude of development and the speed in which it will occur
in the rural areas. Because of this, a need to look at longer range, studies in lieu of
the typical 5-years associated with concurrency issues should be considered,
7, The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture,
development and environmentally sensitive land. What ended with up is a plan
that can create an imbalance as the program is geared to produce more
enviromnentally set aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture,
This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and destroying more
pristine systems under the auspices of the Right to Farm Act,
8, Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result
separate developer contribution agreements are being created that provide
excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the original SRA
DCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in order to better
understand the impacts from the SRA,
.,-"_.,
9. Indices are weighted heavier towards enviromnentally sensitive lands when in
actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on
various agency regulations, The SSA credit system does not consider the
jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential.
Off-setting indices should have been considered for this.
10, SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring
no functionality of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the
case, we should consider language that encourages contiguous SSA's.
I I, SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approval
occurs via EAC, CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA
approval.
12, Evaluation of water conswnption must be compared to actual agricultural
pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not
consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals
over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers,
Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a
reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when
analyzing water resources for new SRA's.
]3, Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric
light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation
lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary,
/'
I
2.
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 40 of 58
14. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for
development stonn water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included
in development acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this
additional use, This occurs for many uses within the developmental areas, thus
making it appear as though development is using less acreage when in fact the
impacts from development may cause changes to the water quality and quantity in
land that is not part of the SRA
15, Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid.
TIlls can have the effect of reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is
split between activities. A proportional area of the land types within each grid
could be applied to determine a more balanced index value.
16, Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately
address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far
different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood
to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands, Agricultural control elevations
should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development
17, An analysis is needed to detennine how is the long range transportation plan is
coordinated with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially
feasible plan for this area. Using the 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate
for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their
impact to the 30-year build out study.
18. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a
variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination.
These uses include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid
waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA' s are given
credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit
prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be
mandatory .
.3
Agenda Item No.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 41 of 58
~
CONSERVANCY
Of Southwest Florida
- -
-
-
1450 Merrihue DriveoNaples. FL 34102
239.403,4213eFax 239.262,0672
www.conservancy.org
Updated November 14, 2007
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida participated in the Eastern Lands Study that
ultimately resulted in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
program, At the time, we were conceptually supportive of the rural stewardship program
and our conceptual support remains, We believe the concept of balance bctween
conservation, retention of agriculture and limited development in appropriate areas can
provide an important tool for the necessary protection for our rura1lands in eastern
Collier County, However, the Conservancy submitted a list of concerns during the 2002
approval process of the Collier County &LSA, some of which were addressed, while
others remain as outstanding issues to be assessed and acted upon during the five-year
review. In addition, as the RLSA has been implemented and we have had time to further
review the program and process, new issues have emerged that must be addressed during
this review.
The Future Land Use Element requires a series of specific measures be used to analyze
the RLSA. However, this review should not be limited to these specific measures, and
should be a comprehensive review of the program in its entirety, as required by Policy
1.22. The Conservancy believes that within this comprehensive assessment, the
following issues should be addressed. We see this list as a working document that will be
modified during the assessment, with issues either being added, or removed when
resolved,
I. The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be
each five years, not just at the first five year anniversary,
2, Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP)
policies may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) now has additional
provision for stonnwater treatment that require 150% treatment. Certain GMP
policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA and should be considered
,?"
I
2.J
Agenda Item No. lOA
May 27, 2008
Page 42 of 58
for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimwn, exempting the RLSA from other
provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated,
3, The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be
revised to use current best available science with regard to the preservation of
Florida panther habitat The panther habitat assessment methodology that the
habitat stewardship crediting valuation system is predicated on has been
substantially revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for application
by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain
land cover types as Florida panther habitat The Conservancy believes that in
updating and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element ofthe RLSA
program based on the best available Florida panther science will provide
important incentives for preserving critical Florida panther habitat areas and more
accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence
and recovery of the Florida panther species,
4. The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, ''techniques and strategies that are not
dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional,
state and federal regulatory programs," The compatibility of the RLSA to
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must
be assessed during the five-year review and changes made where necessary to
ensure compatibility, In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new
regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time,
not waiting for another five-year review process,
5, The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of
whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include
restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands,
regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not
voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within
FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities
are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses
as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the
natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright
prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy
believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited
uses within HSAs and FSAs, Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as
to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and
other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs.
6. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the
five-year assessment.
5-
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27,2008
Page 43 of 58
7. The Conservancy believes that retention of AGI or AG2 uses on lands where
credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for
incompatibility, Even lower-impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved
pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on
the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship
credits are generated for restoration plans and actual restoration activities, all land
use layers should be removed down to the conservation use. In addition,
appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation between
agricultural uses and restoration areas.
8. The Conservancy believes Policy 3,] ] should be reexamined as to the ability for
additional Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication ofland for
restoration, The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands
dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented.
9. Policy 2,] states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas]
SRAs will allow the projected population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of
2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% ofthe acreage otherwise
required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility
afforded to such development" How this policy will be met needs to be assessed
during the five-year review, Based on the figures from Policy ].3, there are
]82,334 acres of privately-owned land. These lands, priorto the RLSA, were
allowed a density of one unit per five acres. Thus, 36,467 units would have been
allowed. Assuming development would have occurred in the worst-case scenario
of the allowed one unit per five acres, all ]82,334 acres could have been impacted
by development (though this is highly unlikely, as permits could not likely be
obtained for development within the sloughs and other extremely sensitive areas),
Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the future population being contained on
10% of this land, development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the RLSA.
This would be a ratio of development to non-development of 9: I. Currently, the
SRA to SSA ratio for Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is
approximately 3:], CoIlier County must assess how the ultimate 9: 1 ratio, or
development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in the future, if all new SRAs
come in at Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios ofless than 9:1. The
Conservancy believes the manner in which this policy will be met should be
further clarified.
10, The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas
appropriate for SRAs within the plan, While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs
are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area
(almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs, Further
refinement of areas where development should be directed, based on
infrastructure and envirornnental compatibility, should be reviewed, For example,
additional provisions should be included that further directs development and
other incompatible uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), A
r"
c..
Agenda Ilem NO.1 OA
May 27,2008
Page 44 of 58
maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and CRDs within the RLSA should
also be explored,
II. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance
separations between SRAs, IfSRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back,
without any true separation, mega-towns could result in areas where rural
character should be maintained,
12. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages
and hamlets, a comparison of water consumption proposed for the new
development versus actual agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison of new
consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing conswnptive use impacts,
] 3, Specific criteria for lighting standards still need to be evaluated and established,
in order to reduce the impact of urban lighting on wildlife and habitat areas, As
Ave Maria and other towns begin to develop, standards must be in place to ensure
a minimum of glow to the rural area.
14, Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of
utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would
benefit from restoration, However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for
stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's
storm water treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage of the SRA, The Conservancy would like
to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
15. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a tOWD is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities,
should be incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint
16. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development
nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to
the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these
small development nodes do not contain adequate levels of self containment or
self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered.
17. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scale use of septic systems as a long-
term solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should
be required to have a plan for conversion to a private or public sewer system.
While development may initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines,
for conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approvaL
18, Review of the SSAs currently designated indicate that out of the approximately
23,000 acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to
7
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 45 of 58
their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should
be more active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation
purposes. While grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses,
more active agricultural activities may not, especially if the enviromnental value
of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should
revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to
conservation through incentives or regulations, A better understanding of the uses
removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go
through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval,
19. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use
layers from sensitive enviromnentallands, they are not conservation easements
and should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by
regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process, Separate conservation
easements should still be entered into with the necessary agencies for state and
federal permitting mitigation requirements.
20. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that
remove land uses per the RLSA program. These agreements are the mechanism
for removal ofland uses, As such, the Conservancy believes these agreements
should include the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land
planning oversight agency, as a signatory. Also, the idea of requiring a national,
state or local environmental organization signatory should be assessed,
This list represents the major issues that the Conservancy would like to see addressed in
the RLSA five-year review. We reserve the right, during the review process, to include
additional issues to be addressed, If you have any questions regarding the Conservancy's
position on the RLSA review, please contact Nicole Ryan, Governmental Relations
Manager, at (239) 403-4220.
('
g
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27,2008
Page 46 of 58
Collier County RLSA Issues & Concerns List
As of November 5, 2007
Compiled by Nancy PaytonlFWF
. Revisit sending and receiving designations ~ telemetry & GPS, FWe's Least Cost Analysis,
Eastern Collier Study (Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution Letter, and
Kautz, et al (aU have heen suhmltted to the county for data and analysis)
. Corner of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest corner - c:hBnge to sending to
protect Important panther travel corridors (panther 131 found dead 04n6/08)
. No development south of Oil Well Road
. More upland bulfers for Camp Keats Strand & OK Slough
. More lands east of 29 into sending or protective status - this is ACSC Jand
. Require exotic clearing and ongoing management/maintenance for designated stewardship
sending lands
. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Immokalee
. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" (compact rural development could be a
"Coconut Point," ~ DO cap on size of some types ofCRDs]
. What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program
. Agriculture preservation in receiving areaS - incentives? What is left after townsJvillages are
buill
. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caracara, sandhill crane, burrowing owl, gopher
tortoise...
. locentives for restoring rarm fields in receiving areas
. No panther credits from seoding lands tbat will be surrounded or significantly diminished in
value by development
. Review elsement language and who balds the easements - possibly FWC should bold, but 110
stewardship easements to be held hy private entities
. Need for Smoke easements
. Explore Dark Sides
. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included
. Tie transportation planning to cODsenration goals
. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and 8 map of locations
. Need for Buffers and language to address humao-pantherlbear/otber wildlife encounten
. Clarify bow RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies
. Wbat is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing tbose
remaining uses to meet mitigation obligations
. Remove all layers at one time - concern that several layers are contrary to consen>atioD
andlor agriculture preservation goals
. Clarify what is included io Ag 2 Bod Ag 1- concerns aboulaquaculture
. Allow Don-native, nOD~invasive plantings if beneficial to wildlife
. Establish time period to opt into program- both sending and receiving
. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits tbat can be generated - too many
credits?
. Procedures for recording and handling cbanges in ownersbip of SSA lands
. When sold wbo is responsible for carrying out SSA obligations
q
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 47 of 58
". ~. '\ .....""
.
COlLIER COUN1Y MANAGER'S OFFICE
3301 East Tamiami Trail . Naples, Florida 34111 . (239) 774-8383 . FAX (239) n4-4010
February 12, 2008
Tom Pelham
Office of the Secrelluy
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Secretary Pelham:
During my one-year tenure as As$istant County Manager and for six years as County Manager for
Collier County, I have had the privilege of being involved in the groundbreaking Rll1lll Land Stewardship Area
(RLSA) program, When our community was faced with the Administration Connnission's Final Order in 1999,
we were at a crossroad. We view this coU1Il:y's response to this crisis as a significant accomplishment. We
further believe there are important lessons learned that must be taken into consideration within the Department
of Community Affairs' proposed rule,
i.
In 1999, rather than fighting among ourselves and tearing the community apart, Collier County chose to
bring the community together in an effort to achieve consensus. The process was long, some three years and 33
meetings in the making, but proved well worth the effort. A devoted committee of 14 citizens fully supported
by this government, those who owned the land in question, the environmentalists who guard the land and its
inhabitants, the business community who support a sustainable economy for all county residents and seasonal
visitors, and those who live in the rora1 community, worked diligently to understand issues that often were
daunting. From '"grotmd truthing" to "new urbanism," this community learned what was necessary to make
good decisions for its future, and after a monumental effort, unanimously agreed on a pian that would meet
everyone's needs.
Although the priorities in "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment" were at times
in conflict, Collier County has successfully balanced conflicting needs thro a stewardship program that has
undergone scrutiny by all interests groups that were involved in the establishment of the RLSA. More
specifically, Collier County identified measures necessary to protect the majority of agricultural land, while at
the same time directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water
quality and quantity and maintain the na1llral water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species
and their habitats,
It is a matter'of great pride that the Rural Land Stewardship program was created here, and that we
have been honored by such prestigious organizations as the Governor's Council on a Sustainable Florida and
1,000 Friends of Florida, The fact that statewide legislation and other proposed projects subsequently have
built on our efforts is also rewarding,
Still, the real measure of the success of this program lies in its successful implementation. As we now
work through the process of its 5-yearreview. we believe that the program is achieving successes in all of the
areas it was created to address, and will be improved through the work of the County Committee conducting the
assessment.
.
The attached Teclmica! Review represents the fll'St phase of this analysis. Although more work is to be
done, the initial findings are clear:
~
,
Agenda Item No. 10A
May Lt, Looe
Page 48 of 58
ii. . , 4.
Page 2
Secretary Tom Pelham
. February 12, 2008
Environmental Drotection is occurrino: at a rate that literallv would be imnossible without the DrOlZfam
Already, with approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas, nearly 30% of the total 195,000+ acres
of land in the RLSA area has been or will be set aside for protection, of which all but approximately 640
of almost 55,000 acres remains agricultural or rural in nature. Importantly, among the lands that have
been approved or are pending as Stewardship Sending Areas is the vast majority of lands targeted for
acquisition by Florida Forever; these lands will be restored as necessary, then protected and maintained
in perpetuity, with no tax donars involved.
Agriculture remains strong. The only areas taken out of agricultura1 production to date are the roughly
5,000 acres on which Ave Maria is being constructed, 1bis represents less than 2.5% of the total arelL
The economic benefits are huge. Particularly in this market slowdown, the job creation at Ave Maria
has been significant to the vitality of our community, In addition, the companies already committed to
locating in or expanding to Ave Maria win provide an important new source of economic diversity
and employment in our ruraJ areas over the long term.
We are, however, considerably less optimistic about the potential of success for the Department of
Community Affairs' proposed mle for RLSA. Based on our analysis of what has anowed the Collier program
to work, we see at least four major issues that we believe need to be addressed:
1.
The mle anoears to considerablv limit the notential for conservation oflands, Not only does it fail to
properly incentivize landowners for participation, it also requires identification of conservation lands far
in advance of knowing ground conditions when sending areas are actually designated. It also appears to
deny agriculture's inherent benefits to the environment
I.
2, The rule also ""Dears to imore the realities of viable al!riculture. Ag is a risky business, vulnerable to
disease, weather, international trade agreements, changing world markets and much more, To survive,
land owners must be able to substantiate the value of their land, and remain fl"",ble to respond to
continuing cbaIlenges and opportunities as they present themselves,
3. The rule "l'oeaTS to undulv limit the ootential for economic o:rowth. It is a fact that our rural
areas are economically depressed. By restricting the ability to divenifY beyond agriculture and to create
higher wage jobs, the mle will not provide for the long-term health of our rural communities,
4. The mle 8DDears to deviate simificantlv from the intent of the CWTeIIt leo:islation. The current RLSA law
calls for voluntary, incentive-based participation from landowners, while the mle definitively does not.
We urge you to look to building on those fundamentals of the Collier County RLSA that have allowed for its
successes, and to incorporate them into any proposed rule. Certainly, our program can and should be adapted as
it is applied in other areas, However, its basic tenets -being collaborative, incentive-based, and founded on local
needs -should be carried forward.
Thank you so much for your consideration and I welcome your questions or connnents,
ly,
. 1Jt1? ~
James V, Mudd
COIUlty Manager
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 49 of 58
.
COllIER COUNIY MANAGER'S OFFICE
3301 East Tamiami Ttail . Naples, Florida 34111 . (239) 774-8383 . FAX (239) 774-4010
March 24, 2008
Secretary Thomas G. Pelham
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shurmard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: Rural land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the legislature
Dear Secretary Pelham:
This is to provide our input on the assessment of the Collier County Rural land Stewardship Program as
articulated in the DCA's Rural land Stewardship (R15) 2007 Annual Report to the legislature,
Summarv Conclusion
The DCA assessment displays a negative bias toward what has proven to be an Innovative and
successful rural growth management strategy, which DCA found in compliance pursuant to the
requirements of "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment" as mandated by the
June 22, 1999 Final Order.
.
Findill2S
1, Many of the findings cited in the report simply are not based on 1';lct. As examples:
The report determines that the Coliler program Is not protecting and conserving agriculture land.
First, It must be understood that, as virtually 100% of potential receiving areas are currently in
agricultural use, any conversion will be at the expense of agricultural land, However, stewardship
credit generation quite often results in permanent preservation of agricultural uses in other areas.
In fact, Collier County has now preserved in perpetuity nearly 25,000 acres of agricultural land,
Including 5,260 acres for citrus and row crops and 19,034 acres for cattle, in just the first five years
of the program.
The cited amount of land converted from agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses in the DCA's
Annual Report to the legislature is in error. The Report claims "over 6,000" acres having been
converted from agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses, however, the County's Technical Report
has found the total number of agricultural acres converted between 2002 and 2007 as a result of
R15 to be 5,058, principally for the Town of Ave Marla and Ave Marla University,
.
It is also important to note that the statute specifically allows for the "conversion of rural lands to
other uses,..through the application of innovative and flexible planning and development
strategies." The 5,000 acres that have been approved for development clearly follow this directive,
as well as the Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments adopted pursuant to the State of
Florida Administration Commission's June 22,1999 Final Order which were found in compliance by
the DCA.
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 50 of 58
2
.
The population estimate included in the report may be overstated, as it is based on "preliminary
findings" of the Collier County planning staff that are not achievable. As one example, the model
applies restoration credit potential to pristine lands that do not qualify for such credits.
The report characterizes the Collier system as "extremely complex" and suggests that It would be
"difficult and expensive for smaller rural counties with limited resources to implement and
monitor." Although the program uses many variables and conditions to precisely establish the
credit vaiue of the land, its modeling Is done with simple multiplication. Tracking and use of the
program is now done on a simple spreadsheet format that details each sending area, agricultural
uses, credits assigned and credits used. An updated version of the spreadsheet is available on the
County website.
2, Rather than focusing on the full spectrum of evaluative criteria established in the statute, the report
addresses only a few.
.
The statute includes six criteria to further the broad principles of rural sustainabllity, specifically:
restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl;
identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural
economic activity; maintenance of the viability of Florida's agricultural economy; and protection of
the character of rural areas of Florida, The DCA report, however, chooses to focus on a much
shorter list. Unmentioned are the positive economic impacts of RLS, garnered from the investment
in infrastructure, affordable and work force housing. services and educational and recreational
facilities in Eastern Collier County; they are without precedent.
The DCA report cites as a failure the fact that some three-quarters of sending areas are located in
the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. In fact. the Collier program intentionally
places the greatest value on lands that are most environmentally significant. In so doing, the
program is preserving forever natural reSOurce lands deemed important to the state, at no cost to '
the taxpayer, The Collier County RLS program is in stark contrast to the State of Florida's expensive
purchase of the Babcock Ranch in Charlotte and lee Counties which was borne by all the taxpayers
in the State of Florida. Obviously the owners of the Babcock Ranch property could have availed
themselves of the RLS statutory program at no cost to the taxpayer. Collier County's RLS program is
the most innovative of fiscally responsible RLS programs which demonstrates that local government
can achieve sound growth management under the existing statute. Moreover, Collier County has
adopted a financially feasible Capital Improvements Element while maintaining the concurrency
management system requirements set forth in section 163.3180, F.S.
.
The report also concludes that the 93,ODO-acre area eligible for designation as receiving areas "is the
exact opposite of the plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas," apparently because of its
magnitude. In fact. the referenced area comprises less than half of the total 196,DOO-acre RLS area
and has been shown by data and analysis to qe the most suitable for future development This
statistic, in addition to other parameters in the plan that protect flow way systems, critical habitat
areas, and water retention areas, does direct growth to the "most suitable areas." Furthermore, the
Florida Department of Community Affairs critique of the Collier County RLS program is without
merit as the assessment criticizes DCA's own Notice of Intent which found the Collier County RLS
program Growth Management Plan amendments in compliance with the State of Florida
Administration Commission's June 22, 1999 Final Order.
"IIIl
Agenda Item No.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 51 of 58
3
. 3.
The report is In stark contrast to every other assessment of the Collier County program.
Recent and independent reports including the Department-funded report from Florida State
University (2007) and the Collier County Government report (2008) have provided factual and
objective assessments of the program that are positive,
Land pianning and environmental groups alike have applauded the Collier RLS program. Included
are prestigious awards from 1,000 Friends of Florida, the Governor's Council on a Sustainable Florida
and the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association,
Recommendation
From our perspective, it seems clear that an objective re-evaluation of the Collier County program is
necessary if the DCA Report to the LeBislature is to provide a fair and productive assessment of the
Collier RLS proBram and its potential for the rural lands of Florida. We would welcome the opportunity
to provide DCA with assistance in this reBard,
Sincerely,
.~~~
County ManaBer
Collier County
.
.
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 52 of 58
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Governor
THOMAS G. PElHAM
Secreta'}'
May 8, 2008
RECEIVED
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
"A,V " ','
1"1 J I..
Mr. James V. Mudd
Collier County Manager
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
ACTION
Re: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature
Dear Mr. Mudd:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 2008, and your comments on the above-
referenced report by the Department of Community Affairs to the Legislature.
Collier County is justifiably proud of its rural lands program, but I think you are being
much too sensitive to criticisms of the program, Your letter concludes that "[T]he DCA
assessment displays a negative bias" toward the Collier County rural lands program. With all
due respect, I do not believe tl13t any objective reader of the DCA report would reach such a
conclusion. Your letter ignores significant parts of the report which refute your allegation of
Departmental bias against the Collier program,
First, the report, not only commended the Collier program but noted that it is a
groundbreaking rural planning experience. In commenting on the Collier program and the St.
Lucie County RLSA, the report states that it is
"not intended to disparage these two programs. On the contrary, it
is recognized that these are pioneering programs which have
broken new ground in rural planning. We can learn from these
experiences."
(Report, at 2), Further, I would note that the Department has paid perhaps the highest of all
compliments to the Collier program by incorporating some of its commendable features into
DCA's draft RLSA rule.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399,2100
Phone: 850-48BM8466 Fax: 650-921-0781 Website: www.dca,state,fl.us
COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS Of CRfT\CA1.. STATE CONCERN FIELD OFACE HOUSING-AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPIfENT
Phone; 85Q...488.-2356 Fa)(: 850 ~88 3309 Phone: 305-289-2<402 Fax: 306-289-24'12 Phone: 850-488-7956 Fax: 850-922-5623
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 53 of 58
Mr. James V, Mudd
May 8, 2008
Page 2
Second, your letter ignores the context in which the Department evaluated the Collier
program, The Department's report was not intended to and does not evaluate the Collier
program for compliance with the State of Florida Administration Commission's June 22, 1999,
Final Order, or with state law as it existed at the time the Collier program was initiated. Rather,
as the report clearly states, its purpose was to evaluate whether the Collier model as a whole
complies with the RLSA statute which was established in 2001:
"The [Collier] program was commenced prior to the enactment of
the RLSA statute, was not subject to the requirements of the
statute, and was not reviewed by the Department for consistency
with the RLSA statute. Nevertheless, because some people
advocate the Collier program as a model for RLSA
implementation, the Department has evaluated this program."
(Report, at 5),
Although your letter twice mentions that the DCA found the Collier County plan to be in
compliance, it fails to acknowledge that DCA did not review it for compliance with the RLSA
statute, Further, the well-deserved commendations received by the Collier program from various
other organizations were not based on an evaluation of the program's compliance with RLSA
statutory requirements.
There are numerous significant differences between the Collier program and the RLSA
statute, As a part of its technical assistance responsibilities pursuant to section 163.3177(11),
Florida Statutes, DCA has an obligation to point out those differences to people who are
interested in utilizing the statutory RLSA process, For this reason, DCA's report understandably
concentrated on aspects of the Collier program which may be problematic under the statute.
In your letter, you seem to question the Department's characterization of the Collier
system as "extremely complex," but you failed to refute that description, In fact, numerous
people outside of DCA have told me they consider the Collier methodology to be "Byzantine,"
"incomprehensible," "voodoo planning," "there is no there there," and "lacking in transparency,"
Having devoted a significant amount of my time in trying to understand the Collier
methodology, I can appreciate why people view the methodology in such an unfavorable light.
Fortunately, the RLSA statute does not incorporate the Collier methodology for determining and
utilizing stewardship credits.
Despite your assertion that "many of the findings sited in the [DCA] report simply are not
based on fact," you give only a very few examples. Moreover, review of these examples
indicates that you have either misunderstood or mischaracterized our report. A detailed response
to your alleged factual errors is enclosed,
('
,
Agenda Item No. lOA
May 27,2008
Page 54 of 58
Mr. James V. Mudd
May 8, 2008
Page 3
In conclusion, I believe that DCA's report is a fair and objective commentary on the
Collier County rural lands program in the context of RLSA statutory requirements and that it
accurately sets forth pertinent facts about the program. We have received compliments on the
report from numerous people, including persons involved in the implementation of the Collier
program who agree with the Department's conclusions,
Although the Collier program is a commendable effort to improve rural planning, it
certainly can be improved, I understand that the County is involved in a detailed evaluation of
the program, and I hope that it will be an open and objective evaluation which is not driven by
affected landowners and their consultants, The Department will be following the County's
evaluation very closely, Please let me know if the Department can be of any assistance to the
County in this important endeavor,
Sincerely yours,
~(?~
Thomas G, Pelham
Secretary
TGPlrd
Enclosure
cc: Members of Board of Collier County Commissioners
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 55 of 58
ResDonse To A1lee-ed Factual Errors In The DeDartment's Annual ReDort
As Stated In Your Letter Dated March 24. 2008
The flJ'St Darae-raDh under #1 in your letter states:
"First, it must be understood that, as virtually 100"/0 of potential receiving areas are currently in
agricultural use, any conversion will be at the expense of agricultural land. However,
stewardship credit generation quite often results in permanent preservation of agricultural uses
in other areas. "
It is fully understood that some agricultural lands will convert to urban uses. The Department's
concern is much broader and includes:
That such a large expanse of agricultural land is eligible to become a receiving area.
The high number of credits allowed by the RLSA program that will permit the conversion
oflarge amounts of these agricultural lands.
Agricultural areas have little incentive to become sending areas,
o The fact that some agricultural lands have become sending areas is probably more
the result of ownership patterns and proximity to habitat areas instead of a
concerted effort to protect such lands in agriculture.
The paragraph goes on to state:
"In fact, Collier County has now preserved in perpetuity nearly 25,000 acres of agricultural
land, including 5,260 acres for citrus and row crops and 19, 034 acres for cattle, in just thejirst
jive years of the program. "
The Annual Report includes the following tables:
Table 2: Sending Area Attributes:
Land Type Acres
Flowway Stewardship Area 8,876,7
Habitat StewardshiD Area 12,860.8
Water Retention Area 43.5
Oven Area 2,591.8
Total SSA Lands 24,372.8
Table 3: Sending Area Land Uses:
Land Use La er Remainin Acres
A riculture 1 5,288.6
A riculture 2 18,382.5
Conservation 651.3
Mining 50.1
/'
I
1
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27. 2008
Page 56 of 58
The nearly 25,000 acres in the approved sending areas included several different types of land
use features, Almost 9,000 acres were classified as Flowway Stewardship Areas, Flowway
Stewardship Areas are described by Collier County in Policy 3, I: "FSAs are primarily privately
owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough.
These lands form the primary wetland jlowway systems in the RLSA, " Additionally, lands
classified as Flowway Stewardship Areas are assigned one of the highest natural resource index
values. It seems very clear that these Flowway Stewardship Areas contain very important
environmental attributes and althoullh cattle mav use these areas it seems clear that these are
natural wetlands, It also appears that portions of these areas are targeted for restoration. The
protection of these areas is frequently cited as an important achievement of the Collier County
RLSA program. The Department also conunends the county for protecting these natural
resource lands,
However, an examination of Table 3 shows that only 651 acres of the total sending areas were
protected for conservation. Therefore, the vast majority of these important natural resource areas
continue to allow agriculture of some type or another. This is consistent with your letter and the
Annual Report provides this information, Your letter indicates that 19,034 acres are preserved
for cattle and the Annual Report flives a fillure of 18.382 acres for the lower intensity
Allricultural 2 category which includes cattle. The number was the best number available at the
time the Annual Report was published. In fact, it appears that there may be an error in your final
technical report published on February 13,2008. Table I-D shows inconsistent totals, It appears
that the 651 acres for conservation was double counted for agriculture, although we do not have
the primary data available to confirm that error. However, this would account for the difference
between the Annual Report and the County's final technical report, published six weeks later,
Your letter states that 5,260 acres in citrus and row crops have been preserved. This is more or
less consistent with the hie:her Annual Report number of5.288.6 acres allowed to continue in
the more intensive Agriculture I category, However, the Department did not have the detailed
information regarding number of acres in specific agricultural uses such as citrus and row crops,
Table 2 in the Annual Report indicates that the sending areas include only 2,591.8 acres in the
Open Area where these more intense agriculture uses are likely to be, Apparently, the additional
citrus and row crop acres you mention are located in Habitat Stewardship Areas.
The Habitat Stewardship Areas are defined by Policy 32: "HSAs are privately owned
agricultural areas. which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them
suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are
included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape
that can augment habitat values, " It would appear that the county has determined that citrus and
row crops that are contiguous to natural habitat areas may be classified as Habitat Stewardship
Areas. The Department's initial understanding was that the compatible and complementary
agricultural areas classified as Habitat Stewardship Areas would likely be of a low intensity
nature.
2
Agenda Item No. 10A
May 27, 2008
Page 57 of 58
The second Daraeranh under #1 in your letter states:
"The RqJort claims "over 6,000" acres having been converted from agricultural uses to non-
agricultural uses, however the County's Technical Report has found the total number of
agricultural acres converted between 2002 and 2007 as a result of RLS to be 5,058, principally
for the Town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University, "
This misrepresents the Annual Report
First, the Annual Report stated that "3,357 acres of row crops, 583 acres of improved pasture,
327 acres of sod farms, and 133 acres of fallow crop land" were being converted to urban uses
on the Ave Maria site. This totals to 4,400 acres. Second, the Annual Report stated that the pre-
application materials for the proposed Big Cypress Development of Regional Impact reported
that, "Current land cover includes 1,908 acres of row crops, 317 acres of other cropland and
pasture, 293 acres of improved pasture, 79 acres of fallow cropland, and other various
agricultural uses." This totals to 2,597 acres. Thus, the Ave Maria and Big Cypress
developments are expected to convert 6,997 acres from agricultural to urban uses. Finally, the
Annual Report states, "Over 6,000 acres of the more intensely farmed agricultural lands are
being planned for conversion to urban uses in the approved Ave Maria and proposed Big
Cypress new towns alone." This statement is c1earlv a conservative Wlderestimate of the planned
conversion of agricultural lands. We believe that the Annual Report is a fair representation of
the facts available to the Department at the time of publication.
The fourth narae:raDh under #1 in your letter states:
"The population estimate included in the report may be overstated, as it is based on
"preliminary findings" of the Collier County planning stciffthat are not achievable. ..
The Annual Report clearly stated that the source document was a "preliminary report."
Nevertheless, these preliminary findings that proj ected a RLSA population 389,193 appear to
represent the only RLSA population analysis done by the COWlty since the adoption of the RLSA
It is interesting to note that this report was prepared in 2005 and although it was labeled as
preliminary, to the best of the Department's knowledge, it has never been updated or replaced,
Also, the Collier County planning staff recommended that we review the report when we (Robert
Pennock) met with them in August, 2007 in Naples,
It is entirely appropriate for the Department's Annual Report to provide the results of this COWlty
produced report. It was also appropriate for the Department to analyze the report and in doing so
we concluded in the Annual Report that, "A more conservative estimate would be 200,000
persons." In other words, we agree that the population estimates may be overstated, although we
would not go so far as to say that they are not achievable,
,t'
More importantly, the Annual Report stated, "It is questionable whether this very large aIDOImt
of development is consistent with rural sustainability including maintaining the viability of
agriculture," We stand by that concern.
3
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
May 27, 2008
Page 58 of 58
The second paral!raph under #2 in vour letter states:
"The DCA report cites as a failure the fact that some three-quarters of sending areas are located
in the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. "
On page 9, under the Current Status section, the Annual Report describes the characteristics of
the nine approved sending areas, The Report states, "Also of note is that ] 8,] ] 6,7 acres (74%)
of the designated sending areas are within the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State
Concern, which already has provided additional protections to these lands,"
Clearly, the Department is not suggesting that this indicates a failure of the program, by itself.
However, this fact, in combination with other features of the program does raise several concerns
of the Department that are described in the Annual Report,
The third paral!l"llph under #2 in vour letter states:
"The report also concludes that the 93,OOO-acre eligible for the designation as receiving areas
"is the exact opposite of the plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas, " apparently
because of its magnitude."
Once again, it is important to provide full, correct quote from the Annual Report, The Annual
Report states,
"The ultimate total amount and geographic extent or footprint of development in
the RLSA cannot be determined and there are practically no standards guiding the
distribution of development areas, The large 93,000 acre area eligible for
designation of receiving areas, which also allows the conversion ofland uses to
the underlying low-density uses, is the exact opposite of a plan to direct growth to
the most suitable areas, This may lead to fragmentation of natural areas, wildlife
habitat, and agricultural areas. The overall rural character of the area is under
threat from the potentially large amount of urban development."
Allowing the undirected conversion of productive agricultural lands is inconsistent with the
principles of rural sustainability.
4