The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/18/2024 CD SD CD Z Oa B CD ' -G w N ca CD W c o r= J c C) D z 0 z -p S o � °D= rn ': CD m r _too> CD m cz g run) ai 0 mz v zm �. t 0 r- m z _i H M xi -I `1 C. ,n 1- o rn �y 0 -D ---I z cn 73 D O —I I— COco m E > r CO Z 11 Z D m 0 ^I 07:i C D-Imps D • -# Op -n o � � cn o wo • D zc > pz • 2 r CO m co o D •r arm- 70 pcnZ CD t-r7 -n 71 '� CD 0 0 � -D 0zzN \�� = =J O cr) O C --I 'i p (",s1 �'1 (11 = O -I , cmnmo �J Q 1 rt � -_1 O z W cn 'V m rill g0Dz I V� -. = O co p Q 1 C� m oo D rnzm I y z ,A 0 Zs 0 D � c r� r- -1 D 73 om o � mcn m � I-. cD m i) � � CBDI D m � D oD A ocn ci, mr m 0 = o � m 73 m0 rn m -WG Z < z CA o v, n --ID --I-ICJ) \ m m O D m O Z r * tr- Z- po -� = m F c —1 -< � m = m0 m m7:) 2 = mz v D � D .4. 73 -I 0 o z �- -I o �C m 2 Z) 71 Z gD o -0 3 CC r- NCD O m m c"-)..,_ v r � C (Q - n m z D m_ O . � O ' CD co m m co z CS 1 0) -H C7 -< D -I z z ,K, "0 O m flM m < N ' m 7� Corm C F �_ O z -- m 0 Cn v, D Z M - �D � Z m O O C op a) D I- W -1 =1 5 m Cl) ICJ z `.S ' it COn D ,� TI T 7 0 0 — O 1 C coW Q. ' ta- x T = 0 CD n i.i� O m cn 0 Ca Op a � o �, 0 m m z m C�) z m O m m -Im 0 s -I o v cn m U) o mo Z mo mW� O � �v o cn o D M mz �Dz = T Z 0o . . -- \ \ / o W_ > = r) O m m � O -I Om N -- z � O HOC ITT %� 0-. z a m • Z' - 0, r z co c C -i OQ D m m m D �l -7 cn Cn � � �, m cn DD p O rp �- O mW . O Dm —I O -< < z m 0 � 3 a)m O m m oz D D� �./ xi 7J 0 o Z T m G7 z 0 m �' m z D z O _ OD Z 0 m z XI c) 2 CD DI cI) z O -s 2 r- CD CD co r CD ..< O m CD I a -17 cu r O �7 = CO 0 c•� Q -G 0 = ?— la, C -, c 0z -o as --IO O rirn ;Elm2 m j D n CarC mg --, P m y --1 � z • Z 0 z u, m — 6 g ccnz0 - Pz P. , 0 -p _-1 O c 0 • 1 o ' `n 1-' mm Z � 3-1 co O 0 rn COW �' m > 0 m z > xi Orc `c Oo > 0 0D = 70R- z m O Zm Zo =-� o o � z0 C Dm D CD UJ ! P 0 3 rIlft 0 X 3 O zzm O Kwo C , Oo \ m O O n u) m o Q -a. CD zaoD m � z g dDz �. 0 --1 -an13 � MmoN CI O o0D Zo ° E —1 0 C) to o �' '„ C X oo > o � m Lc Z v z � vD � p .� Fz n � Om O cn 1 m -o PTt z 514 \+," r— w > � � � � m 0 D f' mo = v w Wo a x yOm m m -< z < CA Gc Q -1m G fA ET) `I m m O D Z D oz r �P 70 00 -- zm c —1 � � m '= 20 7J m mm Eh- 0 I-- m z AO D 1 73 0z --1 _ � mz �, m C D -0 3 S. CO cn s3 CD r cD �^ m D O.-n O m = o C m c �C7 rt e Zr r. I CD 77) xiD m O co m � , (P zc g zz m N upo _i D .� 0 O CD0 m z _< In N mZ 0 ro pI ALA _I_70 _1 --1 O o r ri cn R' O CO 2 i Oo T -< y 1 Dr p m G) m til D =i▪ m < No 0 CO5 D --{ - CO -, Z m co 7 o D CD O m D D /�� i7 Cn 1 ii O D N s O� 2J O m m ti 23 = m m o' _� ▪ m O * O o 3 c) 0xi v' o -< o : mC7 � I _1 oo O O� 00 r mzz m x D - 20 m O-Z I m ND n 0 A, On > m eo -1C) Z CO J- O O 0 , m xj D o - r - m -io 0 P CO cn —I --I �' a-m m O m it H oU 0 cn P Cip < o O m D �' -I D r cn > �.` _ m -< D D m z r o O z = Xi D D m m co E m = O ( i D — _ cn z 73 o M G) -n j D —i \2 m Az 70 Z � 0 -a \:,.1 3 cr.. CO r- C ' cv co CD -< r cn 1 p = O Fri CD G - Cu C — Q. `0 CD Q -, —I 0 ! z � (D m 70 0 $ 1 `,a 3 o -� 0 o J H v HL N Cli - . \ mz m < o r � 0 0 cn cn 2 D 0 - > i � m m mm „(Q �, > cn 2J J " o CD -n TI � m z0 O =i0 > c c) c xi = m ''� Q s Q. 0 °71 C 00 `n- � '73 mz 3 m T OO - �- 3 c� 0 .10 g 0 m (7) � 0 m = �'`) 0 —1 Z m C) m 3- -I OO 0 , cn p Cl) O v > z ; 2• Z N 20 -2 o Dg -Onm >m ° 032 00 —4 0m -- 0 � p z 0 Co _ < rr`Fz m ) v z C) > D cn cmnD (, ? mom O zD `' ' ,JAW ()i c!> 0 = r m 0 op n m ° -1 00 -< P < z X 0 -I n 1 0 morn o ccn mm m � D _! 1 0O z XI )>r - r� co 0E o Z : m fi O To P t '. 3 m m -. si- m l: (4 z G 0 Z - m z 70 0 r CD SU CD D cn •a -< cn `° cQ CD 0 = c o C7 r m m ( • J t rh CD = o m0 m � r 1 -i Dm :., 0, m m G� "r v L VD -I G) 0 - 7 1 p� Z mz O zz v -n z �" V 7 O -� -< c,c U,- m ( 03 _ z �} , � � zn - V �, h 0 1— Z G) m Va O - c > z C r W D -I m m C �v /� D O Ci.i -n T m `1') CD 20 Q si cncn `f J a T O - aO N amo � m C7 � o U o CD oT 0 § m 3 � m = oo m O W 3 ci) m m0 vA � � no m 0 rt O .t mz o '0 N m „ m Z _1 m • '� 0c v o , ;L_ o � 2 D = o - n > m 0C, m Q, cp -/ 'V -' o � ,O oz C oo C� A .. mDm m C D N cnV) O m (� _m 55 -1 ...... 0 /� m slk ,� 0 _ "r< 2 Di m C z = m D '11 J W m G) m v) - 5 �_ mm m or AJ O z D 2J3 T D 0 - rr1 pp -�_ C 0 W m 0 73 E x m D -, - x cn o C� S� Z D m n g m Z 7 x m z _ Z g D CD it) CD 00 - 2 `_-°. CQ -< •`° cC1 CD Oc F m 0 = c D o cr. Q n m D 0 - I -+ 0 r z CD �••F 1 -i O p 0 W m m co — = Z CD z � v z z n c Z m z O Gym G ,.• 0 0) O TI DZ !-.�mrb • mz m < N a N Oz (A mo h Z m g U' co -0 -4 Z G) c>i3 00 _ D r ✓ oo —I 5 D^ 5 > Cl) 7, z T 03Q o-. C.- mo • � cl - 1O . ) Cap ,o-I C c-) o cn o � 7m 0 z ` -- 2 mm cn = o o O0 Z mo m -a 0 -n —I —1 °001 0 � D o Cn 5D 3 '� mz D � z � -, Z oo C) �' � -HCvo OW D = 5 71 m N O � mCO .F a0 —1 m zm > o - I � r —I v zC co cn `�m -I _ m m Cl) m m cn > > c> o cp O o r 0 r- moo r c) co CN m z m o -1i 0 m U, fi cn mm m o = \ti O z D D 7.0 o D _1 o0 ED Z � T C_ m 73 m z73 cN c®. c' xD m rk O M 0 Z O m z 73 0 z D _ -0 at (O •CD �D� r- cDCD c CD O CO v =c ° m CLCO = n r mO °C} CD f71 r•r Ci 3 � zm 07) = 0 zn cnz O Dz w� 0 sn O. „ o z al o -< z> 'C r, _ > o Zo � . Z m -13 p0 C nz _� m < N) c` D cn 5 � o CC -n -n m w CD zo O CnW Q �1 2 '� C 7 CI. p � � � cDi, m -o Q op O � D �j Cl) a- $7 = m m ,\ " ci .1 m C7 o N. o m -n -n O � m 2 � 13 m. = W C o 0 c m 0 C rt-00 m rt OPo3 N > m z m z D —r —■ G Orr-- > Oo n X m � O S zz O � z *F m D 0 o p ,...._„. -, v co U = N ' ^�- , T\ DDm m m� v c Orn \' � � : o o \ C.7) ON � 57) ZC o 1- m -= _ , C> 5m0z = � W� r � -4 D m0 m 0, -i , A (is.D D W r=n m I=TI 0 8 W N.. m 0 zic , (� (7 0 o 1\ z m 1 N. -- > m - � X m ) z i �2" C� PCD 1 )9i -a 2 c: C�Q - O CCD cfl x O = Fri CD CO CD0 D 0 = � `7 r 71 0 : COc m _ m ' 0 7 �� .,,. CD o0 0 0, m m co — . _ � -I v -< D -i 09 zz O cmn• z O Om -rr 0) O -n Dz ‘ -mot" m- z m < N r. 0 0 m ^ = o sr m ., • + D m - Q r r Z m D O- O C P D a-• m m mm -nCC n D to Z7Z 2 ° O 0 I\ Q o CD C CT ^^ -n O m0 N 0 Op C 00 N 0 mm 0 mzD m3 CD n 0 � o 7o -0 , 0 m cn m = o .-.. 00 co m 1 m 0 N ODD 0 -0 ✓ z D 73zE- T � Z oo - 0 -o co CI - �- O m —ill 0 rn * m D o F. i V t i- z D c ► O 4 CO z mm 7 —I ► CDy N mD mm C/) DD Mk 0m O of Z • o o �= m m0 no° WW (NI > m --1 0 -< r m0 m o -I ,. � ,m.. mm m mD Wp .� r 73 z D T. r O O > _XI �-co m m 0 z m0 m X m V j cn D m p 0 M 0 -- Z , m z i l - n cep aa)) C D TS a rt co -L D al CD N CO O CD O = D m7 - Q co m 0 `� -ace r mn cCp 03 m m G) 7] c = v z n cep O \ z �n -1 O Oc - Z m z O z l,, -, 0 mz Im rx Oz v ppz C� Zh -< D 3 , h> D - m OO C nz ,t r 00 —I -I O rT 5 m m(/) C o X � -n -Ti mW 'J . `r � � a CDo � 0� D ^ O n =O am_ m m , %A 73 z 0 p � 71T 0O ' mm 1 3 m Om mZ7 = W c0-0m m= 0 O G m cn D - 1- 7 > z = �■ -0 Z . v m CI O N r , OW > -1ow- 2 _, n m G OOmWo� \ - k, * m D 0D % CIN z (� r � 1-1 -Io� m - = N N. , Dm m m� mm (C/) Om 0'ocn O Inc = . v � z om J �o - m -G zcnczA mO - cli < z = n > � - 1 > m � C,. _ 0 = z D C O m m DTI r oZ D 73o oD mop \ Nk ('ice E m 0o E rI Ski 'Z,, zi (7) ,..) _xD o 0 - > Z m !!f^^ m z ,, n � C 3 - 0 CD CD cr CD O r -D �XJ = a W D 0 m ! C7 m 0 03 = 0 _ CD m -G 0 U) m m z cn ---I v -< D ( '.. Z 2 -Cr) -I_ z z - r rn O G0 n ) 0 -n Dz �ji (0 mz m < • 1110 Q J e , rz m0 � 101t( Z m > f 0 0 C G) D r- m -1 Cii E > = m rT1 m c7 > V) z TCCI -rI T _ 0 O CDz0 O73 = 0D cp_ .I v OC Qa 2 m0 CL O O p n- C 0 0 cn 0 7) m 0 � > 2 o T O ;c W CD m — 2 0 Si O o 411 y O 0 Z m o m E ,71 m p 0 y r- z D p Z a' (N �• � � 0 Do C� iii OW o n X m ✓r^ -I 0 m m o z0 � O > 0 * m D o - 1- m v co Cn c Q m m ev 0 n CI) m D G N cn m m z > V4 0)- ...... o cm O 0 1 iN 0 O = r m W ,. o S ✓1 N < z = 7J c mI y m Ci 0 cn , 0 >mmrn Dm D 1Oz nO D vCC) C0 Z m f� m O m 0 ' m D m c) z M 6 Z > rn 2 X z �") G) z O m 0 CO 0_ti = mx, u CO CD W D C7 M (71' su m Oc CO 0) z � � � � �; - CD CO m � � V • � o „ � zcn a4 0 tm <xz o Cn m -1 o z 0 cil CY D m co 1 ` v> IIrm m � . '+ Ii is 0D Cn X Z � CO4-1/ romm C P3 me 2 oj O. i 73 T O • c- . m9p C pmo .. y 0 _ m IIm n xi D A, �'�` -nT O dz � m m _1 o (�J _ r0 m mi"_O corn m • m p fA DOD W �-0 m C v D o 0 :C, 00 —Ip O I- D / Ti m `� n � s ,OOm� O k b mD o _ STh zv K� -i 41 le 1 m m m _ (i`' G m m N � � 0 O D D Cn r r- = r- mm '� U mD m op ,o -I - m m m m _ V D _0 D D D r \ ir - 73 co n 6 0 C Z -min m O Zp i m -, m 22 mz (/V 0 M 0 Z D m 0 z O 2 cD fa) 2 _ 2 =°. CO -< r U)CD CD `E CD C C m = r 0 ii C D T —f ca r 70 O to Q A) c� m m -0 P _ o r m O .N-r 3 ..�.- rF r ,_, CD t K � > m O 3 G� C Z 0 z , m W. z � --I 0O \ Z O O I. 0 ,S m z m r 1- (1 c� ✓a � m „ p l7 ' (j� CO Z .P -i Zm bpO C nz r mw Fri —I DN v — (/ o mCD -n TI w C E 0 7z) O Cn w Q o on 1 Oo c > 1' w a m C. A, Q = W m 3 0. cn m 0 m' 00 00 $ p \ rZ .o�—amzz Dz E. -a Z —. �' -0 Z --I m 2 " n C v O ,m E. Or D -I01 K5 A m G P _1c, m W � • , • Al r Fm D o F/ P Z N r -I D -D-Io my 4.1 = N rr -, m m m� T� DOD 73 cn O r_ om r, r to WI = _O -< z � / 0 mz m w -I ):. 9 . ., = O 2 D D mm m or m - D ;nr o > M � • ED GI 0 - _ , 11� m o � o D U Z m az xi m -1 xi m z -1 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDNAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY _ COUNTY ❑CITY COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY // � S /,L �`/ , NAME OF�OLITICAL S^ DIVISION: `O `/. DATE ON WH H VOTE OCL`URRED MY POSITION IS:NI6"-ic- 1— 41)4'' -J❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority,or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate.Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAs)under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, e!7.__6r{'c r� K `� �f�yi�TT , hereby disclose that on /`SI,4 �- ); , , 20 = ,: (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or !� //7 inured to the special gain or loss of ,, >CA' . f-` ;.5 <�j T�—S <AC1 ,which is the parent subsidiary,or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. Date Filed/ Si nature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317,`A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. DARYL MAX FORGEY,AICP LAND USE PLANNER& EXPERT WITNESS FORGEY PLANNING LLC max(a�forgevplanning.com 239.560.5864 Ms. Rachel Hansen, Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Rachel.Hansen@colliercountyfi.gov (239) 252-1442 April 17, 2024 SUBJECT: EXPERT REBUTTAL AGAINST PROPOSED FIDDLER'S CREEK GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT BY FCC PRESERVE LLC FOR A PORTION OF SECTION 29 FOR A 750-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TRACT ON PROPERTY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO ROYAL PALM GOLF ESTATES CIRCA 5 MILES EAST OF NAPLES ON US 41, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING PROJECT APPLICATION NUMBERS PL20210003111, PL20210003112,AND PL20210003115. 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERT Purpose of this report.This report was prepared on behalf of clients JOHN ERARIO and SUE CAGLIOTI,who reside at 18411 Royal Hammock Road,Naples FL 34114. Their use and enjoyment of the property will be adversely affected by the proposed amendments to Collier County Growth Management Plan if approved. The proposed Collier County Growth Management Plan(GMP)would modify the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) references to development in Section 29 allow a maximum of 750 units of income-restricted multi-family housing on approximately 49.9 acres. The homeowners'property is adjacent to the subject property and separated by a drainage canal. This report sets forth the justifications for denial of the FLUM amendment, which is scheduled for public hearing on April 18, 2024, by the County's Local Planning Agency (LPA). This report supplements testimony which will be provided in person on Mr. Erario and Ms. Caglioti's behalf by other experts, as well as by neighbors and residents in the immediate vicinity. It should be noted that the staff report for the legislative GMP amendment, and for the two quasi-judicial actions, were not available for review when the bulk of this report was prepared, and clients 1 Page Erario and Caglioti and their professional team reserve the right to augment their data and analysis based upon information which may be contained in the staff report or obtained in the LPA hearing. Companion Application No. PL20210003112 and PL20210003115. This is a companion application to the Fiddler's Creek Development of Regional Impact(DRI)/Planned Unit Development(PUD) amendment applications (PL20210003115 and PL20210003112). Because the PUD provides for income-restricted dwelling units,the PUD, companion small-scale GMP amendment, and changes to the DRI qualify for an expedited review and hearing process. Qualifications and professional experience.The undersigned is a certified land use planner and expert witness with a Master of Public Affairs (MPA) degree with a concentration in Urban and Regional Planning from the O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington; and has been a member in good standing of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) since 1993.A copy of the resume of Daryl Max Forgey, detailing his professional qualifications and career experiences, is appended to this report. 2. LEGISLATIVE NATURE OF CASE Case No. PL20210003111 is legislative in nature. Comprehensive Plans in Florida must be amended by legislative procedures. W. Thomas Hawkins, in his magisterial Land Use Law in Florida [Routledge, 2021] posits that"[l]egislative actions create a general rule or policy which will be applicable to an open class of individuals, interests, or situations," and cites four examples of legislative actions, including Comprehensive Plan adoption and amendments, adoption of land development code, and rezoning of many properties. [pg. 51]. The proposed action is legislative in nature because it would amend the Collier County GMP, imposing a dramatic change in scale and intensity of use on 49.9 acres of land that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The GMP enshrines the County's vision of its future, one which provides guidance to property owners, local governments, and infrastructure and service providers, among others.A local government has every good reason to maintain its comprehensive plan and land development regulations in their existing state unless and until a better use reveals itself through the amendment process. The desires of one individual property owner for personal enrichment or aggrandizement should not justify replacing the property owner's existing entitlement. Hawkins summarized the judicial standard of review as follows: "Courts review legislative decisions using the fairly debatable standard. The standard has two parts. First, laws must bear a substantial relation to a legitimate police power purpose. Second, the connection between that rule and its purported purpose may not be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable." [pg. 51]. In this 2I case, there is no reason to doubt that the existing long-standing FLUM designations do not bear a substantial relation to a legitimate police power, and there is no reason to assume that denying an existing and long-standing FLUM designation could possibly be considered arbitrary or unreasonable. The undersigned concludes that the existing land use designations on the subject property allow a reasonable use to the applicant. The Board of County Commissioners, as the Collier County's governing body, has no obligation to transmit or adopt this amendment to its GMP, and should deny it outright. 3. INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND EXISTING USES Florida Statutes define"compatibility" as follows: "(9) 'Compatibility'means a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. " [Ch. 163.3164(9); emphasis added]. The proposed amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan would, if adopted, introduce a condition of incompatibility upon Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti and other area residents by imposing a dense multi-story residential development on a less-than-fifty-acre property towering over their existing single-family dwelling. These two uses—low versus high-rise; single-family residential versus 750-unit residential; quiet versus potentially noisy cannot coexist in such an extremely close proximity in a stable fashion over time without negatively impacting the use and enjoyment which is valued by Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti, and his neighbors. The proposed use fails to meet the test established in Ch. 163.3164(9), Florida Statutes, and should be denied for that reason alone. 4. AREAS OF CONCERN AND INSUFFICIENCY A. Growth Management Plan Consistency: Existing Land Uses. The Collier County Growth Management Plan defines the existing character of the surrounding area as generally lined with low-rise homes and agricultural land, which are mostly single-family homes on larger lots. The Growth Management Plan also articulates a vision for the area: "The region retains its residential and agricultural identity, comfortably removed from seasonal traffic congestion and outdoor entertainment activities that many residents find intrusive. " A"residential and agricultural identity" does not typically embrace the idea of an apartment complex with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The existing FLUM 3IPage designations of Agricultural and Conservation provide land use entitlements with many options for the landowners. These FLUM designations have been in place for a long time, and Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti, and their neighbors have relied upon the representations of the Growth Management Plan in good faith in building their single-family residences in the Fiddler's Creek development. The Applicant enjoys the same entitlement that they do, and any intensification of use would redound to the detriment of Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti, and their neighbors. B. Inappropriate Location: The proposed development's location near the Everglades makes it particularly sensitive due to potential impacts on critical wildlife areas and natural habitats.According to Policy 2.3 and Policy 5.1 from the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, developments that could alter natural shorelines or impact endangered species habitats are strongly discouraged. Positioning a project in such an ecologically sensitive area contradicts these policies and poses a risk to the environmental integrity of a region that Collier County aims to protect. The isolation of the site, adjacent to critical conservation areas, makes it an inappropriate choice for development, as it does not support the principle of sustainable, environmentally integrated urban planning. Conservation and Coastal Management Element • Policy 2.3: Collier County shall discourage the alteration of natural shorelines and preserve the existing natural resources within all designated critical wildlife areas to the maximum extent possible. The substantial impact that this development would have on natural resources, and specifically on the loss of habitat to the Florida Panther, will be presented by Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti, and other knowledgeable people. It is noteworthy that the applicant promised the BCC in 1998 to preserve the parent tract from which this 49.9 acre parcel was excised, with a conservation easement in favor of the County. In turn, the BCC relied upon the applicant's promise to grant it the entitlements the applicant has nearly used up as of this date. This failure to institute the conservation easement is evidence of the applicant's past bad faith in preserving existing natural resources within critical wildlife areas to the maximum extent possible as identified in Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 2.3. • Policy 5.1: Development shall be compatible with the conservation and preservation of natural resources and shall be directed away from areas that contain endangered or threatened species. 4 ' Page According to the staff report PUDA-PL20210003112, Section 29 is illustrated as "Conservation Collier lands and Collier Seminole State Park, with a zoning designation of A." [pg. 9] The staff report further concedes that"Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD and has found it not consistent with the GMP." [pg. 9] The proposed use is categorically inconsistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan; otherwise,the applicant would not find it necessary to obtain an amendment. Policy 5.1 requires new development to be "compatible with the conservation and preservation of natural resources," but would replace conservation land, which has been long promised for conservation easement with as many as 750 multifamily units at a potential density of 15 units per acre. Policy 5.1 further requires that new development be"directed sway from areas that contain endangered or threatened species," but would replace a parcel long promised from the County's potential inventory of habitat lands with a multifamily development right on the edge of remaining habitat. The proposed action is completely inconsistent with Policy 5.1. C. Level of Services Issues: The proposed development is characterized by significant concerns related to urban sprawl, specifically leapfrog development, where new developments are not contiguous to existing urban areas and lack necessary infrastructure. This type of development strains local resources, including transportation networks, and complicates emergency management plans such as hurricane evacuation routes. Policy 3.5 and Policy 4.2 of the Transportation Element require that new developments support and enhance existing infrastructure. Furthermore, Policy 2.4 and Policy 1.3 from the Public Facilities Element underline the importance of concurrency management, ensuring that infrastructure such as roads and stormwater facilities are in place to support new development. The current lack of such infrastructure at the proposed site exemplifies the challenges of leapfrog development and underscores the unsuitability of the location based on the GMP guidelines. Transportation Element • Policy 3.5: Development shall not adversely affect the existing level of service of roads within the County and must contribute to the enhancement of the transportation network where deficits are identified. • Policy 4.2: New developments must demonstrate the feasibility of providing adequate access and transportation infrastructure to support the proposed use. The proposed development will adversely affect existing level of service standards within Collier County by introducing, according to the understated estimates of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and the PUD staff report [pg. 10] of an additional 343 Wage PM peak trips. The situation would be exacerbated by the impact on the 72 hour evacuation clearance time as stated at length in the Daniel Trescott report. The application for GMP amendment is inconsistent with Transportation Element Policies 3.5 and 4.2, and should be denied on account of those inconstancies. Public Facilities Element • Policy 2.4: Concurrency management will be enforced to ensure that public facilities necessary to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of development. • Policy 1.3: The County shall require that all development maintain adequate stormwater facilities to accommodate increased runoff and prevent increased flooding risks. The subject property is an isolated tract located at the far southern end of the of the County's rural fringe and is not served by infrastructure or services. D. Inappropriate Location of Affordable Housing Locating affordable housing in an isolated area without adequate access to essential services such as public transportation, healthcare, education, and employment opportunities is contrary to the principles outlined in Policy 1.8 and Policy 3.2 of the Housing Element. These policies emphasize the integration of affordable housing within established communities to ensure residents can access necessary services and support. The proposed site's detachment from urban amenities undermines the viability of the affordable housing set-aside and contradicts the GMP's goals to foster inclusive, well-serviced communities. Housing Element • Policy 1.8:Affordable housing should be located within established communities with sufficient access to community services,public transportation, and infrastructure to support community integration. This policy stipulates that affordable housing should be integrated within communities that already have established infrastructure and amenities, ensuring residents have access to necessary services and transportation. • Policy 3.2:Affordable housing developments should be located in proximity to major employment centers and should have access to public transportation and other critical services to support the needs of low-income residents. 6IPage Advocates for affordable housing developments to be near employment centers, schools, and healthcare facilities to reduce transportation barriers for low-income families. The proposed uses are more than five miles from the County's employment centers. 4. Compatibility: As stated above, "compatibility" is defined in Florida Statutes, and this proposed development is not compatible with neighboring uses. By introducing urban-level intensity into a predominantly suburban and rural setting disrupts the existing land use and community fabric, leading to a stark contrast that can degrade the quality of life and aesthetic values of the area. Policy 6.5 and Policy 7.1 from the Future Land Use Element aim to prevent such incompatible developments by maintaining the character of the community and restricting urban sprawl. Moreover, the lack of nearby recreational spaces and community facilities in the project plan violates Policy 1.3.2 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, which mandates that developments contribute positively to community livability and access to public recreational areas. Future Land Use Element • Policy 6.5: Land use changes shall maintain the rural and residential character of the surrounding areas and shall not allow incompatible uses that would change the established character. A 750 unit multifamily development with a maximum allowable density of 15 units per acre in the middle of an existing conservation district will do nothing to maintain either the existing rural or the existing single family residential character of the surrounding area. • Policy 7.1: Urban sprawl shall be contained by directing growth to areas that are already characterized by urban uses and have existing public infrastructure. "Urban Sprawl"is defined in Florida Statutes Sec. 163.3164(52) as follows: "...a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses." While the proposed use is not characterized by low density development, it urban sprawl in all other ways, and would require the inefficient extension of urban services to the edge of the Everglades/Ten Thousand Islands wetlands. Recreation and Open Space Element 7I • Policy 1.3.2: New developments must provide or contribute to public recreational areas and trails as part of project mitigation to enhance the livability and community value of the surrounding area. The proposed development would not provide or contribute to public recreational areas or trails beyond its own 49.9-acre tract, nor would it enhance the livability and community value of the surrounding area. 5. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING DENIAL OF APPLICATION The Collier County Local Planning Agency (LPA) and the Board of County Commissioners should deny this proposed FLUM amendment based upon the following findings of fact: Finding l: The Collier County Growth Management Plan was adopted by ordinance and is applicable to all land uses in unincorporated Collier County, including the subject property and the neighboring Fiddler's Creek development. Finding 2: The Growth Management Plan, of which the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) are constituent parts, has designated all portions of the subject property as either Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD) or Conservation. Finding 3: The proposed amendment is a legislative action, and the Board of County Commissioners, as the County's governing body, is under no obligation to approve the application for FLUM amendment. Finding 4: The owner of the subject property, FCC Preserve, LLC, enjoys a bountiful entitlement that exceeds those enjoyed by neighboring residential properties, and would suffer no harm if the proposed application were denied. Finding 5: The proposed uses are incompatible, as the term is defined in Florida Statutes Sec. 163.3164(9), in scale and use with neighboring properties, and the incompatibility cannot be ameliorated over time if approved as proposed. In addition, if approved,the proposed project will become the new example of which to assert compatibility for future projects, further threatening the low-density, quiet existing character of the surrounding area. Finding 6: The proposed redesignation of the property to include more intensive residential uses would replace a predominately low-density rural district with a much higher-density residential district, and would have a profound impact on nearby conservation and low-density residential uses in the form of increased traffic, noise, light, and potential 24-hour activities. 8I ' Finding 7: The proposed use should not be designated as a higher-density residential use because it would significantly exceed the densities and uses allowed on the subject property by the existing Growth Management Plan, and the existing zoning entitlements without sufficient infrastructure or community benefit to justify such an increase. Finding 8: The proposed use, which would enable development of a multifamily residential project of as many as 750 units, including a maximum of 150 affordable housing units, is located at a long distance from the community infrastructure and services and retail opportunities that are needed by Collier County's workforce and their families. The apartment units will be at least a two mile bicycle ride to the nearest bus stop, elementary school or other service and would isolate the workforce and their families from the community. Finding 9: The applicant has offered no evidence that they sought the endorsement prospective employers of Collier County's critical workforce, including teachers, health care workers, police, firefighters, EMS/EMT, and specifically that those employers identified a need for multifamily development on the extreme fringe of the developable portion of Collier County to accommodate their workforce. Based upon the above findings, and the testimony which will be presented by Mr. Erario, Ms. Caglioti,their neighbors and other subject matter experts, the undersigned, in his professional opinion, recommends denial of this application. Respectfully, '''*51°--. Daryl Max Forgey AICP#051,330 max@forgeyplanning.com cc: John Erario Sue Caglioti Tom Slaughter,Cape Land 9IPage NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public healing will be Held by the IleMar Comity PianoMg Commission(OM))at 9:00 A.M.on April 18,2024,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room.Ihiro Roth,Collier Govemment Canter.3299 famiami Trail East,Naples,Fl to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89.05.AS AMENDED.THE COWER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FBA THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,fLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE• FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE FIDDLER'S CREEK SECTION 29 DEVELOPMENT AREA AND AMENDING THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE NEUTRAL LANDS WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT,AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION,TO REMOVE ENVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS ON SECTION 29 AND ALLOW 750 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,30%OF WHICH WILL RE RENT RESTRICTED AS • AFFORDABLE,ON 49.9I .ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED 9 MILES SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST(U.S.41)AND 3,4 MILES EAST OF AUTO AMON ROAD,IN SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP S i SOUTH,RANGE 27 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;AND FURTHERMORE,DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;nflOVIDlNd FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ((PL202100ikf 1'i'!1 ?�'' ' Project ,"1�e.4 ''' . " . Location t • I co A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF C`3LLwER COUNTY; FLORIDA,AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3,AS• 23 n AMENDED,FOR THE MARCO SNORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT,BY PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE:AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3,AS AMENDED.TO ADD 750 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 8,750 SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI- e FAMILY DWELLING UNITS;TO ADD CONVERSION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS;TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS OUTSIDE OF SECTION 29 TO 6,000;TO LIMIT THE ADDITIONAL 750 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO SECTION 28 ONLY AND DISALLOW THEM FROM THE CONVERSION FORMULA;AND 7D CORRECT A SCRIVENE :S ERROR;SECTION TWO AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT PC-A'!, i MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN,TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA AT COLLIER BOULEVARD AND FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAY BY p REDESIGNATIi6 A PORTION OF OlYSINESS TRACT TO RESIDENTIAL TRACT AND A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL TRACT TO BUSINESS TRACT;AND TO 23 ADD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA TO SECTION 29 BY REDESIGNATING A PORTION OF PARK TRACT TO RESIDENTIAL TRACT AND ADDING A C) PROJECT ENTRANCE;SECTION THREE:FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION FOUR:CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;SECTION FIVE:EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED I DEVELOPMENT ORDER,TRANSMITTAL'TO ii.an-)A DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY iJ CO?IylS"SING OF 3932 ACRES IS LOCATED EAST OfCOLLIER BOULEVARD{CR 951)AND SOUTH OF 7AMlA9II TRAIL EAST((IS 41)IN SECTIONS 11, _ ri 13,14.15,23,23 AND 24,TOWNSHIP 51 SOWER,RANGE 28 HST AND SECTION-318,19 AND 29,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,HAF1SE 27 EAST,IN COLLIER N COUNTY,FLORIDA.WP1202100031161 0 AND tv AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 84-42,AS AMENDED, 96-42,96-14.98-13,2000.84.AND 18-27,THE MARCO SNORES/FIDDLER'S CHEEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 6,ODD TO 6,760,BY ADDING 750 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH SOME AFFORDABLE ROWING TO SECTION 29;'TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA FROM 1,280 ACRES TO 1,330 ACRES; AND DECREASE PARK ACREAGE AND RECONFIGURE Xi ACREAGE IN SECTION ATO PROVIDE FOR A CONVERSION FACTOR FOR SINGLE-FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS EXCLUDING Xi SECTION 29;TO CHANGE INTENSITY OF GROUP NOOSING FROM 26 UNITS PER ACRE TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF.60;TO ADD ADULT CONGREGATE T. LIVING FACILITIES AS A LAND USE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE BIJSiNESS DISTRICT;TO REMOVE.LANES AND RECONFIGURE PEI RESIDENTIAL AND ROSINESS TRACTS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE COLLIER BOULEVARD ENTRANCE;TO AMEND MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT FC-Al; 461 PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 3932 ACRES iS O LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD(CR 951)AND SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST(US 41)IN SECTIONS it.13,14,IS,22,23,AND 24, y TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTIONS III,'IS AND 29.TOWNSHIP SI SOUTH,RANGE 27 EAST,IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, r (PL20210003112) Z eri ta . , Project 1 Location co • • • it � 0,, 1 -<F aTG01'0 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copley of the proposed Ordinances&Resolution will De shade available to Inspection at the Collier County Clerks office,fourth flea,Collier County Government Conies 3209 East Iambus Trail.Suite 401.Ndhles,FL 34112,one(1)weak prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments roust be Fled with the Zoning 9ivlsree,prior to April 13 2024. vs part of en ongofng Initiative to encouragepublic involvement the public will nave the opportunity to provide public comments remotely,as well as In person,during this proceeding.individuals'who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting. entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.cslliercoentnLgnv/aur_raunty/visuors/calender-of-evetris after the agents is posted on rile County website.Registration should ne done In advance al the public meearoj.or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice.Individuals who register will receive an email In advance di the public,nearing entailing how they can paricinafe remotely in this meeting.Remote participation Is prnvkled as a courtesy end is at tee user's risk,the County is vol responsible for technical issues.Eor additional Information about the meeting,please call Geoffrey WEIR; at 252-8369 or email to Geofiray'.ViIligtcolliarountn lgsv Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to unsure That a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which tha appeal is based. ft you are a poison with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East.Suite 101.Naples.Ft. 341 t 5356..2391 25E-938 1 .Ras:two 121 days prim lo ti4;inefitipft.,ts,ateo listeri ny devicnes",,',5-,ee ee; rhpairer ale aveiiahll IF the hoard S' Coast,'fummss,oners OffiC,. ":allif. ':_. "at,:,in;t::.;,,:•:i•.,,._ hUai!, =ry'.. ,Aritr`aa ( L3 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in Ordinance Number 84-42 on June 12, 1984. There have been several subsequent ordinances: Ordinance numbers 88-48, 89-34, 91-06, 92-90, 96-42, 96-74, 98-13, 98-38, 00-84, and 18-27. The PUD is currently approved for 6,000 single-family and multi-family residential units,325,000 square feet of business/commercial area, a golf course, preserve areas, and parks. It is partially developed with single-family and multi-family residences, an office building, parks, reserve/preserve areas, community clubhouses, and a golf course. The petitioner is proposing the following changes with this amendment: • Increase the number of dwelling units from 6,000 to 6750 by adding 750 multi-family dwelling units with some affordable housing to Section 29; • Increase the residential development area from 1,280 acres to 1,330 acres; decrease Park acreage; and reconfigure preserve acreage in Section 29; • Provide for a conversion factor for multi-family and single-family dwelling units excluding Section 29; • Change the intensity of group housing from 26 units per acre to a floor area ratio of.60; • Add adult congregate living facilities as a land use to the Residential district and the Business district; • Improvements to Auto Ranch Road, including a sidewalk, resurfacing, elevating the roadway above the 25-year, 3-day storm event, and providing culverts; • Provide a CAT bus stop (subject to FDOT authorization) at the intersection of Auto Ranch Road and U.S. 41 East; • Provide a developer's contribution of 480 general population cots, 84 persons with special needs cots, and a towable generator in support of emergency evacuation efforts; • Remove lakes and reconfigure Residential and Business tracts along the north side of the Collier Boulevard entrance; and • Update the Master Plan(Exhibit FC-A1)by reconfiguring the following: o converting a portion of the park tract and the preserve tract in Section 29 to a residential tract; o reconfiguring residential and business tracts north of the Collier Boulevard PUD entrance; and o reconfiguring the residential tracts in the eastern portion of the PUD For further information,please see Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING(of the entire PUD): North: Developed and undeveloped agricultural uses with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A), residential uses with a zoning designation of Residential Single-family (RSF-3), commercial uses with a zoning designation of Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and Heavy Commercial (C-5), industrial uses with a zoning designation of Industrial (I), recreational vehicle and mobile home use with a zoning PUDA-PL20210003112, FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD March 27,2024 Page 7 of 25 04;10;4- PL20210003111 REQUESTED ACTION: pt. The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to modify the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD)Neutral Lands designation of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)to allow development of 750 residential units on 49.9 acres of the Section 29 portion of the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD, inclusive of affordable housing. The applicant also proposes amending the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and creating a new map ("Fiddler's Creek Section 29 Development Area") in the FLUM series to identify the development area. The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is attached as Exhibit"A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To amend the RFMUD-Neutral Lands designation to allow for the development of up to 750 multi-family units within the proposed Section 29 Development Area. Of the 750 units, 15% will be set aside for households whose incomes are less than 80%of the Area Median Income(AMI)and 15%for households whose incomes are between 81%and 100%of the AMI. A companion petition(PL20220002908)would amend the existing Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development(PUD)to increase the total number of permitted dwelling units from 6,000 to 6,750.The petition also seeks to modify the Master Plan by reconfiguring a portion of the preserve tract and converting a portion of the park tract in Section 29 to a residential tract. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The ±49.9-acre site is zoned Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD and is a portion of the northern half of Section 29. The entire half section is undeveloped,with the eastern half having been previously cleared for pasture lands. The entire subject site is designated RFMUD-Neutral Lands and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area(CHHA)as identified on the FLUE. Surrounding Lands: North—(Immediately north: drainage canal 110 feet)Future Land Use Designation: RFMUD-Neutral Lands. Zoned: Residential Single Family-3 (RSF-3), Boyne South RPUD (Royal Palm Golf Estates), Agricultural, and Mobile Home. Land Use: single-family residential with golf course and single- family/mobile home residential on the east and west sides of Auto Ranch Road. East—Future Land Use Designation:Conservation.Zoned:Conservation-Special Treatment.Land Use: Collier Seminole State Park. South—Future Land Use Designation:Conservation.Zoned:Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD.Land Use: undeveloped. West—Future Land Use Designation:Conservation.Zoned: Agricultural.Land Use:undeveloped,with a portion previously cleared for a salvage yard at the terminus of Auto Ranch Road. In summary, the existing land uses in the surrounding area are largely undeveloped agricultural and conservation land, with the exception of the Royal Palm Golf Estates PUD immediately to the north and the residential along Auto Ranch Road. The applicant has proposed a single access to the subject property at the end of Auto Ranch Road, intending to connect to a former road bed(Belle Meade Grade). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The FLUE designates this property as RFMUD-Neutral Lands.The RFMUD provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development and allow a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. The recent RFMUD restudy began in 2015 and focused on issues of complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environmental stewardship. Restudy-based GMP amendments were adopted in 2023 (Ordinance 2023-25) and had minimal impact on the Neutral Lands designation; the changes included removal of the 40-acre minimum project size for clustered development and allowance for the use of TDR credits for existing agriculture and conservation uses. 3 . . AL„.L. i 0.,...5-- ,,,... 7: II :':-) 111 A ,t j t 3 '14 a 131P° , -•fr I .,...:I 1 i•I ] III I * .; t .,. ... 1 1 r. t3 i t tt ± • , ir ....,r. I ' .7i7144441fit;i, , * - \ . •1* 2 y , ,,, ,,,,k:t> - , li a/4y-- . . , , ,• . , ,, ..„. . ' .. ., . ., . ,7., . ,.. , , , 1 ,.... ,•,-:-.,,,,, 7,. ... t.--e / . , . . , .., . CL,) • , . :, .• ,., 4 ifq, , • i, ..... i illi Old Master Plan PUDA-PL20210003112,FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD March 27,2024 Page 5 of 25 ... • • . pb...g ,.......„, ...,, ; , ,.., ,,,, n i'• .,=., ., L., h ig i.1 `0, 7. 5,- a re -0 g:2 .1 e.• 3 0 3 4: .1 ''.. 6'4" 5 P.ti.,•.,1 4;•,-;,* a (% L I ....5. -T- U- .= 1 1 .._ ,.... _ _... _ C.J rf 0 I _ I I I I ' 41,`,3 /// --- ----- u.1 z= // ; ,..▪., — 0 < Ci .6.am , Y 11111 IN - t'l Oiiiik_ji 11486 I 1111 ., *., ,... CL) .5.r... (I,' WA 7 4".z4.4,,,,,4".....so= 73 tt X %•.0. ccA ili , -1 i'll tl e••• - y • 0-,N- .....E. ,, i •/ / ' 4fitie'd(-----1------- 'i , _ , , __ a ej, . ' fretk'Ofr-------N,N,1%...-4g ; fre-,'" " 4,......,_. i) ...... .....,„,, ,,,,,, / :,., , .,.. v . . • er...;, 1-....-•:,4,.-.7 :, fl,t 1---- , ,:;• ' „4'4__-..s.i-4.• . , vT, ), p'hr iA y.1 , 4:Fr ..,....4 tgi•`,t,4"o I.:t x'.-4c..='nr.'fi''i t•ri.li ,•„ /'-? . ., au h. 4,/- r i 8 •••: i>• i ,,, ti/ /-- / ••"-....,--- * , . ,...... Ili ilaitil 0 . /.,.."....4 ° I \NO t A •.1.....4 411 Proposed Master Plan PUDA-PL20210003112, FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD March 27,2024 Page 4 of 25 • 1 `e�`a ORDINANCE 98- 13 • \0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES • THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE WHICH AMENDS ZONING ATLAS MAPS • • NUMBERED 171718, 1719, and 512728 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A"RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO"PUD"PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK FOR APPROXIMSTELY 1385 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF PROPERTY FOR GOLF COURSE ANt tPEN ' -r' SPACE USES LOCATED IN SECTIONS 18, 19, AND 29, TOWNSIIP 51 — • �- SOUTH,RANGE 27 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;AND AMENDING is rr PUD ORDINANCES NUMBERED 84-42, 96-42, AND 96-74 1gHICH T7 ESTABLISHED THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PLANNEIS'UNIT `. • ' DEVELOPMENT, TOGETHER WITH ALL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS c THERETO BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION TWO, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION I ENTITLED PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION; SECTION THREE, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II ENTITLED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT; SECTION FOUR, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION V ENTITLED RESERVE DISTRICT - FIDDLER'S CREEK; SECTION FIVE, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VIII ENTITLED PARKS, UNIT 30, UNIT 24, ••;$,,,w4. BARFIELD BAY MF AND HORR'S ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AREAS; SECTION SIX,AMENDMENTS TO SECTION XI ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; SECTION SEVEN, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION XII ENTITLED STIPULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS;AND SECTION EIGHT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,on June 12, 1984,the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 84-42 establishing the Marco Shores Planned Unit Development;and • WHEREAS, subsequent to said approval the Marco Shores PUD Was amended on several occasions;and • WHEREAS, on July 23, 1996, the Marco Shores PUD was again amended by Ordinance Number 96-42 to add 22.9 acres to Unit 30 and to establish the Fiddler's Creek Area of said PUD; and • r<. WHEREAS,on November 26, 1996,the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance • Number 96-74 to add 690 acres to the Fiddler's Creek area of the Marco Shores PUD;and WHEREAS, George L. Varnadoe, Esquire of Young, van Assenderp& Varnadoe, P.A., representing D Y Associates Joint Venture,a Florida general partnership,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit ws' Development,as amended. ' NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier ` ' $t4�1 4 4.4:kilo;t Words shaded arc additions;words a,,,.k th..,..bh arc deletions. s - 4 • • County,Florida that: ' SECTION ONE: REZONE OF AGRICULTURAL AREA FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO"PUD"PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The zoning classification of the real property described herein as set forth in Exhibit"A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference, located in Sections 18, 19, and 29, Township 51 South,Range 27 East,Collier County,Florida,as indicated on Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 171718, 1719,and 512728 is hereby changed from"A",Rural Agricultural to"PUD"in accordance • with the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD Document,as amended,and as further amended herein, ° • Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 171718, 1719,and 51272Z as described in Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code,are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION Section I entitled"Property Ownership and Description"of Ordinances numbered 84-42, and • 96-74,the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD, as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property,with the exception of Unit 30,is currently under the ownership of The II Deltona Corporation,3250 S.W. 3 Avenue,Miami,Florida 33129. A portion of Unit 30 (243± acres) has been developed as a resort golf course and is owned by Massachusetts ,,, .' Mutual Life Insurance Company. Another tract(43.01±acres)is owned by Southern States f Utilities and is utilized as part of their wastewater treatment operations. The Collier County School Board owns a twelve(12)acre tract in Unit 30. The remainder of Unit 30 within the Fiddler's Creek PUD is owned by G13Cru l ey 100,Inc.,a Florida corporation and Parcel Z,Inc.,a Florida corporation,jointly doing business as 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture,a Florida general partnership,hereinafter referred to as Developer. Unit 30 will be known as and referred to as Fiddler's Creek. • 1.7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . The developer of Fiddler's Creek has established a Community Development District("CDD") for the property owned by developer within the Unit 30 portion of the Marco Shores PUD, together with the adjacent 22.9 acre parcel which was previously incorporated into Fiddlers Creek. The Developer of Fiddler's Creek may establish a Community Development District - for the 690 ac ca Lcing add,d to Fiddler's Creek Fxd . As recognized by Development • Order 84-3, as amended, a CDD constitutes a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economical way to ensure the provision of facilities and infrastructure to Fiddler's Creek, ',. including the additions thereto. , rt, • u The 690 acres additivri Fiddler'dCreWdttian is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers set forth in Chapter 190,F.S.(1995). x4 '• aaddt.bot aaree reek Sri 'y w ¢a: South,Rangy v JA`71y ti•' e ba°I3'' �§ t " 29, o vntsfup 5 k' X. F , x � a 27 .._ by thisi♦ . .. . . e>6tt#,:.. . _.. , , , thriddles c{l do z, W• , additions;words sties{u,r 6h are deletions. 2 ±} At tw • • SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SECTION • Section II entitled "Project Development" of Ordinances numbered 84-42 and 96-74, the • Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD, as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: LAND USE SUMMARY MARCO SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT • • LAND USE Unit 30 Unit 24 Isles of Horr's Barfield J S Creek 000dland TOTAL Capri Island , Bay MF MF Marina • Residential Multi- 142.30 105.89 28.80 12.10 289.09 Family • Single-Family 0.00 Residential 1140,30 142.30 105.89 28,80 12.10 442939 88i:96A 1171.05 Business 33.62 12.60 7.44 1.70 55.36 Pack. 1205 13.20 32.30 4.10 s116`45 FItttt -23c89 Recreation and 1..4 2;98 10.00 4,70 15.02 15,13 d Wen space•• 790.03 819.75 Schools 12 12.00 24.00 Utility 43.41 10.00 53.41 Comm.Facilities 6.03 2.00 8.03 Churches 5.00 5.00 Lakes 11 '.72 30.80 147,52 -09702 -460:8; Roads •4 23.60 10.60 0.30 0.81 261` 117.11 152.42 • Other 110$ 16.07 5.54 0.44 1f1243 ^4}$} -63706 TOTAL PUD 47,1;99 277.57 7.44 142.89 49.04 14.54 15.83 {P130 ACRES•••• 2379.11 3886:+2 Residential Units 6000 2544 300 314 72 9230 • • Development Tract tyfil 9.17 2.10 6.40 4.95 0.00 Density 2.55 --3728 • • • *Not differentiated ••Includes 243.3703 acres of preserve ****Original PUD did not include 421 acres of preserve in acreage •. . . X. F Wtt tt '•tifacti " ?t.fiili 1S i 4. 1tegAt aA Pro3 4 2.4. MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY No more than a maximum of 9,230 residential dwelling units,single and multi-family,shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project is 2806 42 witim acres. The gross project density,therefore,is 3-20 rd.units per acre. The following is a summary of acreage, dwelling units and density of each of the development areas shown on the site development plans. Words#2441 are additionr,words s6....4,tf...,.,ak are deletions. 3 • Development Area Acres Dwelling Unit Gross Density Unit3e`- ti►"` eEJ 1y763?3 6,000 :5P 2;379.11 2.55 Unit 24 277.57 2,544 9.17 Isle of Capri 7.44 0 N/A Horr's Island 142.89 300 2.10 • • Barfield Bay MF 49.04 314 6.40 John Stevens Creek 14.54 72 4.95 Goodland Marina 15.83 0 N/A 2,596.42 9230 310 0,7110 Z Y6 l., `Corrects original PUD which did not reflect 42 acres of preserve. 2.8 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION Within Fiddler's Creek, the lake setback requirements specified in the Land Development Code may be reduced with the administrative approval of the Collier County Development Services Director. All lakes may be excavated in accordance with the cross-sections set forth in the Settlement Agreement,as those cross-sections may be amended as provided in the Settlement Agreement, except for Sc.tiun 1}t}1Cd`>t I ' i '11;which shall be pursuant to the Land Development Code requirements. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENTS TO RESERVE DISTRICT- FIDDLER'S CREEK SECTION Section V entitled"Reserve District-Fiddler's Creek"of Ordinances numbered 84-42 and 96-74,the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD,as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected,altered, or used,or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: • A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks, including recreational shelters and • restrooms. (2) Biking, hiking,and nature trails(excluding asphalt paved trails in wetlands). (3) Non-gasoline powered boating trails. (4) Water management facilities, structures and lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural treatments. • (5) Roadway crossings and utility crossings as designated on the Master Plan. • (6) Those activities reasonably necessary to effectuate the Fiddler's Creek Wildlife Words ji1Slsq�f are additions,words ae..,.l d, bh are deletion, 4 SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENTS TO PARKS,UNIT 30,UNIT 24,BARFIELD BAY MF AND HORR'S ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AREAS SECTION Section VIII entitled "Parks, Unit 30, Unit 24, Barfield Bay MF and Horr's Island Development Areas"of Ordinances numbered 84-42 and 96-74,the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek . PUD, as amended, is hereby amended to add two paragraphs entitled "Purpose" and "Uses Permitted"for the Fiddler's Creek Addition,Section 29,and to change the Section VIII title to read as fodo a SECTION VIII PARKS, UNIT 30, UNIT 24, BARFIELD BAY *NB !MMUS AREAS .• $4 7k t L d"`otifilk . tnt>r3t 1 K45.00004f lr il ti ltittiipl`t ititki Sg011 . 6t1M. uu� sfs1'a'.` ii nR ',n .. MORE � wuzzr-i ,rnu ... a n,: .�,,yam, l U GIC.�1 faillif ltiS:et¢a kd`ta G"t Wita`>tfulc ti i Cat. ? iiaslVRnL4fI►1lk,FjC1 ,89AtIC�Sa2nilaUei $ t is hik1It ;Ma btitt 3#s l) �.ynrzex++w.�s zr am1? 1s; ttAtuf„ =anth,E( `aregof g usu t° � irdA1,6a1p4.61ii SECTION SIX: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION Section XI entitled"Development Standards"of Ordinances numbered 84-42 and 96-74,the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD,as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.5 CLEARING,GRADING,EARTHWORK,AND SITE DRAINAGE All clearing grading,earthwork and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with the applicable state and local codes as modified in this document and by the Fill Agreement dated April 4, 1995,between Collier County and the Developer. The Settlement Agreement and the conceptual drainage plans submitted with this application along with the recommendations of the various review committees will be used as a guide to the final development of the drainage and road systems within the various development areas. • Wadi OM are additions;words sn....A U,.�«61r arc deletions. 6 • • AMENDMENT TO MARCO SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO: • FIDDLER'S CREEK PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. VARNADOE,ESQ. YOUNG,VAN ASSENDERP& VARNADOE, P.A. 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 300 NAPLES,FL 34108 (941)597-2814 DATE FILED: 24•cr 411it3O-1996 DATE APPROVED BY CCPC: Nu x 7,-1926 i DATE APPROVED BY BCC: ORDINANCE NUMBER: 91—/3 96-94 Womb W at addidar,wads airs4r4nrisik w.d.l.da+a • 9., • • .. �»• ra SECTION V RESERVE DISTRICT FIDDLER'S CREEK 5.1 PURPOSF, The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Fiddler's Creek designated on the Master Plan, as Reserve. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Reserve on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range • of conservation and limited water management uses and functions. The primary purpose of the Reserve district is to retain viable naturally functioning systems, to allow for restoration and enhancement of impacted or degraded systems,to provide a buffer between the Fiddler's Creek development and the adjoining state owned lands, and to provide an open space • amenity for the enjoyment of Fiddler's Creek residents. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or pan thereof,shall be erected,altered,or used,or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks, including recreational shelters and restrooms. (2) Biking, hiking, and nature trails(excluding asphalt paved trails in wetlands). (3) Non-gasoline powered boating trails. (4) Water management facilities, structures and lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural treatments. (5) Roadway crossings and utility crossings as designated on the Master Plan. (6) Those activities reasonably necessary to effectuate the.Fiddler's Creek Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan adopted as mitigation for the United States Corps of Engineers Dredge and Fill Permit No. 78B-0683, as amended. Word. +� are additions) word' aa....► cfi....yfi are dalatlons. 5 - 1 • (7) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Development Services Director determines to be compatible in the Reserve District. aNS' .Say r //Y //,C rl /,% Y /%♦''Y //// // 5 ' tt1bftO �'� f l .. yg r• nr ,v .xc, / SY Y / 'yrn .act ,c ,sw/ `rrrs- v q/ � qi/r vyii 'A( st ' `�ch�+ dtpSsht"l ulptxn :�.5 H ,W /. •'�Py :.r. f '!Y{' <I. r/R N Y" 131C'( Y NA////N Z k^/!H'Y'Y b / /b areas>o Maximum extent pradtcable,in proy}d`tttg aatcf access through,the l e erve ( `I'tUC ` .sswa�f tale '. itE et'VI�C5 5 1 . 4 ♦. ✓n•n.♦ • 4F dubj�x�o Perm!ttt»g:��fis�tm�tt�x"�"�a'�tE;�c►d,�!`�f ��/e�a,�,cres (2) The aeaEiay shall tet'or, sea`: r`p8i►,dingubutar,' ndrpedesCnai Access f o the'lake and'oibe `r"ecreatieitai'fa jlit1 s't6,,,id,located ut$ectto�n:29 of) ddyet'a Cr""c'e1F .. 4/"4 i-,Cy, // %/i/" / � :SA,'//✓/:Oi v � '/Syj/ y bfU r. (3) „1� $'W��f t.'�6��G �. 3'1,511 i.�� ;:.. ..a arms a'vu.s , N' S 'iI//B�Y'/N' /W/ M/ /.� x,•G SSY/.Sy(' // l/H/l Y.{U Y/' treaeda;tt pnvate uccesssyvay f'ar;batdeeta,�f)ridier'a Creek y�I'heret`or N "/ y �mit"rd��ui' ad ��t'rtdymatenal'a t4tit ed Io Wmize- the fi'"cctasw Ana . eaVtpplentaj.,. pacts; � -slw/r/ ♦fs' Nm' ,� /n sY,Htf aq a/�' e/i �ArY,r f fd3�a ed s AVATOR t ' e 35tredar,,�my 5tte ac A•' /yMNii �h iaF, N sr/9 t u X♦✓ S ♦ / - 4 a ,fd th 'a c s� y e tevvi d y the av onmeatal 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Within Fiddler's Credo,with the exception ofSSa,tion 13sragmetax 1U' ),all structures shall setback a minimum of five feet(5)from Reserve district boundaries and roads,except for pathways,boardwalks and water management structures,which shall have no setback. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands in S&.ctk i }3riaa ant extending at least fifteen feet(15)landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five feet(25)from the landward edge of wetlands. B. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. '"u '.t Words $11114.21ar• ■dditlonsn vorda etr.ak—Nrresgk ar• deletions, 5-2 ..« L �T, C. Maximum height of structures-Twenty-five feet (25'). r', . s D. Minimum distance between principal structures-Ten feet(10). Fr' E. Minimum distance between accessory structures-Five feet(5'). F. Minimum floor area-None required. G. Minimum lot or parcel area-None required. H. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within adopted Fiddler's Creek Design Guidelines and Standards, are to be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effecvat the time of Site Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. • 5.5 RESERVE DISTRICT CONSERVATION EASEMENT A non-exclusive conservation easement will be established pursuant to the Fiddler's Creek Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan and Collier County Land Development • Code Section 3.2.8.4.7.3,to the extent such section does not conflict with said Management Plan requirements e tite igfa Y dsr Y'✓�%/f' ;/�4 M/ N1' r /i/.f'1✓/ 9'i/rb'/i YJ' Wi3i3' ifi gifirO4W.0, u3? '' . ►Cls � „ „,. , Word. I.ace additions; words wt. c/rre.pA are deletions. 5-3 1 9t P r'., Gary K. Oldehoff Vilma Professional Association May 8, 2023 Amy Patterson, County Manager 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5746 James French, Growth Management Department Head 2800 Horseshoe Drive N Naples, FL 34104 Sarah Harrington-Riccio, Manager Environmental Services 2800 Horseshoe Drive N Naples, FL 34104 Re: Conservation Easements Required by Zoning Approvals and to Comply with County Land Development Regulations Fiddler's Creek PUD Dear Ms. Patterson, Mr. French, and Ms. Harrington-Riccio: I represent a group of residents in Royal Palm Golf Estates. We have discovered that the Owner/Developer of Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD has failed to place conservation easements upon lands designated Preserve on the PUD Master Plan, as required by Section 5.5 of the PUD Zoning Ordinance. We have further discovered that the County staff has failed to monitor or enforce this critical requirement of the PUD Zoning Ordinance for more than twenty years. The failure involves hundreds of acres and large tracts on the south part of Fiddler's Creek. Based on conversations with staff it further appears that the failure is not isolated to Fiddler's Creek and may likely be a systemic failure at the County for many years and there are other similar unprotected lands. According to the PUD: Areas designated as Preserve on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of conservation and limited water management uses and functions. The primary purpose of the Preserve district is to retain viable naturally functioning systems, to allow for restoration and enhancement of impacted or degraded systems, to provide a buffer between the Fiddler's Creek development and the adjoining state owned lands, and to provide an open space amenity for the enjoyment of the Fiddler's Creek residents. In 1998, 1385 acres was added to the Fiddler's Creek PUD by comprehensive plan amendment and PUD ordinance amendment. Over 600 acres along the southern perimeter of Fiddler's Creek was designated as Reserve(the letter"P"was later added). This was done not only because of this land's environmental sensitivity and adjacency to federal and state preserves, but also to prevent Office: 772.919.1040 Email: Gkoldehoff@gmail.com 759 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite 216, Stuart, Florida 34994 the plan amendment from violating the state's urban sprawl prohibition. On this latter point, the developer's planning expert, Dr. Nelson, testified at the Board of County Commissioners hearing that: DR. NELSON: Well, presently, the -- the 1,300-acre site, that part which is in agriculture is bounded on three sides with urban development. There is not a clear separation between urban and rural land uses presently. Now,in the future,because of the amendment, the northern tier of the subject site will be filled in, so you'll basically have development from the currently approved DRI/PUD moving eastward abutting practically the eastern most large-scale development that's already been approved and is now being built out, so that northern tier area's being filled in. However, at the southern end of that, you'll have a system of Roughly,the bottom third of the -- of Section 19 and all of Section 29 will be preserved, thereby providing a buffer between urban development and the state-owned wetlands beyond. So, I think, to some extent, maybe the issue of separation between urban and rural land uses is not a primary issue here, but in fact, when you look at it carefully, we are improving the situation through the amendment. Explicit language in Section 5.5 required that these Reserve designated areas of the PUD (designated the "Fiddler's Creek Addition") shall be preserved and placed under a "A non- exclusive conservation easement . . established pursuant to the Fiddler's Creek Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan and Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.2.8.4.7.3, . . . without qualification." The developer's representative also confirmed this and further told the Board and the public that this land, as well as the other lands that were not farm fields at the time,"will also be preserved and there will also be a conservation easement on that." This conservation easement requirement is in the PUD to this day. But the developer has never complied with it—no conservation easement has been placed on any of this land.and County staff never followed up to ensure it was ever done. Fiddler's Creek is a Development of Regional Impact due to its extraordinary character and magnitude of development, as well as the ecological sensitivity of its location and lands. The Preserve-designated lands on the Fiddler's Creek PUD Master Plan are critically significant to the Florida Panther, an endangered species whose existence is required to be protected under the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Collier County Land Development Regulations. Setting aside and preserving these Preserve lands is necessary to account for the development of the Fiddler's Creek project, and to comply with the County's plan policies and environmental resource protections regulations. Failure to preserve and protect these lands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan and the County's Land Development Regulations. Over many years,the developer has applied for and received development permits to complete its project. Notwithstanding, it has not recorded the required Conservation Easements on Ely 2 Preserve-designated land on the PUD Master Plan, including the Section 29 Preserve area. Nor does it appear that anyone on staff even checked on compliance with the conservation easement requirement at any of these many points where the staff could (or should) have done so. Setting to the side the developer's lack of compliance with its duty to place the conservation easement on the Preserve Lands, staff's failure to follow up on the recording of the easement is striking. We are sure the County would agree that the residents (and voters) of Collier County rightfully expect that when the Board of County Commissioners establishes plan policies and land development regulations necessary to protect endangered species, they will be enforced by the Board and by County staff. Likewise,when the Board approves developments of regional impacts and rezones large tracts for huge developments on ecologically sensitive lands, residents expect that any such approvals and rezonings will account for the project's impacts on endangered species and will contain conditions the developer must comply with before the project can be commenced. Here, in approving the PUD Ordinance the Board of County Commissioners gave a direct (or, at minimum,an implicit) assurance to the residents and voters of Collier County that to mitigate this project's impacts on endangered species this land will be preserved by conservation easement in favor of the County if any development of the project was to occur. Plainly,that never happened. The County did not enforce the plan policies and land development regulations. It did not protect endangered species. And it appears the residents were misguided and mistaken in relying on the County's assurances. We are particularly alarmed by this failure with regard to the approximately 250 acres of Preserve- designated land in Section 29 of the Fiddler's Creek PUD which lies immediately south of Royal Palms Golf Estates. At the 1998 Board of County Commissioners hearing on the developer's application to add this land, the County's Planning Director specially called these lands out for its environmental significance and told the Board and the public there "will be no dwelling units contemplated for that portion of the development. There will be preserved open space areas." So, compounding the failure in this instance, having not given the easements, Fiddler's Creek has recently made applications to Growth Management to develop a 750-unit multi-family project on 50 acres in Section 29, all of which is wetlands and Florida Panther habitat, and part of which is supposed to be under the conservation easement the County should have received. My clients are strongly opposed to this project. The property should be preserved as an open space as it is supposed to be. Had the required conservation easement been placed on this land when it was supposed to be, these applications would likely not be being made at this time. The developer has taken full advantage of the entitlements given by the Board and has constructed the project,but it never gave what the Board lawfully required(and the public reasonably expected) to protect endangered species. Having failed to comply with its obligations to account for the impacts of its development, the developer wants to add 750 units on this land that is supposed to be preserved and under a conservation easement. In essence,at the developer's request the Board prepared and served a feast for the developer, and not only has the developer dined and dashed without paying the check, but it is now boldly asking to be given another feast. This failure to obtain required conservation easements in Fiddler's Creek is extremely concerning not only to my clients, but also to a significant number of entities and interest groups whose mission is to protect endangered species and preserve important habitats. We urge you to take 3 immediate action and get the required conservation easements recorded. As it appears the failure in this case is indicative of a general failure to follow up on such conditions, we also recommend that a thorough review be made by staff of all PUD projects and development orders with conservation easement requirements to assure that all such easements have been properly placed and recorded. I request that you or a member of staff contact me to inform me of the steps that are being taken to correct this so I can relay it to my clients and interest groups. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss our investigation or findings. Resp ctfully, _... Ga ,K ldehoff / ' GKO/cl Cc: Members Collier County Board of County Commissioners Clients 4 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Pamela S. Mac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney 1 PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - TY AGOSTON RE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Moving on then to the public comment section of our meeting. Do we have any public speakers today? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Ty Agoston. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a member of EPTAB, is his time limited at any point in the future or -- MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in an endangered area called Northern Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. Thank you very much for the appointment to this Environmental Advisory Board. It is, on the other hand, not something that I wanted to talk about. There was an article in the newspaper sometime last week where area environment groups are ready to fight the county board again and they're bringing a suit and the Florida Wildlife Federation is actually looking for a special status, and my question is, what are the legal positions of the county in terms of these, what I consider nuisance suits? There was -- the Department of Community Affairs is a political entity, as such it pretty much follows the political philosophy of the governor because he appoints them, you know, the leadership of it, and reading Sustainable Southwest Florida, I gained some type of an insight to our governor's political philosophy and his plans for South Florida, and I don't agree with it. Collier County, according to Mr. Hancock, who should be well versed on the matter, is already owned by federal, state or conservation groups, some 75 percent. By what logic does the Florida Wildlife with an outside attorney representing them, bringing a nuisance suit? Last time they offered to settle for the legal fees. That's a standard system with environmentalists. They will take you to court and if it doesn't work, they try to delay you and then they want their money back, and personally, I believe that we should take every effort to literally fight them, because unless you can back them against the financial wall, so to speak, this will continue and you will have frivolous lawsuits from now on, as you had in the past 30 some odd years since I've been following you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Agoston. Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. All right. Item #12A1 ORDINANCE 98-12, RE CP-97-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A. , REQUESTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REALLOCAITON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM PORTIONS OF THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD/DRI LOCATED IN THE URBAN COASTAL FRINGE AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE DESIGNATED AREAS TO SPECIFIED LANDS LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATED AREA OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP - ADOPTED We will move on then to the advertised public hearing section, Item 12 (A) , Petition CP-97-3. Mr. Arnold or Mr. Fernandez, can we deal with all of these -- 2 there's three of them together, though we will vote on them separately, can we deal with all three of these at the same time and then vote on them separately so we don't hear the same presentation three different times? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe we can accommodate that, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can do that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- and we're all right, Mr. Weigel, legally to do that? MR. WEIGEL: I think so. Ms. Student would like to add a comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Yes, Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Yes, Madam Chair, I just would like to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself, please. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I just would like to state that for the PUD and the DRI amendment, we would have to swear in anyone that's going to speak on those, but not for the comp. plan amendment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But if we go ahead and swear them in, it doesn't mean that we can't deal with all -- or listen to -- and deal with all three of them? MS. STUDENT: No, it does not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I may want to just ask that we -- I know we have several staff members that may be involved in this presentation. I see Mr. Arnold standing, but I think that it may behoove us to recognize the staff members individually. In Mr. Arnold's case, I'll make a motion to recognize -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK -- Mr. Arnold as an expert in the land of planning matters. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We recognize Mr. Arnold as an -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Expert? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- expert witness. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. This again is a comprehensive plan amendment to the text of our agricultural/rural subdistrict, and which we have previously transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs. This is the adoption hearing and, again, just to refresh your memory, this is in reference to a text amendment which affects the Fiddler's Creek property. It contemplates allowing the 6,000 dwelling units previously approved as part of the old Marco Shores PUD, a portion of those units to be reallocated to approximately 1,385 acres immediately to the east and south of the existing Fiddler's Creek property. This was transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs. They issued one objection in their objection, recommendation and comment report to this related to the sprawl criteria in which they found that of the thirteen sprawl criteria used by the state that there was inadequate data and analysis to support three of those thirteen indicators of sprawl. What I think I'd like to do is -- procedurally, is after I finish 3 part of my presentation, if we can maybe bring Ron Nino after this to discuss some of the PUD amendment issues, it might make the presentation flow because I know Mr. Varnadoe has a series of experts that will be proffered for the presentation. It might make the flow go a little bit easier if we allow staff to make its full presentation and then allow Mr. Varnadoe and his team to do that as well, and I beg your indulgence on that point. Specifically, the Department of Community Affairs, as we outlined in your executive summary, made three comments on the sprawl. One that the project would promote, allow or designate development for substantial areas of our jurisdiction as low-intensity development, that it failed to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses, and that it resulted in poor accessibility among related or linked land uses. We, in our executive summary, addressed those three points. We believe that we have adequately addressed their comments on inadequate data and analysis, and I think I'd like to just briefly go through our staff response to each of those indicators of sprawl that they mention, and the first one about promoting or allowing a significant portion of our jurisdiction for low-intensity development, I would argue that less than a tenth of one percent of the county's jurisdiction is in question here. Pretty insignificant amount of land area out of the county's total land mass. Additionally, I think that what we're talking about is something that I'm not sure the Department of Community Affairs adequately understood and that is we already have these approved 6,000 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No? The DCA misunderstood something? MR. ARNOLD: We are not contemplating the addition of any dwelling units and, in fact, the allowing -- spreading of the 6,000 dwelling units beyond their existing boundaries, in fact, we know that will eliminate 277 dwelling units that are entitled to be placed on this same 1,385 acres. To address their comment on did it fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. I think that -- again, we point out that we did review this in conjunction with the submitted PUD and DRI amendments, which the PUD very clearly is a mixed use development. We have a couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial use that are approved as part of this project. We have four golf courses, we have a mixture of land use types. We have club facilities, et cetera. We think that speaks very well that it is a functional mix of uses and it doesn't exceed its demand since we, again, don't have new dwelling units. In respect to their third and final point, that was that it results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses, I would offer that this development, by allowing the adjoining areas to the east to be added, we allow no new access points to US 41 to serve the project. We allow a master plan to flow that can be a unified plan of development for the project, allow everything to be internalized for the project. We think that's pretty significant. It's also in close proximity, within a mile to the activity center at 951 and US 41, as well as there's another couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial space located along the State Road 951 corridor that serves this project, again, with no new dwelling units. I would point out too, that in reviewing this, one of the issues raised was a concern for environmental issues, and I would point out that the portion of Section 29, if I could step over to the map, this portion that's located on the -- below the Boyne South project, we 4 also have -- will be no dwelling units contemplated for that portion of the development. There will be preserved open space areas. I think it should also be pointed out, when we looked at the pattern of development, we prepared an existing zoning and land use map at the county. It takes you from State Road 951/US 41 intersection out to the Seminole State Park. We don't find that this exacerbates any of the conditions of sprawl that may be present in our current plan and, in fact, we know the water and sewer district boundaries currently serve that area out through Seminole State Park. We also know that we have Boyne South. We have a variety of mobile home parks. We have an industrial park, a travel trailer park, et cetera, located in that corridor. Those developments alone are permitted to exceed 1,500 dwelling units also outside our urban boundary. This can truly be seen as more an infill project. Given its size, I think a lot of people question that statement that it's infill but, in fact, we know we have an urban pattern of development exceeding the density of this project to the north and east of the project beyond our current urban boundary. One of the other environmental benefits of the project is that at the planning commission meeting, we heard the developer speak to the peninsula issue and, again, the conservancy addressed that point as well. The peninsula, being the small piece of land that juts down into the Rookery Bay area in the center of the master plan for the project, those 63 acres would support about 700 dwelling units under their current plan and the developer has offered to place a conservation easement over those 63 acres as part of this approval process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the -- just for clarification, would you indicate on this -- okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Again, there's no effect on our high range population projections of the county. Again, the 6,000 dwelling units are currently authorized and approved. The reduction of 277 dwelling units results in a net decrease probably of about 500 residents in our long-term population projections. Again, there are truly no public facility impacts since this is within the county's water sewer district boundaries. There are some very positive effects related to stormwater management in here because of some drainage easements that can be placed over the property. We've had some long-standing -- some subregional drainage problems in this vicinity and I think you're going to hear a little bit more about the positive aspects of allowing the conservation easements and the pre-treatment of water before it enters the Rookery Bay system. Again, there are no level of service impacts. There is also no impact on our roadway network, since we're actually not increasing dwelling units, no new access points to US 41 or 951. I think, in summary, I'd just like to say that we have reviewed this in the context of the DCA's Rule 9J-5. We've also looked at this in terms of its impacts on environment population projections. We don't find that it meets any of the thirteen sprawl indicators and, in fact, I'd just like to remind you that the Department of Community Affairs did not say that it did, only that sufficient data and analysis was not supported with our original submittal, and we believe that the data and analysis that we presented, as well as the applicant will put on the record today, we believe that should easily satisfy the department's concerns. I think that one thing I should mention. It's a minor point. We did do a minor ordinance amendment relative to the comp. plan 5 amendment. We added a new whereas clause that mentions the fact that we have considered additional data and analysis, that we have reviewed it in the context of a PUD/DRI submittal as well, and that's highlighted. I'd like to go ahead and hand that out to you. I've given Ms. Filson a copy of the revised original. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Again, the change appears on page 2, the first whereas clause. It references some additional information that will be transmitted, our market study report that had been prepared for the county by Fraser & Mohlke Associates, a report by Dr. Nelson that you'll hear more about and the PUD and DRI amendment. With that description of the comprehensive plan completed I think what we'd like to do is go ahead and bring Ron Nino up, if we could, to give you a little more specifics about the actual PUD amendments that are being contemplated as well, unless there's some questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, as Mr. Nino comes up, I'll make a motion to recognize Mr Nino -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as an expert in the area of land planning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to recognize Mr. Nino as an expert witness. All in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And she wants you to swear these folks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we better swear these individuals in. Madam Court Reporter. (Speakers were sworn. ) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, do you want to do the whole room at once? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's do everybody. If there's anyone else that's going to speak to this issue at all, would you please rise and we'll swear you in now and everyone will be taken care of. That's anyone that's going to speak. Okay, please. (Speakers were sworn. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At the same time we're doing this, let's make any disclosures that we might have. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have met with the petitioner, with representatives of the Conservancy, with our staff and received correspondence on this matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if in this latest go around I have, but regardless, I'll make my decision in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had contact from outside parties and will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing. 6 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had lots of correspondence, lots of discussions with both petitioners, their representatives, the Conservancy, the general public. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I've had correspondence and also contact by the petitioner and I will base my decision in accordance with the laws. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record. If I may, the petition -- I need to talk to you about the development order amendment, simply to enter into the record that what we're doing here is changing the development order to reflect the changes in acreage that result from adding 1,385 acres. So you will note in the development order amendment the strike-throughs that have to do with the table that summarizes the way the land uses are being used. Secondly, the name is being changed and those strike-throughs are reflected in the development order amendment and the development order is being extended by four years and eleven months. The regional planning council have reviewed this notification of proposed change and they have concluded that it is an insubstantial change and the planning commission reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended its approval. With respect to the PUD, I think I can be brief -- abbreviate my presentation. Mr. Arnold has covered the substantive issues that are being modified here, that are being changed. I think I need to enter into the record, however, that we've reviewed the petition relative to findings of consistency with respect to the future land use element, the sewer and water element, the open space element and we conclude that this petition is indeed consistent. It's important to recognize that your two official advisory bodies; the advisory -- the economical -- the Environmental Advisory Board and the Collier County Planning Commission have both unanimously recommended approval. The EAB recommended certain stipulations that are all reflected in the PUD document that you have in your package. There were some objections presented to the planning commission and there were indeed some people who reflected support for this petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question to go back to Mr. Arnold, but not for Mr. Nino at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, if I may, you mentioned that you felt that the responses that we've been provided today, that have been provided by the petitioner and by staff, are adequate to meet the DCA's -- the comments in their ORC report? I'm looking at a letter or a piece of correspondence dated January 6th signed by, I believe it's Keesey, C. Lawrence Keesey of Young, Van Assenderp. Have you had a chance to review that correspondence entirely? It's a response to -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to saying that you feel it adequately responds, would you agree with the response in that correspondence, on the basis of planning, that it is -- it addresses the issues of urban sprawl? 7 MR. ARNOLD: I think we clearly addressed those issues of urban sprawl, and I think Mr. Keesey's letter was very to point with the Department of Community Affairs on how this should be viewed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And we'll just let it be a part of the record that goes to DCA. MR. ARNOLD: It will be. We intend to submit this as part of the record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Along with everything submitted today that addresses that same issue? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anything further from staff? Okay. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George Varnadoe, representing 951 Land Holding's Joint Venture, the contract purchaser of this property in question. Also here today to represent -- to address the board or to respond to questions and issues we have Michael Redd, president of the team plan, whose firm has done the master planning for the project. Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a professor of city planning and public policy at Georgia Tech. Dr. Nelson's an expert in the area of urban and regional planning and more importantly today, urban sprawl. Also, Steve Means and Stuart Miller from the firm of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. They were the engineers and environmental consultants on the project and they're available also. As you heard Mr. Arnold say, the overall objective is to add 1,385 acres to the existing Fiddler's Creek project without adding any additional units. The area in question, you can probably see it better on the aerial, is the area in the -- it's a red stripe, it may look pink from your distance. The area in red is the eastern part of the existing Fiddler's Creek property. You can see that's -- it abuts it on the east. The property is divided into very clearly, areas that have been farmed and very clearly areas that have not been bothered by agriculture or have not been substantially disturbed, I guess is a better way to put that. It is important to recognize the proposal is not to move the urban boundary, but simply to add these 1,385 acres to the existing master plan project without increasing the amount of commercial or the number of units. As far as the development order amendment is concerned, you've heard Mr. Nino say that the regional planning council and your staff and the CCPC all agree it is a non-substantial deviation. As far as the amendment to the PUD, you've also heard there's only going to be two changes and that this is a very minor matter. It's the addition of the acreage and then the deletion of the peninsula that we heard referred to. I think the board is cognizant of the history of this project, but I do want to put it on the record. Fiddler's Creek was originally part of the Marco Shores Unit 30. That Marco Shores Unit 30 DRI, the size project arose out of the Deltona settlement agreement in the early '80's where over 12,000 units were allocated to this general area and over 9,000 units to the Marco Shores DRI. It was a part of an agreement where Deltona deeded over 15,000 acres to the State of Florida. I think it's important to note that both the Conservancy and the Florida Audubon Society were signatories to that settlement agreement, which authorized over 9,000 units to be built in this area. Since that original approval and this developer's acquisition of 8 the property, the theme has been one of consistently reducing the density, while adding land to the project. Previously, a number of units were cut from 9,110 to 6,000 over a series of time, while the acres have increased by some 713 acres. The density has gone from 5.5 units an acre to 2.5 units an acre on a gross basis. The proposal today is to continue that trend of reducing the density by adding land without units. By adding the 1,385 acres but no new units, the density will go from 2.5 to 1.6 units an acre. I passed out a booklet and everyone of you has this, and this is stuff I will be asking to you put in the record later, but if you turn to tab C, there's a table there that I think describes in detail what we've done. If you look at the left-hand column of numbers, it has the original 1984 development order approval. If you look at the column that says 1998 amendment, you can see the changes and you can see the pluses or minuses. The acres have increased by almost 2,100 acres. Units have decreased by 3,110 units. We've had an increase in preserve areas of 714 acres and an increase in lakes, open space, golf course of 300 -- excuse me, 985 acres. As Wayne has pointed out, there's also going to be a decrease in the total buildout population of the county, if you approve this. The 277 units that could be built on 1,385 acres at the existing zoning of ag., one unit per five acres will be eliminated from the mix. Perhaps, more importantly, thinking of this in the long-term, we're removing 1,385 acres from the land inventory, if you would. This is an area that has urban services. It's an area that has development on three sides of it. The south side is, of course, the state owned land. Sooner or later there's going to be a push to urbanize this or bring it to the urban area. By adding this to this project today and not adding any more units, you're taking that 1,385 acres out of, what I'll call, the land inventory for future development. You and I may not be standing here or sitting there when this effort is made, but it will be made. Today we are removing that acreage from that inventory and I think that's a very important part and point, if you wish to try to control the number -- the total number of units to be built in this county. The history of the area, I think is also something we need to focus on. As Wayne has said, until 1989, this entire corridor, all the way out to the Collier-Seminole State Park was in the urban area. It was removed during our comprehensive planning process in 1989, basically at the urging of Charles Gauthier, then director of long-range planning for Collier County. The reasons were mainly concurrency driven and there were two major reasons. Number one, there was no water management plan for that area and number -- and part of that, there was no money due, while we were really concerned about being able to meet concurrency as far as the water management plan. Number two, there were great concerns about evacuating that entire area because 951 was two-laned. It wasn't on the state's five year plan and we had just approved 12,000 additional units in that acre - area. Now we've solved all those problems. We have a water management plan. We're gonna be an integral part of implementing that, as I'll talk a little bit later. Second, 951, of course, is partially four-laned and the rest of it will start this year. The units have been reduced, so we have addressed those issues. 9 Mr. Gauthier did recognize that this would be developed in the future and during the process, he had this following quote. The tail section has water management problems, but it will be suitable for intensification after improvements have been made to County Road 951 and the water-shed master plan has been developed. Even Wayne has talked to you -- there are more intense or dense uses around the property. You can also see that -- Wayne's zoning map was very good, you can also see it from this aerial photograph. We have mobile home parks, we have -- here and here. We have RSF-3 here with golf course, we have golf course here and here and we also have some industrial here and the little yellow parts there are commercial. My count is more like 812 acres, north and south -- north and east of this project, outside the urban area and up to 2,000 units, when you count mobile home, RV, along with residential units that could be built. I think staff's done a great job of telling you about our proposal. I want to spend a couple of minutes on the so called, "peninsula", and it probably can be best seen by referring to the existing master plan and it's this area right in here and that's the reason this plan's up here. During talks with the Conservancy, the question was asked, well, if you're going to add 1,385 acres, as you see on this plan, to the project, is there any part of the existing plan that you could preserve that might be of some benefit? We immediately focused on the peninsula, because that was an area that was of some contention during the environmental permitting process with the Corps of Engineers and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission were very concerned about developing that because it is surrounded, as you can see, completely surrounded by state owned wetlands on all sides. The -- it is the only area, really, in the project where we don't have a good buffer between the development and the state owned wetlands to the south. That 63 acres contains both uplands and wetlands and our change in the proposal is now -- the change in our project now is not to develop that area. As you can see from our proposed master plan, that's now all in preserve. The peninsula contains some of the few uplands in the area and by preserving that we're creating some diversity of habitat. In talking with the Rookery Bay folks, they're very excited about that not being developed and being preserved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question about that, Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the change -- is it dedicated in perpetuity as a conservation easement? What's the method for ensuring that it's never developed? MR. VARNADOE: We are now discussing that. We would prefer to deed it to -- because the lands around it are owned by the state. The state has been reluctant to take title. Where our commitment today is to provide a conservation easement or a deed, whichever they wish, but, yes, it is in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Varnadoe, can I interrupt you just a minute, please? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have to change court reporters, and if we could just cease and hold your thought and then we'll continue on with this. 10 MR. VARNADOE: At my age, I'll try. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And maybe taking a little break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And taking a break at the same time and then we'll just let you go forever. (A recess taken. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will reconvene the meeting, and we're in the middle of a presentation. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I had just finished talking about the peninsula, and unless you have questions about that part, I think I'll continue on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe, I just -- for clarification purposes, the peninsula had always been slated for development. As a result of the latest changes, that area will have, other than the existing utility site, have no development or -- there's a site on there I see in green that remains here? MR. VARNADOE: That site is a -- is owned by the Collier County School Board -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: -- and that was donated for school purposes. They have kept that and their plan is to use that for mitigation purposes for other developments in Collier County, but we have shown it in that different color simply to designate it as not something that we have ownership control of. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the -- what previously was some 700 units in that peninsula will not be built in that area at all? MR. VARNADOE: If this amendment's approved, that's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the total acreage of conservation easement or deed would be? MR. VARNADOE: On that part is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That addition, yes, sir. MR. VARNADOE: That's 63 acres. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixty three. Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: And the reason I said on that part is because you can look at the aerial photograph of the land we're going to be adding, everything in this area that's in a natural state and also on this parcel over here, plus the three cypress heads that are on the property, all of that is going to be preserved also. That's 450 acres, over 70 acres of which are uplands down in this area. Down in here, you've got some really pretty scrub habitat down in there. That COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is particularly good for that diversity of habitat and that's important. MR. VARNADOE: That will also be preserved and there will also be a conservation easement on that. I'm trying to differentiate between the peninsula and that property there, and development, as I was saying, will occur only in the farm fields, and of that farm fields, approximately 575 acres of that will be an open space, recreational areas, lakes. Approximately 350 of the 1,385 acres will be developed for actual development purposes, residential units and infrastructure. Over 70 percent of the 1,385 acres will be in open space reserves, golf course and recreational areas. As I've stated before, with the addition of this, the density goes down to 1.6 units an acre. As Mr. Arnold said, the property is within the boundaries of the Collier County water sewer district. No residential units will be located on this part of Section 29 coming 11 into the project. On that property, there will be a passive recreation area and lake on the part that's been farmed previously. There will be no new access points on the external roads, and since no new units, no increased trips, no increase on impacts on your transportation network. Although I have Stuart Miller and Steve Means here from Wilson, Miller to address the water management and environmental concerns, I'm going to just submit their report in the record, unless you all have questions, but I think the really important question is, will the ecology in this area be better off or worse off if this amendment's passed, and I think the question (sic) is, very clearly, it would be better off. First and foremost, as we talked about, we're preserving all the areas that have been undisturbed on the property, including over 70 acres of uplands. Second, as with the original project, we are creating the spreader swale, continuing the spreader swale over to serve two purposes. Number one, the south side of that spreader swale system will be at grade, if you will, existing grade, so that as the water from the project goes into that spreader swale system, it will be able to sheet discharge into the existing wetlands as opposed to point discharge, thereby, helping to more naturally approximate historic conditions. Second, that spreader swale system acts as a good buffer between the development property and the preserve property to the south. It's important to recognize that spreader swale system is not to be used for -- is not required for the retention or treatment. That's in addition to the water management on the property. That's an additional benefit. I know I saw John Boldt here earlier, but I'll -- I'll talk and then John can correct me if I say something wrong. When we were working on this property, Mr. Boldt asked if we could grant additional easements down the eastern side of Section 18 and 19 for additional relief of the problems he's having north of 41 on drainage, and as you remember, when we added Section 13, we did the same thing and we're glad to do that again on this property. This will allow the county to help alleviate some of the problems north of 41 they've been having with water management. When this project is built, that drainage swale will also go into our spreader swale system, so that water will also be sheet flowing into the areas to the south as opposed to being point discharged into the -- the wetlands. The project will stabilize the ground water tables and more closely approximate historic and natural conditions. It will create a more natural hydro period within the three wetland parcels that we see on the aerial here, therefore, helping to restore those. We'd, of course, be removing the exotics from those areas. Preservation of a 63 acre parcel that we call the peninsula will increase the total preservation area in Fiddler's Creek to 756 acres. At this time, with your permission, I'd like Michael Redd, who's had over 30 years of planning experience and who's the president of team plan, to briefly describe some of the added benefits and features that will derive from -- allowing us to add this 1,385 acres to the Fiddler's Creek project. His resume or curriculum vitae is under Tab A-4 if anybody wants to refer to that, and I would like for you to recognize Mr. Redd as an expert in the urban planning field. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. 12 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. REDD: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be quite brief. The classic planning application here is obviously a mixed use community, and in designing the mixed use community, the translation from off of the drawing board and onto the ground is very serious business when you start hardening things up with roads and houses and amenities and so forth, and a community is not just an expansive housing move from one spot to another arbitrarily. A true community is an attractive and a functional use -- mix of uses that results in a living environment, has all the experiences, not just housing. The -- I'd like to begin by going over their -- you can take any master plan and divide it down into its basic elements, and we have eight basic elements here we're going to review very quickly, and the elements of this master plan are the housing, the circulation, the four golf courses, the town center or club facility, a commercial component, the lake system, open space system, including recreation, and a tennis center. Just to address those very briefly one by one, start with the housing. As you've heard, we've got 6,000 units of varied housing types. They're all contained in this master plan in separate neighborhoods, each having its own identity of a size that can be -- that you can identify with if you live in that neighborhood. They have their own entrance and they're separated in all cases by a major open space feature, a golf course, a lake, a park, something like that. Secondly, the number two thing we want to talk about is the circulation system. The circulation system is to -- we've used a loop road divided highway -- divided roadway, collector road, with a median. That is one of the standards in Florida planning. It's got a lot of advantages to it. When you use a divided roadway in the medians, it acts as a spine road for the pedestrian movement system and enhances all the linkages between the various land uses. It's a visual guidepost. It's hard to get lost. You see the divided median, ah, this is the way in and out of the project. It establishes a road hierarchy visual. You know, I'm on the main road now and this is the way I get in or out, and most importantly, I think, is that when you do this, none of our neighborhoods front directly onto it. That is, you can never back out of one of the units and onto the median -- onto the collector roadway. It allows convenient access to everyone in the neighborhood and through none of them. Next I'd like to speak to the golf courses, the prime green way or a major view shed, four golf courses. For a community this size, that's a nice big green swath to interject into 6,000 units. Four golf courses is a lot of open green space, open land on its own. Next is the central club facility, and the central club facility shown right here is -- acts and is, in fact, a town center type of operation. As far as -- it is located on the intersection of two of the largest roads. It becomes in fact, the nexus of the project. It becomes a cultural center with 60,000 square feet, becomes a social center and true town center format; gathering and meeting places, obviously, fitness rooms and card rooms. Also has a civic plaza element, which is out of doors for special events, Christmas, 4th of July, place for the community to -- to have -- have affairs and events which bind the community together very much. A large pool. It has 13 restaurants, nighttime dining, arts and crafts rooms, so forth, so that's a big important element of the project. Next we talk about a commercial component. The demographics of 6,000 units produces a demand for about 420,000 square feet of commercial retail opportunities, and a large portion of that is served on site, and it's served primarily in two commercial parcels, one located on 951, and a lesser one of about 320,000 square feet -- excuse me, 300,000 square feet and -- on 41 with the balance. One of our other clients is the largest developer of the Publix type of shopping center in Florida. Their standard of measure is about 10,000 people in a fairly upscale community to drive one of these large retail grocery operations. That, we would envision, obviously, happening at the 300,000 square foot area right on 951. You're also going to have a secondary commercial need within the project, and that is served within the project in the golf clubhouses, in the tennis center. They'll have some small retails, and certainly the town center or club center, where you'll have amenities that fulfill the other commercial needs. Combined with these -- the 951, the 41, we serve about 90 percent of our needs and, of course, we have a large -- we have an activity center at the intersection of 951 not on this property, but certainly that will round out the commercial needs. Open space component is certainly important here. It's a -- it's 1,483 acres of total open space. It's the strongest thread of visual fabric holding the community together. The lake system, 688 acres of lake system. It's a visual as well as a physical element. As I mentioned, it's used to separate the neighborhoods, to define the neighborhoods, and of course, the tennis center located up here with some 23 tennis courts. Just to briefly close, I'd like to tell you some of the -- a bit of a planner's dream here, we had a pretty good plan, it worked from a standard point of view that -- all the measurements and sound planning principles, and then we're given this nice little -- little token all of the sudden also and able to take 1,300 acres and now let's make that plan better and that's pretty much what we've done, but it lets us do some very specific things. Obviously, the less density. If you look at a project in Florida, contained PUD, you can know that it will be probably no more, no matter how hard you cram, about three units to the gross acre. This allowed us to go from 2.5 units to the gross acre to 1.5 now -- 1.5, 1.6. Now we're into really nice community territory. This is really gonna have a nice feel to it. It allowed us to spread the amenities out more and centrally locate them. It puts a larger, vast, larger percentage of homes into the ten minute walk radius of most of the major recreational amenities, and it allowed us to more evenly distribute those amenities. It allowed us to add a fourth golf course; golf course, fairway and boundaries, about 135, 145 acres. It allowed us to get many more paired golf holes so you don't have canyon golf. It's made the quality of the golf course -- brought it up. With the extra land, if you'll notice, we were able to create a whole lot more of visual windows into the community. To me, nothing is worse than the whole time when you leave the road and enter the gates, you're constantly fronted with housing, and if you look at the master plan, it's very difficult, I always say they look like giant jigsaw puzzles, but if you look at the master plan, as you travel on 14 the main roads, you're constantly looking into an open space, down parallel fairway golf, across a lake. We added a full mile of new view shed looking over the state wetlands to the south of the project, and nothing is fronted on those. It gives you a real relaxed feeling, real gracious master plan that you wind up with, and if you'll notice on the comparison of the two plans, we were able to move the circulation road, the prime collector road to the outside of the project. It allows us to buffer that, to keep it to the outside, makes it -- makes traffic circulation much better and it ensures that all the neighborhoods are separated, again, which I think is very important by open space, not just jammed together. It allowed us to put a tennis center in, 23 courts, which people forget how much land they gobble up. The -- just to address the collector road again, it's -- it really makes a good difference, a positive difference when you're able to make sure that the main roads going into and out of the project have their own look, their own feel. Just closing, I'd like to say that we -- we feel like -- we've got no new units, a lot more land, a really gracious plan now. We had a good plan before. We really do feel strongly about this and we haven't placed any stress on the existing infrastructure, no increase in density, so we really urge you to give your approval to this. Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, I believe, has a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Redd, a couple of questions if I may. You referred to the central clubhouse facility and you used the term, a true town center. Are all the people who live in this development going to be members of the club? MR. REDD: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REDD: Anyone who lives here can go to the club. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- that's key to me, because if you purchase a home in here and you're not a member of the club, then what amenities are offered there do not -- are not accessible and it does not operate as a type of town center. The one thing that is important to me, in this county, we have not really promoted or required town center planning for large scale developments. As a result, we're shoving everything out onto the arterial and collector road system. It looks to me like predominantly the majority of services people need can be handled or would be handled at the two project entrances; is that a fair statement? MR. REDD: Absolutely. We -- with those retail centers, again, when you get Publix type development, you'll have all the other anchors, your drug stores and your services and so forth. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're dealing with a significant capture rate for transportation and trips inside the project? MR. REDD: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is there, in your opinion, a need or a warrant for additional convenience retail commercial interior to the project, not at the project entrances? MR. REDD: I don't -- I don't think so. I mean, we're going to be well served. It probably would be -- from a traffic standpoint, you have to strike a delicate line, you know. It would be good if everybody could just walk around the corner and there would be a nice, clean, safe 7-Eleven there. That's not a real world situation, and I think it's very well -- the casual sundries, glasses, sunglasses and 15 so forth should be served pretty well on site, suntan lotion and, you know, within the tennis center and the town center and so forth. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've seen in some projects recently, Village Walk comes to mind, that a development that will put in a -- some form of a retail establishment that is really built for and serves the people in the residence, again, just reducing trips. Not as key here because you've got the commercial at the two project entrances, but just from a planning standpoint -- MR. REDD: I applaud that very much. It's a very good example and the reason that -- it's also turned out to be a sales -- a marketing tool too, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just trying to see if we needed to open the door for looking at additional commercial interior to the project in a more retail fashion, but if not, fine, but I wanted to at least have that answered. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, could you go over for me once again the access from 41? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The access to 41 has not changed from the prior plan. There's an access point at this location and an access point at that location. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I referred to two project entrances. There's actually three. MR. VARNADOE: There's actually four. There's a project entrance on 951 here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I forgot about that one. MR. VARNADOE: So there's two project entrances on 951 and two on U.S. 41, and the eastern one on 41 lines up with Greenway Boulevard, of course, deliberately so that that may someday require a signal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there would be no proposal to put one farther east if this new property happens to be approved today? MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. Madam Chairman, with your permission, I'll continue. I want to talk about urban sprawl for a minute. I think it -- Mr. Arnold pointed it out, but it's important to emphasize that DCA's objection is not that the amendment constitutes urban sprawl, but there wasn't sufficient data and analysis to say that it discouraged urban sprawl. In fact, the department's recommendation is that it be demonstrated through the provision of additional data and analysis that the amendment does not encourage urban sprawl -- or not proliferate urban sprawl. The DCA has adopted a rule which contains 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment either discourages or does not encourage urban sprawl. When you read that rule in context and see some of the cases, it's readily apparent that the -- the appearance of one or more of those indicators in and of itself does not constitute urban sprawl. It has to be a balance test, as you would expect, when you have that many indicators. Further, and I think Mr. Arnold also mentioned this, if a local government has a comprehensive plan that has been found in compliance, as we have today with Collier County, the DCA cannot find a plan amendment not to be consistent because it has -- because urban sprawl indicators are present if the plan amendment does not exacerbate the existing indicators that are already present in the comprehensive plan, which I think is also important. However, more importantly, when we discovered prior to the ORC report that DCA had questions about urban sprawl and whether the -- 16 this plan amendment would have any indicators of urban sprawl, we retained Dr. Arthur C. Nelson to evaluate and address the issue of urban sprawl. His curriculum vitae is under your Tab A-3 in your booklet. Dr. Nelson is a professor of city planning and public policy at Georgia Tech in Atlanta and received his Doctor of Philosophy degree in urban studies from Portland State University. He's been a full professor at Georgia Tech since 1987. He has over 25 years of professional experience, about half in private practice and half in academia. He's a charter member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and I think he's authored eight books on growth management issues and wrote an impressive number of articles and been quoted in the print media such as the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Atlanta Constitution, but the particular relevance to our discussion today is that Dr. Nelson was first retained by the Department of Community Affairs in 1988 to assist that agency in formulating its policy regarding urban sprawl. He directly assisted the department in drafting the current urban sprawl rules and -- indicators, rather, and the urban sprawl rule found in 9J-5. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please come over from the dark side. MR. VARNADOE: He's -- you will hear him talk about that. He's been very careful not to -- not to want to get involved if there was any question in his mind whether this really was urban sprawl. He's been retained by the Department of Community Affairs on -- as an expert witness in 23, I think, administrative law cases to testify on urban sprawl issues. I'd like to have Dr. Nelson recognized as an expert in the area of urban planning, but particularly in urban sprawl. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll recognize Dr. Nelson as an expert witness. MR. VARNADOE: Dr. Nelson had some slides, but I think we're -- to save some time, we're just going to do it as a handout for you all and he's going to give you his opinion as to whether this amendment constitutes urban sprawl and also talk about the indicators that DCA raised. Dr. Nelson. DR. NELSON: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for welcoming me to the dark side. My friends at DCA think I've also gone to the dark side, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I said you'd come over from the dark side. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically, Dr. Nelson, you just can't win. DR. NELSON: I was asked about four months ago to entertain the question whether this proposed amendment did or did not constitute urban sprawl. In situations like this, I have a two-stage review process. The first is, I go through the documentation and I do a site visit to clarify in my own mind whether there's any question about the project being urban sprawl or not. If, in fact, I determine that urban sprawl may exist, I remove myself from the case and nobody hears from me ever again, usually. If, however, I find that urban sprawl is not an issue, that, in fact, the project benefits the urban environment, the development environment, I then proceed to the second stage, which I did in this case, and the second stage led to the report that you have in the 17 large packet under Tab B. What I've done there is, I've evaluated several indicators of urban sprawl. Generally -- this morning I want to focus on the three indicators of urban sprawl raised by the DCA, those being whether the development results in low density single use development and excessive need, whether the development results or does not result in a functional relationship between related land uses, and whether or not the amendment results in improved accessibility between related land uses. Now, my evaluation is a little different than the others, from the perspective that I looked at what could happen to the site if the amendment were denied. In my opinion, the site, although it's now being used for agriculture, is not likely to be used for agriculture in the future, perhaps sooner than later. It is bounded on three sides by urban development. Part of my research that's published focuses on the interactions between urban development and farming. I found that, in most cases, farming disappears in the -- in the face of the urban pressures that might be adjacent to it or nearby. In my view, in my opinion, this -- the subject site agriculture is going to be impacted by urban development, and therefore, agriculture is not likely to continue in the future. So the question becomes, if the amendment is denied, what will the site be used for. Two alternatives primarily, a five acre -- a subdivision of five acre lots, 277 five acre lots. In my view, that is urban sprawl. However, I think because the -- the commission has interpreted that PUD's can be used for five acre areas, I think the best practices approach to development of the subject site if the amendment is denied is through 277 clustered units, averaging about two acres each, using literature that I'm acquainted with and have had some experience with. So if you look on the first page of my summary, what I do here is I show you the current approved DRI, the subject site, if it is allowed to develop without the Fiddler's Creek expansion, and then the amended PUD/DRI effect. Pay attention particularly to the bottom set of cells. The current DUI -- DRI/PUD results in developing 1,051 acres. The subject site would be developed, in a best practices format, at about 570 acres, so if the amendment were denied, roughly 1,620 acres would eventually be developed, based on existing approvals and best practice development of the subject site. However, the amended PUD/DRI results in developing only 1,350 acres, about 300 acres fewer than the alternative. Now, let's move into the second page. The second page reviews the issues of density. By adding 1,385 acres to the site, but without adding more units, density goes down. We call that the gross density issue. I look at it a little differently, however. If the subject site is developed into 277 units, and we know Fiddler's Creek will be developed as 6,000 units, we, therefore, have 6,277 units on Fiddler's Creek and the subject site. That is the alternative before the amendment. After the amendment, or because of the amendment, by removing the 277 potential units an by reconfiguring the land uses resulting in less developed land, we actually have higher development density. Lower gross density, higher development density. That means land is being used more efficiently, land uses are more accessible to each other, flows are more efficient and you have an overall improvement in the situation relative to denying the PUD amendment and allowing the 18 subject site to be developed as 277 units. On the third page, we get to the issue of -- and so I should summarize by saying that the -- the effect of the amendment is actually to increase the development density, and the effect is that the resulting density is not, in my consideration, low density, and that is one of the indicators of urban sprawl that DCA uses. Five point five units to the acre is moderate development density for single family residential environments. Another indicator of sprawl is the extent to which you have development land and excessive need. We all know, you know, that your plan currently has excess capacity in it. The effect of the amendment is to remove or reduce that excess capacity, albeit a somewhat slight amount, but it does reduce excess capacity a little bit. Now, on page four, we're getting into the issue of attractive and functional mix of land uses. If the amendment were denied, we would have a situation where only 75 percent of the golf course demand created by the community already approved would be met. With the amendment, 100 percent of the golf course demand created by the PUD/DRI is actually met on site. In terms of tennis courts, about half of the demand created for tennis by the currently approved PUD/DRI is met with the amendment. We go -- we move that to 100 percent actually met. If the amendment is denied, only 80 percent or 81 percent of the demand for commercial and recreation related commercial space is met on site with the amendment. We push that figure to almost 100 percent, 96 percent is my calculation. So really, what's happening, because of the amendment, we're improving the attractive and functional mix of land uses. We're internalizing more of the demand created by the already approved PUD/DRI. The last or third indicator that DCA is concerned about is accessibility between linked and related land uses. An emerging planning principle is to locate centers, whether they're commercial or recreational or destination points, for residents within a half mile or about a ten minute walking distance from their homes. The current PUD/DRI plus development of the subject site if the amendment is denied results in only 57 percent of the potential residents being within ten minutes or a half mile of the nearest destination point, a center, a commercial outfit or whatnot. With the amendment, that figure gets pushed to 71 percent because there's more flexibility in moving land uses around and providing more accessibility to the residential areas. So my conclusion on the sixth page is that the amended Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI does not encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commission Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprise, I do. The -- one of the elements that you reviewed that -- that really caught my attention is highlighted on page number four regarding the attractive and functional mix of land uses, and it was part of the question I referred to Mr. Redd previously, which is that, as I understand this, 19 by comparison, if this amendment is not approved, the potential, and a significant potential, for 277 additional units at what you would classify as true urban sprawl could be developed with absolutely no amenities, no commercial amenities? DR. NELSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every time somebody in one of those places needed something, they'd get out to 41 and go find it somewhere else? DR. NELSON: Correct. They couldn't even walk to it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couldn't walk to it, which, again, is something that I think in our planning here we are just beginning to become aware of and address more, but we don't, at this point, so we would, in fact, be encouraging something that we know doesn't work right now. The converse, by approving this amendment, is that the commercial needs of those 6,000 units are almost all taken care of by the commercial properties on the perimeter and interior of the project? DR. NELSON: Correct. Now, I need to modify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. DR. NELSON: We're only accommodating almost all of the neighborhood scale and community scale needs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's still regional and -- DR. NELSON: The regional needs, in fact, cannot be accommodated on site, nor should they be. They are best accommodated by the town center at the intersection of 951 and U.S. 41, which is only a mile away from the site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Home Depot in every neighborhood is not our goal, so understanding there are always beyond neighborhood commercial needs, those that you're going to have to get in the car and go to, and we're not going to change that, but the true neighborhood commercial needs, as a result of this amendment, are better met than they are currently? DR. NELSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to not creating additional problems on the 1,300 acres adjacent to the existing project? DR. NELSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two points raised in the ORC report that I'd like a little clarification on if I may that you addressed in Tab B, is -- one is the failure to provide a clear separation between rural and urban land uses is the first, and the second is, result in loss of significant amounts of functional open space, which I think we just addressed to some extent. The others seem fairly straightforward and seem to be addressed in detail without question, but the one of failure to provide a clear separation between rural and urban land uses, could I ask you to elaborate on that a little bit on your opinion on how we actually -- that is not a true assertion? DR. NELSON: Well, presently, the -- the 1,300 acre site, that part which is in agriculture is bounded on three sides with urban development. There is not a clear separation between urban and rural land uses presently. Now, in the future, because of the amendment, the northern tier of the subject site will be filled in, so you'll basically have development from the currently approved DRI/PUD moving eastward abutting practically the eastern most large scale development that's already been approved and is now being built out, so that northern tier area's being filled in. However, at the southern end of that, you'll have a system of 20 what I would call open space anchors, the spreader swale system leading into the wetlands owned by the state further south. Roughly, the bottom third of the -- of Section 19 and all of Section 29 will be preserved, thereby providing a buffer between urban development and the state owned wetlands beyond. So I think, to some extent, maybe the issue of separation between urban and rural land uses is not a primary issue here, but in fact, when you look at it carefully, we are improving the situation through the amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason for the question is, there's a common statement that the urban boundary will someday get moved and that it's a shifting line, which is not what our plan indicates, but as you point out, in this case, right now, there's no clear line in the sand in this particular area. With this amendment, if it is approved today, that line becomes far more clear to anyone in the future than it currently is? DR. NELSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that's something that we need to consider, because not to approve it would probably allow the waters to be muddied more so than clarifying them, and I think for our public, clarifying that line is key to them. So I thank you for that. The second issue on the -- the functional open space, the result -- the project -- again, the assumption that the result will result in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. You don't agree that the project will. Again, could you elaborate just briefly on that? DR. NELSON: Functional open space is that which is designed and managed and used for a particular open space purpose; wetlands, drainage, habitat, something intentional. Now, you may not disturb it, but you set up the machinery, legal machinery, planning machinery, to have them serve particular open space functions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And farmlands, you do not place in that category? DR. NELSON: Farmlands are not functional open space, even as defined by 9J-5. They are important open spaces in certain respects, there's no question, but the 9J-5 identifies -- or my interpretation of 9J-5 indicates to me that the functional open space concept applies primarily to wetlands, habitats, areas of unique scenery or views and so forth, not in anything active, and farming is active. The -- if the PUD/DRI is denied, none of the subject site now, nor probably in the future, would be used for functional open space because there would be no legal machinery or planning machinery to make that happen. With the amendment, all those things happen, and in fact, functional open space inventory goes up about double because of the amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Those are all the questions I had, Commissioner Berry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Nelson. MR. VARNADOE: As I stated previously, I've got Steve Means and Stuart Miller here from Wilson, Miller if anyone has any questions on the environmental, water management. If not, I'd like to submit their report along with the other matters that are contained in the booklet that these witnesses have been testifying from into the record along with Dr. Nelson's six page summary of his slide report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need a motion to recognize Mr. Miller and Mr. Means as experts since their testimony's being provided for the record? If so, I make the motion. 21 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to recognize the two individuals mentioned as expert witnesses. All in favor? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. Hang on. I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't know the background on either one of them and maybe you could give me a little brief before I vote for somebody to be an expert. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. If you'll look under Tab A, you'll see the -- A-1, Mr. Means, and A-2 is Mr. Miller. Mr. Means is a director of water resources at Wilson, Miller. He's a principal. He's a P.E. He has 14 years of experience as a registered engineer, and Mr. Miller, you'll see here his credentials as far as his environmental background, his length of service, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. What are we declaring them experts in, Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In their respective professions of water management for Mr. Means and environmental review and permitting for Mr. Miller. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. MR. VARNADOE: Would you reflect that this is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You will enter those into the record then? MR. VARNADOE: Would you reflect that they're accepted as part of the record? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The manual that was presented to us will be part of the record as presented by Mr. Varnadoe for the petitioner. MR. VARNADOE: And I'd like to request to have an opportunity to respond to any issues or concerns that come up that we have not previously addressed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, any questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there public speakers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will find out. MR. FERNANDEZ: First public speaker is Nancy Payton and the second is David Guggenheim. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Payton, please. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. The Florida Wildlife Federation is opposed to the growth management plan amendment DCA 98-D1 that authorizes Fiddler's Creek to increase density on certain agriculturally zoned land abutting the urban boundary. The Federation's position is based on the following points. Point one, we believe this amendment blurs the county's separation between urban and rural lands. Density on agriculturally zoned land may be increased by almost eight-fold, from one unit on each five acres to 1.5 units on an acre. Point two, the amendment represents urban sprawl. It also promotes a pattern of single use, low density housing in this area. Maybe there's some experts that think it's not urban sprawl, but maybe they would accept that it's urban ooze. Point three, it establishes a bad precedent, amending the 22 county's growth management plan for a particular development seeking a market niche. That niche being a gated community with one of the lowest densities and the highest number of golf holes. Point four, this amendment raises serious questions of what happens when residential developments such as Fiddler's Creek begin to shove up against environmentally sensitive lands held in public trust. Issues of conflicting management practices are destined to occur. Prescribed burning versus morning tennis, mosquitoes versus open air dining, and black bears versus tee off times. Golf courses and other open spaces may not be adequate buffers to appease residents' urban expectations. The rural lands we have now will have to service forever. Decisions made now have important consequences down the road. The road this amendment takes is a dangerous one and one many do not want to take. The Federation and its supporters want Collier County to grow wisely and smartly, with clearheaded, farsighted land use planning. Better development models are needed to replace the current random collision of economic forces that is turning Collier's unique, rural, natural and scenic landscape into gates, guards and golf courses. Take a bold step, Commissioners, and say no to this amendment and what it represents. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker's David Guggenheim, and then Brad Cornell. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning, Chairman Berry, Commissioners. For the record, David Guggenheim, president, CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I speak to you on behalf of our 5,300 family members, 675 volunteers and our 32 member board of directors who have ratified the position statement that I believe you received in the mail, and I'm giving you an extra copy just to be sure. The Conservancy does not object to the proposed growth management plan proposal that would allow an amendment to the Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI. Although we do have serious concerns about urban type development of land outside the urban boundary, this particular proposal has compelling environmental benefits and other factors distinguishing it from other potential PUD's outside the urban boundary. First and foremost, the Conservancy is now satisfied that Fiddler's Creek is a -- is indeed a unique situation. It does not represent a precedent setting infringement of the urban boundary or urban sprawl. Our position statement lists ten distinguishing factors of this proposed project, including the fact that the proposed addition is within the boundaries of the Collier County water sewer district with such services available, and the fact that density is spread over a larger area within the project boundaries, but in addition, Fiddler's Creek has offered to give up development rights to an environmentally significant area, the peninsula, which extends into the Rookery Bay preserve area, 63 acres, and they've agreed to place that into a permanent conservation easement. This is a significant concession and a definite win for the environment. While we are satisfied that this project is indeed a unique case, the fact does remain that Collier County is experiencing tremendous growth pressure outside the urban boundary and it is important that we move forward with growth management plan, land development code amendments and get those in place regarding criteria for development outside the urban boundary. You directed staff to work with the Conservancy to develop such criteria following the Twin Eagles hearings. I'm pleased to report 23 that those meetings appear imminent now within the next few weeks. We've been in touch with staff and we'll be getting that very important dialogue going, and time is of the essence on that. As I drove past Twin Eagles on Sunday, they have, indeed, broken ground out there and there are more and more developments like that, as you well know, going in outside our urban boundary. We believe that such criteria are nothing less than critical. Again, the Conservancy does not object to the proposed amendment before you. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I would just like to commend Mr. Guggenheim and the Conservancy for their rational, reasoned approach to helping this County Commission become ever more better stewards of our local environment as we deal with these very difficult growth issues, so thank you very much. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chair. Dr. Guggenheim, did you have discussions with the folks at Rookery Bay regarding the proposal? I believe you got -- I think you and I had that discussion MR. GUGGENHEIM: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- regarding the water quality and the existing pulsing nature of storm water into Rookery Bay and whatnot. I -- the reason I ask that is because we don't have a letter of objection from them. They have not objected to it, to my knowledge, but you mentioned as one of your points, I think one of your key points on number five, is that the construction of the mile-long spreader swale will attempt to recreate historic sheet flows, discourage all terrain vehicles and accessory to Rookery Bay and whatnot, and I see that as probably that, and the 63 acre peninsula, as being two of the strongest environmental points we've seen in a long time. Was part of that arrived at through discussions with Rookery Bay as far as the water moving into that area? MR. GUGGENHEIM: Yes. I don't want to put myself in a position of speaking for the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tried carefully not to put you in that position. MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- the reserve, but our discussions did certainly include conversation with the Rookery Bay staff who, in my judgment, were supportive of the environmental type of enhancements being proposed by this project, both to restore water flow, and certainly with regard to the 63 acre peninsula. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think you can take pride and your membership can take pride in the fact that that 63 acres may have had a very different outcome had it not been for the involvement of the Conservancy and the fact that the petitioner worked with you, and for that, thank you. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just while we're all saying how wonderful things are, I have to add mine too, to say, you know, there was some question in the community, was the Twin Eagles participation and discussion, was that a one time thing or is this truly a new day that the Conservancy is gonna work with developers to help this County Commission protect and carefully balance. Just as Miss Payton said, these are critical decisions that have an unending impact in the future, and I think you're hearing from all of us how much we very much appreciate your expertise and the fact that it is a new day. 24 We're back to the Conservancy working with developers and helping us to strike a balance. Thank you. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The final speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here as president of Collier County Audubon Society. And I'm having a letter given to you, and I won't read it, but although it's not very long, I will summarize just three points that I want to make in that letter. And, well, first say that we do oppose the -- your passing this amendment, particularly the growth management plan amendment. And the reasons that I want to cite to you are one, we feel that this is not an appropriate way to use our growth management plan, not an appropriate way to amend it for various site specific projects of this nature, and that that sort of action renders the plan less effective. So that's one point. Another point is that we have concerns about mosquito control practices that would be -- come into demand in this area. Already I think it could be said that we've got development in places that it shouldn't be. Well, that's water under the bridge, so to speak. But we don't want to exacerbate that problem of mosquito spraying near conservation lands. So that's another issue. And thirdly, I want to say that we feel like -- and this is to really echo what Dr. Guggenheim and Nancy Payton had to say -- that we should not be looking at the issues that concern development beyond our urban boundary, as it is now, in a project by project basis. That was -- I think that everyone recognizes the enormity and importance of this issue, and the pressures that are now coming to bear on our rural and agricultural lands. So I think we're all in agreement on that. And in light of that agreement, I think it would be wise for all of us not to promote policies on a project by project basis, but rather deal with this comprehensively in community meetings, discussions, criteria development, et cetera. So I would say for that reason, probably most importantly we should not go forward at this time with this amendment. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cornell, did I hear you correctly, you're willing to work with the board, this project, to work with the board on developing criteria -- not just beyond the urban area but in the far-reaching agricultural parts of the county, the Audubon Society is willing to work with the board to arrive at a policy in that arena? MR. CORNELL: We want to work with a policy that governs development in the entire county, yes, that would be correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But specifically, it's such a critical point, and I know it's not relevant to this particular petition, but I think it's so important to the whole future of these issues, and that is you know that when we tried to have discussions on Twin Eagles that, as I understand it, Audubon and Wildlife were invited to participate in trying to discover what was the right thing to do with Twin Eagles and declined to participate. And what I think I heard was that as we go forward with the Conservancy and staff with what Dr. Guggenheim referred to, to develop these county-wide policies, addressing development standards outside the urban boundary, is Audubon now willing to participate in that process? MR. CORNELL: Well, first let me clarify that for one thing, I was not president of Audubon at that time when these issues came up, but I do understand that the reason -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know how you feel about being handed things you weren't responsible for. 25 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. MR. CORNELL: But if I may clarify, I do understand the reason for that policy choice of the chapter, and that was that we were doing things backward in our perception. It wasn't that we didn't want to participate in discussions on that, but again, we felt like doing it on a project by project basis was the incorrect procedure. We should deal with it more in a general policy discussion rather than specific to that particular project. That was our objection to that and why we pursued the course that we did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But for future reference, are you going to be participating in those -- may we invite you and will you accept the invitation to participate in those development discussions about what the criteria should be in the future? MR. CORNELL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. Thanks. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions, comments? Does this conclude your presentation? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. Unless the board has any questions, that would conclude our presentation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. Just -- it's the first time I heard mosquito spraying. One of the issues related to -- I don't even know if this is within or without a mosquito controlled district, and MR. VARNADOE: It is, and we've been working with them. We've also had communications back and forth with the Mercury Bay people on how best to address that situation. I think what is not being recognized by the opponents is the fact that we are setting aside a significant part of land between ourselves and this new property and anything the state owns that would otherwise be developed. Seventy acres of that 1,385 acres in the preserve is currently uplands, and over on section 29, down in the southeast corner, almost half of that half section, if you would, or quarter section is farmlands that could be developed without any -- all of that's going to be preserves. So there will be quite a buffer between development and the state wetlands to the south, plus the fact that a spreader swale system will help again solve that -- part of those problems as far as run-off and mosquito spraying or over spraying in that area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it is incumbent upon us to realize that the mosquito control district is an independent district -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and responsible for the safe application of the mosquito spraying chemicals. We have no control in that arena, but it is in the district. MR. VARNADOE: Let me just conclude by saying one thing: Although I appreciate Mr. Cornell's wish for some overall policy guidance, I think that in unique situations which the Conservancy's recognized as a unique situation, that we can address this on a project by project basis. And you've heard Dr. Nelson say we are really solving some problems that we have in this area through this amendment. By not adding a new unit, you're bringing this into an existing problem. Thank you. I 'm sorry, George Varnadoe, for the new court reporter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we've had our public speakers and the presentations are concluded. We will deal with each one of these different items. We will take all three of them at one time, but 26 we'll -- oh, I'm sorry, we've got to close the public hearing. But we'll start with petition CP-97-3 first. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, based on the information presented today and that entered into the record, I move approval of petition CP-97-3 with staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. Any further comments? If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) Motion carries unanimously five-zero. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-13, PETITION PUD-84-7 (6) , GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING CY ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HAVING THE EFFECT OF ADDING 1,385 ACRES TO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PORTION OF THE MARCO SHORES PUD (COMPANION TO ITEM 12C7) - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, in like order I move for approval of petition PUD-84-7 (6) . COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Finally, on this item, I'll also -- MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Hancock, before you make a motion, I think we need -- probably have to have a motion on this that the DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation before we actually amend the DRI. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. I assumed we had made that assumption since it was entered in by our staff report that that was a part of the motion. If it was not, I'll clarify the motion to indicate that it is not a substantial change, the DRI. Ms. Student, is that appropriate? MS. STUDENT: That's appropriate. It is also contained in the resolution and conclusion that it is not a substantial deviation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, then I'll just offer clarification that in fact was a part of the motion that was made. There being -- if there's no objection to that, then I assume it stands. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Item #12C7 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 98-1/RESOLUTION 98-49, RE PETITION DOA-97-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING DY ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING 1,385 ACRES TO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PORTION OF SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND COMPANION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZOING REGULATIONS, AND TO ADOPT A NEW MASTER PLAN (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 12B1) - ADOPTED 27 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the third -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I'll move approval of petition DOA-97-3. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. 28 F�►, r f United States Department of the Interior U FE _p gr' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' = pc. South Florida Ecological Services Office .y�cm h 1339 20th Street . ,,„,:•�� Veto Beach,Florida 32960 April 4, 2017 Jason :1. Kirk. Colonel District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville. Florida 32232-0019 Service CPA Code: 04EF2000-2016-CPA-0053 Service Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2016-F-0591 Corps Application No.: SAJ-2015-00853 Date Received: November 17, 2015 Consultation Initiation Date: November 25, 2016 Applicants: FCC Creek and FCC Oyster Harbor Project: Residential golf course community County: Collier Dear Colonel Kirk: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) has received the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) request for consultation dated November 17, 2015, for FCC Creek and FCC Oyster Harbor's (Applicants), mixed use and residential communities(Project). This document transmits the Service's Biological Opinion based on our review of the proposed Project, and its effects on the federally endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus; FBB) and Florida panther(Puma condor coryi; panther). It also includes and summarizes our concurrences for the Corps' determinations for the federally endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus aortas)and red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW): and the threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymar-chon corals couperi) and wood stork (Mycieria americana). This document is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the Corps' November 17. 2015. consultation request letter which included a biological assessment from Turrell, Hall & Associates, Incorporated (Consultant),and on other information provided by the Consultant and the Applicants' representative, Bill Hartwig,during telephone conversations and via email. As of November 15. 2016, the Service has received all the Project information necessary for initiation of formal consultation on the panther. as required in the regulations governing interagency consultations (50 CFR § 402.14). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the South Florida Ecological Services Office in Vero Beach, Florida Consultation History By letter to the Service, dated November 17, 2015, the Corps determined the proposed Project may affect the panther and the FBB, and requested initiation of formal consultation for these species. The Corps also determined the proposal may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect the American crocodile, eastern indigo snake, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork. On February 29, 2016, the Service received a Biological Assessment from the Consultant. On May 27, 2016, the Service met with the Consultant and the Applicants' representative to discuss the proposed preserve areas and management by the Community Development District (CDD). On June 16, 2016, the Service met with the Consultant and the Applicants' representative to discuss the need for formal consultation on the panther and FBB, and to discuss mitigation options. The Service also provided the Panther Tool to the Consultant via email to assist with calculating Panther Habitat Units(PHUs) for the Project. On July 20, 2016, the Service met with the Consultant and the Applicants' representative to discuss the proposed off-site preserves. The Service agreed these were acceptable. On August 11, 2016, the Applicant's representative indicated in an email to the Service that the Applicants agree to set up the preserves and purchase the remaining Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) from a Service-approved conservation or mitigation bank. On September 30, 2016, the Consultant provided a draft biological opinion to the Service to assist the Service in the development of the document. On November 18, 2016, the Service requested, via email, a more complete Project description and inquired about a management plan. On November 25, 2016, the Consultant provided the Service with a complete Project description and some information about the management plan for the off-site preserves. The Service deemed the information complete and initiated formal consultation. On December 6, 2016, the Consultant provided the Service with a draft management plan for the Project's off-site preserves. On February 23, 2017, the Service emailed the Consultant requesting clarification on the PHUs that were calculated for the Project and off-site preserves. On February 24. 2017, the Consultant provided an email response explaining the PHU calculations. The final PHU numbers were agreed upon through an email exchange. 2 BIOLOGICAL OPINION This Biological Opinion provides the Service's opinion as to whether the proposed Project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the FBB or panther. There is no designated critical habitat for these species; therefore, this Biological Opinion will not address destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY DETERMINATION Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. "Jeopardize the continued existence of' means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 Code of Federal Regulations 402.02). The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which describes the range-wide condition of the species, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition of the species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determine the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the species; and (4) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluate the effects of future, non-federal activities in the action area on the species. In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed federal action in the context of the current status of the species, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Applicants have applied for a Department of the Army permit for the Project which includes the eastern phase of the Oyster Harbor development and the entirety of the proposed Estancia development. The Project area includes approximately 804.50 acres(ac) (325.6 hectares [ha]) of land, and is the remaining undeveloped portion of the 3,932 ac Fiddler's Creek Development of Regional Impact. The proposed Project is situated immediately south of US Highway 41 and about 3.6 miles (mi) (5.8 kilometers [km]) east of County Road 951 in portions of Sections 18 and 19, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida(Figure 1). 3 The area of Oyster Harbor is approximately 191.9 ac(77.7 ha), containing 183.8 ac (74.4 ha) of uplands and 8.1 ac(3.3 ha) of agricultural, non-wetland, irrigation ditches. The area of Estancia is approximately 612.6 ac (247.9 ha), consisting of 509.1 ac(206.0 ha) of uplands, predominately row crop farm fields, 38.0 ac(15.4 ha) of wetland fallow farm fields, 30.1 ac(12.2 ha) of isolated non jurisdictional wetlands, and 35.4 ac (14.3 ha) of agricultural, non-wetland, irrigation ditches. The Project will provide a maximum of 1,650 residential dwelling units. The current plan contemplates a mixture of single family and multi-family residential units with anywhere from a 50 percent mix (825 single family and 825 multi-family) to as much as 75 percent of one type (1,238 single or multi and 412 of multi or single). The final mix will be dependent on the market conditions at the time the construction is undertaken. The site plan also identifies commercial uses such as a grocery store along US 41. Having the grocery store integral to the Project will minimize the amount of traffic that would go out onto US 41 and keep it within the Project boundaries. The Project also includes an 18-hole golf course with associated clubhouse and maintenance facilities. The proposed plan includes construction of a stonnwater management system comprised of a series of interconnected lakes throughout the development. The lakes will have control structures which will limit the elevations at which water will move through the system as well as regulate the amount of water which can flow. The Project will also expand the existing Fiddler's Creek Marsh Enhancement Buffer and Spreader System (MEBSS). This spreader swale distributes the stonnwater outfall from the development into the adjacent off-site preserves in a manner which mimics natural sheet flow and also acts as a buffer between the off- site areas and the proposed development. Infrastructure within the proposed Project will include the roadways, stonnwater pipes, and utilities such as water, sewer, and electric lines. The construction of the lakes and MEBSS system will generate fill that will be used throughout the development portions of the site. There is no import of fill anticipated by the Project. Minimization and Conservation Measures The 804.5 ac (325.6 ha) Project is in the Service's Other Zone, west of Tamiami Trail and the Secondary Zone. The Project site consists of habitat falling into the following categories: cropland (508.0 ac [205.6 ha]), exotic:'nuisance vegetation (104.8 ac [42.4 ha]), barren disturbed lands (54.0 ac [21.9 ha]), urban areas (44.1 ac [17.8 ha]), water bodies and ditches(41.6 ac [16.8 ha]), dry prairie (27.0 ac [10.9 ha]), groves (15.0 ac [6.1 ha]), cypress swamp(6.5 ac [2.6 ha]), hardwood forest (2.2 ac [0.9 ha]), marsh/wet prairie (1.3 ac [0.5 ha]), and shrub swamp/brush (0.1 ac [0.04 ha]). These habitats, with the exception of the urban areas, and water bodies and ditches, are suitable for panther feeding and dispersal, but will not remain suitable following development of the Project. Therefore, the Project will result in the loss of about 718.8 ac (290.9 ha) of panther habitat that provides a total of 2,701 PHUs (Table 1). As compensation for the loss of habitat, the Applicants have proposed to create approximately 606.8 ac(245.6 ha) of off-site preserve areas and a 7.2 ac (2.9 ha) on-site preserve(Figure 2), which will be comprised of approximately 550.5 ac(222.8 ha)of wetland and 63.5 ac(25.7 ha) of uplands following the completion of the mitigation activities. The wetland habitats in the preserve areas will consist mostly of hydric pine, fallow pasture, cypress, and marsh habitats with 4 mixed wetland forest and wetland shrub, to lesser extents. The upland habitats will consist of pine flatwoods and scrub. Additionally, the configuration and location of the preserves will retain the habitat connectivity with surrounding conservation lands and wildlife corridors described in the Applicants' February, 2016,biological assessment. The 614.0 ac(248.5 ha)of preserve areas will provide compensation for impacts to panther habitat associated with the Project. Like the proposed impact areas, the proposed preserve lands fall outside of the panther focus area but are available and used by panthers as evidenced by the telemetry data. The proposed preserve lands provide connectivity between Collier Seminole State Park, Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the remainder of the Fiddler's Creek preserve lands. The preserve areas will be enhanced and restored by removal of invasive exotic vegetation and re-establishment of native vegetation. Following restoration and enhancement activities, regular management and monitoring of these areas in perpetuity, according to Service-approved management plans, will ensure that the habitat is maintained in good condition for use by panthers and other wildlife. The preserve areas will be placed in a conservation easement or other equivalent deed restriction with inspection, enforcement, and approval rights granted to the Corps and the Service. The total preserve area to be placed under conservation easement is approximately 614.0 ac. These preserve areas are anticipated to result in the creation of the equivalent of 1,393 PHUs within the panther primary zone(Table 2), once they are fully restored. The preserves do not provide enough PHUs to fully compensate for the PHUs lost to development, so a total of 1,309 PHUs (2,701 PHUs lost due to development - 1,393 PHUs provided in preserves = 1,309 PHU remaining to be compensated) will be purchased by the Applicants from a Service-approved conservation bank. The 614.0 ac (248.5 ha)of preserve areas will also provide compensation for impacts to FBB habitat associated with the Project. Trees with cavities or snags will not be removed from the preserve areas. The Applicants have agreed not to begin construction on the Project until: (1) they provide the Service with a receipt (in the form of a letter or email) from a Service-approved conservation or mitigation bank stating at least 1,309 PHUs have been acquired by the Applicants; (2) the Corps and the Applicants have received an email or letter from the Service indicating we have received the receipt from the Service-approved conservation or mitigation bank; (3) a conservation easement has been placed on the preserve lands; (4) a management plan approved by the Service has been developed; and (5) a funding mechanism for long-term management that is acceptable to the Service is in place. 5 Action Area The action area is defined as all areas to be directly or indirectly affected by the Federal action and not just the immediate area involved in action. The Service considers the action area for this Project as all lands within the footprint of the Project, and all lands located in the Service's panther Focus Area(Focus Area) and the Service's Other Zone within 25 mi (40.2 km) of the Project footprint (Figure 3). The 25-mi (40.2 km) buffer around the Project footprint is designed to encompass mean dispersal distances of subadult male panthers which were reported by Maehr et al. (2002)to be 23.2 mi (37.3 km) and by Comiskey et al. (2002) to be 24.9 mi (40.0 km). The 25-mi (40.2-km)buffer distance encompasses the dispersal distance of both male and female panthers because male panther dispersal distances are known to exceed those reported for female panthers (Maehr et al. 2002; Comiskey et al. 2002). The size and action area for this consultation is consistent with action areas defined in our recent biological opinions for the panther and it encompasses the wide ranging movements of subadult panthers and the large home territories of adult panthers. The Focus Area denotes areas in Florida where development projects could potentially affect the panther(Figure 4) and is based on the scientific information on panther habitat usage provided in Kautz et al. (2006) and Thatcher et al. (2006). The Focus Area includes lands in Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Collier, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, as well as the Southern portion of Highlands County. Developed urban coastal areas in eastern Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, and in western Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties were excluded because they contain little or no panther habitat, and it is unlikely panthers would use such areas. Areas outside of the Panther Focus Area, but within the original Consultation Area(Figure 4), are collectively known as the Other Zone. The Project lies within this Other Zone on the southern boundary of the Consultation Area. SPECIES NOT LIKELY TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION American crocodile The waters and wetlands on the Project site are part of a closed loop, fresh water irrigation system that requires pumping to discharge water from the site. American crocodile habitat on site is marginal. American crocodiles have not been observed during on-site wildlife surveys or other work. The nearest confirmed sighting of this species occurred 1 mi to the southeast at the Marco Island Airport. The site does not contain any designated critical habitat therefore none will be impacted by the Project. Based on these factors, the Service concurs with the Corps' determination that the Project may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect the American crocodile. 6 RCW The three forested wetland areas on the site potentially provide marginal foraging opportunities, though there are no mature pines that would be utilized for nesting cavity construction. No foraging or nesting habitat will be impacted by the proposed Project, and no RCW activity has been documented within 3 mi (4.8 km) of the Project site. The Service concurs with the Corps' determination the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the RCW. Eastern indigo snake Based on the negative results of the listed species surveys, the distance to the nearest known eastern indigo snake location(3.5 mi [5.6 km] to a 2009 observation), the willingness of the Applicants to abide by the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Service 2013), and other protective measures proposed, the Service concurs with the Corps determination that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake. Wood stork The Corps determined the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork using the Wood Stork Effect Determination Key (Service 2010). The Corps has received programmatic concurrence through this key and no further consultation is required. STATUS OF THE SPECIES FBB Please see Enclosure for the Status of the Species for the FBB. Panther Please see Enclosure for the Status of the Species for the panther. Summary of threats to the species FBB The loss of native forested habitat and roost sites in South Florida were primary considerations in listing the FBB as endangered. Other threats include loss of foraging habitat, disease, routine maintenance of bridges and overpasses, competition for tree cavities, pesticides and contaminants, ecological light pollution, climate change, and sea level rise. Threats that are relevant to the Project and will be discussed in the remaining sections of this Biological Opinion are the loss of native forested habitat, foraging habitat. and roost sites. 7 Panther The panther is a wide-ranging species that requires large areas of diverse landscape to survive. Dispersing subadult males wander widely through unforested and disturbed habitat. Human population in South Florida has dramatically increased, from 1 million in 1950 to 6.6 million in 2010, resulting in secondary disturbances such as increased human presence and noise, light, air, and water pollution. In southwest Florida, where the reproducing panther population is primarily located, human population has increased from 833,892 in 2000 to an estimate of 1,231,100 in 2010, representing an increase of 47.6 percent over the 10-year period (University of Florida 2009). Increasing human population has resulted in increasing impacts on native habitat and flora and fauna. Resulting threats to panthers include direct effects, such as human disturbance from Project construction, and habitat loss and fragmentation; and indirect effects from road mortality, human disturbance following construction, and intra-specific aggression. Table 3 provides a yearly tabulation of the population counts of the panther with the annual mortalities also shown. From 1944 to the present, approximately 3,164,105 ac (1,280,467 ha)of lands in south Florida that benefit the panther have been acquired and placed in conservation (Table 4 and Figure 5). Lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida encompass over 350,079 ac(141,672 ha) in south Florida. Of these tribal lands, 187,526 ac(75,889 ha)are used by panthers, and comprise 5 percent of the Primary Zone(Kautz et al. 2006). In general, these lands are not specifically managed for the panther and are largely in cultivation. However, in 2007, the Seminole Tribe of Florida reserved about 4,144 ac(1,677 ha)within the 14,724 ac (5,958.6 ha) Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation Native Area, specifically for the benefit of the panther. The remaining native area, about 10,580 ac(4,281.6 ha), although not specifically managed for the panther, provides high quality value habitat for the panther and panther prey species. A variety of Federal, State, and private incentive programs are available to assist private landowners and other individuals with the protection and management of wildlife habitat. Voluntary agreements, estate planning, conservation easements, land exchanges, and conservation/mitigation banks are all methods that have the potential to conserve private lands. In 1954, the National Audubon Society established the nearly 10,880-ac(4,403-ha) Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. However, little additional private land has been protected south of the Caloosahatchee River for panther conservation. A number of properties identified by the State Acquisition and Restoration Council for purchase by the Florida Forever Program are used by panthers (e.g., Devil's Garden, Half Circle F Ranch, Pal Mal, and Panther Glades). North of the Caloosahatchee River, the Fisheating Creek Conservation Easement consists of 41,600 ac (16,835 ha) in Glades County, and is a private holding used by dispersing male panthers. The Service developed a Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology and refugia design in 2003 to help guide the agency in evaluating permit applications for projects that could affect panther habitat. This methodology provided a way to assess the level of impacts to panthers expected from a given project, and to evaluate the effect of any proposed compensation offered by the 8 project's Applicants. The Habitat Assessment Methodology was updated in 2009. A full description of our Habitat Assessment Methodology can be found at: http:i:'www.fws.goviverobeach/MammalsPDFsi20120924 Panther°%20Hahitat°o20Assessment°o 20Method Appendix.pdf. The threats posed by human disturbance during and after Project construction,habitat loss and fragmentation, road mortality, and intra-specific aggression are relevant to this Project and will be discussed in the remainder of this Biological Opinion. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Status of the species within the action area FBB The Project site is located in Collier County. This county is one of four main geographic focal areas: (1) west(Charlotte'Lee Counties); (2) southwest (Collier Monroe Lee Hendry Counties): (3) southeast (Miami-Dade County); (4) north-central (Polk/Okeechobee and adjacent counties). The Project site is within a FBB Focus Area (Figure 6) and the Consultation Area. The nearest known FBBs are located 5.6 mi (9.0 km)to the northeast (Figure 7). There are 36 locations where FBB calls have been recorded within the action area(Figure 7). They are distributed almost evenly in a northeasterly, easterly, and southeasterly direction. One roost is known to occur at Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge(FPNWR) (Figure 7)to the northeast about 21.0 mi (33.8 km) and another at Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park(Figure 5) about 14 mi (km) to the southeast. The Project footprint contains suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the FBB. The foraging habitat is in the form of active and fallow row crop agricultural lands. The roosting habitat is in the form of three remnant isolated depressional wetland areas(37.4 ac [15.1 ha])that have not been farmed. An examination of trees within the forested wetland areas indicated that there are trees on the site that would support cavities suitable for FBB roosting, and none of these trees will be impacted by the Project. All will be contained within the proposed preserve areas. General acoustic surveys were not conducted because the location of the site in the Focus Area. that was developed based on flight distances around known FBB locations, and distance to known occupied areas makes it reasonably certain that FBBs forage over the property. In addition, roost surveys were not conducted because the roosting habitat will not be removed and indirect effects of the Project are not expected to be significantly greater than those that are already occurring on the Project site as a result of the agricultural operations. Panther The Service used current and historical radio-telemetry data, information on habitat quality, prey base, and evidence of uncollared panthers to evaluate panther use in the action area. Panther 9 telemetry data are collected 3 days per week from fixed-wing aircraft, usually in early to midmorning. Studies indicate panthers are most active between dusk and dawn (Maehr et al. 1990, Beier 1995) and are typically at rest in dense ground cover during daytime monitoring flights(Land 1994). Therefore, telemetry locations may present an incomplete picture of panther activity patterns and habitat use(Comiskey et al. 2002). However, this potential bias was not detected in a recent analysis by Land et al. (2008) using Global Positioning System (GPS) location data collected throughout a 24 hour day. This study revealed panther habitat selection patterns are similar when using either aerial telemetry data or GPS location data, and upland and wetland forests were the habitats most selected by panthers. There was also an indication grassland-dry prairie habitats were used more at night than during daytime hours. Only a subset of the panther population has been radio-collared. However, the large database of telemetry locations taken from radio-collared panthers south of the Caloosahatchee River can be used to estimate the size and number of home ranges and travel corridors south of the Caloosahatchee River. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) also uses observational data collected during telemetry flights to assess the yearly breeding activity of radio-collared panthers. According to telemetry records collected by the FWC-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (2014), there have been 1,355 telemetry point locations for 20 radio-collared panthers detected within 5 mi of the proposed Project site between February 23. 1981, and June 28, 2013 (Figure 8); 347 telemetry points associated with 7 panthers within 2 mi; and 197 telemetry points from 4 radio collared panthers within 1 mi of the proposed Project site. Two of the panthers within 1 mi have been recorded on the Project site. FP193 was recorded 13 times between June 20. 2011, and December 8. 2014; and FP 158 was documented on November 28, 2008, June 1, 2009, and July 8, 2009 (Figure 9). Based on telemetry data, historically there have been approximately 122 Florida panther deaths within 25 mi of the proposed Project(Figure 10), and current data shows that approximately 83 of those deaths were attributed to panther collisions with vehicles (Figure 1 I). Since 2003 there have been 11 panthers struck and killed by vehicles within a 5-mi radius from the Project site (Figure 11). Panthers killed by a vehicle collision within 5-mi of the Project site include panther K390 UCFP 215 in 2014; panther UCFP 199 in 2013; panthers UCFP 167, UCFP 180, and FP 196 in 2012; panthers UCFP 143 and FP 158 in 2010; panther UCFP 107 in 2008; panther UCFP 88 in 2006;panther UCFP 76 in 2005; and panther UCFP 60 in 2003. None of these deaths were within 2 mi of the Project area. 10 Factors affecting the species environment within the action area Factors that affect the species environment within the action area include, but are not limited to Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, such as: construction of highways and urban development, agriculture operations, resource extraction, public lands management (prescribed fire, public use, exotic eradication, etc.),hydrological restoration projects, and public and private land protection efforts. Past and ongoing Federal and State actions that could affect panther habitat in the action area include the issuance of Corps' permits and State of Florida Environmental Resource Permits authorizing the filling of wetlands for development projects and other purposes. Since 1982, the Corps and the State have had a joint wetland permit application process, where all permit applications submitted are distributed to both agencies. Conservation lands acquired through the land acquisition programs of Federal, State and County resource agencies within the action area have benefited panthers by preserving and maintaining habitat in perpetuity. Public conservation lands include the State of Florida's Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, Collier-Seminole State Park, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, Picayune Strand State Forest, and the Service's Florida Panther and Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuges. Climate change Our analyses under the Act include consideration of observed or likely environmental effects related to ongoing and projected changes in climate. As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), "climate" refers to average weather, typically measured in teens of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation. or other relevant properties over time; thus "climate change"refers to a change in such a measure which persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or human-caused changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use(IPCC 2013, p. 1450). Detailed explanations of global climate change and examples of various observed and projected changes and associated effects and risks at the global level are provided in reports issued by the IPCC (2014 and citations therein). Information for the United States at national and regional levels is summarized in the National Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014 entire and citations therein: see Melillo et al. 2014, pp.28-45 for an overview). Because observed and projected changes in climate at regional and local levels vary from global average conditions, rather than using global scale projections, we use"downscaled" projections when they are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses of a given species and the conditions influencing it (See Melillo et al. 2014, Appendix 3, pp. 760-763 for a discussion of climate modeling, including downscaling). In our analysis, we use our expert judgment to weigh the best scientific and commercial data available in our consideration of relevant aspects of climate change and related effects. II Climate change may result in an increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes in Florida. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation(AMO) influences rain patterns in Florida. We are currently in an AMO warm phase that is predicted to persist through 2020 (Miller 2010). The increased rainfall associated with both of these factors could reduce our ability to effectively use prescribed burning to manage habitat in optimal conditions for FBBs, panthers and panther prey. Increased rainfall could also reduce the amount of area suitable for panther denning by increasing the area covered with standing water or the duration of inundation of seasonally wet areas. On the positive side, increases rainfall could produce more insects for FBBs to eat. It is difficult to determine if species will be affected by climate change or exactly how they will be affected. The Service will use Strategic Habitat Conservation planning, an adaptive science- driven process that begins with explicit trust resource population objectives, as the framework for adjusting our management strategies in response to climate change(Service 2006). EFFECTS OF THE ACTION FBB Adverse effects The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect FBB adults and juveniles using the Project area. The Project will result in the loss of 723.0 ac(292.6 ha) (total Project acreage [804.5 ac (325.6 ha)] minus urban acreage [44.1 ac(17.8 ha)] and isolated depressional wetlands [37.4 ac (15.1 ha)]) of FBB habitat. The Project area is less than 0.01 percent of the approximately 5,691,000 ac(230,306.6 ha) FBB consultation area in South Florida. The isolated depressional wetlands(37.4 ac [15.1 ha])are suitable roosting and foraging habitat, but because the isolated depressional wetlands will not be developed, the construction of the Project will result in the loss of foraging habitat only. The effect of foraging habitat loss is that FBBs that forage over the Project site will have a reduction in prey that could be temporary if the golf course planned for the Project produces similar numbers and types of insects, or permanent if the numbers of insects produced are fewer or the types of insects produced are not consumed by FBBs. The number of insects necessary to sustain an individual FBB is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that the loss of this large acreage of foraging(723.0 ac [292.6 ha]) habitat will cause FBBs using the area to either forage longer in the remaining habitat to maintain their caloric intake or survive on a decreased diet until they locate a replacement. This in turn could cause reduced time for activities such as breeding and care of pups or reduced fitness. The FBBs at the known roost at FPNWR are unlikely to forage at the Project site because they are at the upper end of the maximum distance (24.0 mi [38.6 km]) a FBB was detected from its roost and there is better habitat closer to this roost. The FBB recorded within 5.6 mi (9.0 krn) is part of a 12-location cluster that is within an easy flight distance of the Project. This group likely represents an undiscovered roost that will be affected by the loss of foraging habitat on the Project site. 12 Disturbance resulting from the construction of the proposed Project will be in the form of noise and dust. This disturbance is expected to occur during daytime hours. Because FBBs emerge to forage around sunset and return to their roosts around sunrise or earlier, this disturbance is expected to be minimal to foraging FBBs. Because the Project site already has noise and dust produced during daytime agricultural activities, any additional noise and dust associated with Project construction is expected to have a minimal effect on FBBs should they roost in the isolated depressional wetland areas. Disturbance resulting from increased human activity after Project completion will be in the form of increased noise at night in addition to the day, and ecological light pollution from house and street lights. Increase noise at night could interfere with a bat's ability to echolocate prey or hear calls of other bats. This could cause FBBs to leave the Project area to forage in a quieter location or could cause reduced foraging efficiency. The FBB's response to artificial lighting is unknown. The effect could be positive if the lights attract insects that FBBs feed on making foraging more efficient. The effect could be negative if foraging around artificial lights results in increased predation or harm from humans. Beneficial effects FBBs will benefit from the 614.0 ac (248.5 ha) of on-site and off-site preserves created as part of the Project. Management of these preserves will greatly reduce or eliminate exotic and nuisance vegetation that can make these areas too densely vegetated to be used by FBB. It will also ensure that roosting habitat is maintained since there will be no need to remove large trees or snags. Interrelated and interdependent actions An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. Interrelated or interdependent actions are not expected to result from the Project. Panther Adverse effects The Project site contains panther habitat and is located within the geographic range of the panther. The timing of construction for this Project, relative to sensitive periods of the panther's lifecycle, is unknown. Panthers may be found on and adjacent to the proposed construction footprint year-round. The Project will be constructed in an ongoing, disruptive event, over a span of multiple years, and result in permanent loss and alteration of the existing ground cover on the Project site. The time required to complete construction of the Project is estimated to extend over 4 to 5 years, though initial land clearing associated with the development will be undertaken in one disruptive event. The Service assumes that construction activities will occur year-round. 13 The disturbance intensity will vary depending on the phase or stage of construction activities. Initial land clearing operations will be more intensive than subsequent residential construction as these types of operations would result in disturbances to local wildlife which may include prey species for the panther. The disturbance associated with the Project will be permanent and result in a loss of habitat currently available to the panther. The land to be affected by the Project currently provides about 718.8 ac (290.9 ha) of habitat for the panther. The Project site is located in the Other Zone(Kautz et al. 2006) outside of the Focus Area, but within the southwestern portion of the panther's current range. The majority of the land to be impacted consists of row crop agricultural lands that provide minimal habitat for the panther and its prey. A variety of prey species for the panther are known to occur within the action area. These species include: white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis), Eastern grey squirrel (Schwas carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and various species of small mammals, wading birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The proposed work includes the preservation of lands to the south of the Project site that have been used as a travel corridor by panthers moving through the area. The Service used our panther Habitat Assessment Methodology to evaluate the panther habitat lost due to the Project, the panther habitat improvement due to the preservation of off-site lands. and the additional panther habitat compensation needed from a Service-approved Conservation Bank. The 804.5 ac(325.6 ha) Project site contains 718.8 ac(290.9 ha) of panther habitat that provides 3,274.54 PHUs in the Other Zone. To calculate the number of PHUs needed to compensate for the PHUs lost in in the Other Zone due to the Project, the 3,274.54 PHUs are multiplied by the 2.5 Base Ratio and the landscape multiplier for the Other Zone(0.33) for a product of 2,701.49 PHUs (rounded to 2,701 PHUs). The preserves are given a value of 1,393 PHUs after restoration and enhancement (1,126 PHUs before restoration+[(1,659 PHUs after restoration-1,126 PHUs before restoration) 2]. Therefore, a total of 1,309 PHUs (2,701 PHUs impacted --1,393 PHUs in the preserves °1,309 PHUs needed) is needed to compensate for the loss of panther habitat lost due to the Project. To meet this compensation need, the Applicants will acquire 1,309 PHUs from a Service-approved conservation or mitigation bank. The habitat compensation provided by the Applicants is consistent with the Service's panther goal to strategically locate, preserve, and restore lands containing sufficient area and appropriate land cover types to ensure the long-term survival of the panther population south of the Caloosahatchee River. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by the proposed action, at the time of construction, are primarily habitat based, are reasonably certain to occur and include: (1) the permanent loss of habitat that supports panthers and their prey; (2)narrowing of a panther corridor; and (3) harassment by construction activities. 14 Permanent loss of habitat for panthers and their prey The Project will result in the loss of 718.8 ac(290.9 ha)of panther habitat. According to the most current home range estimates of the Florida panther(Lotz et al. 2005), this loss represents 2.5 percent of a female panther's average home range(29,059 ac [11,760 ha]) and 1.1 percent of a male panther's average home range(62,542 ac [25,310 ha]). The Project site also provides some habitat for panther prey species(e.g., feral hog, white-tailed deer, small mammals etc.). Habitat adjacent to the Project site includes higher quality uplands and wetlands interspersed with low-density residential development. Panthers may use these habitats for feeding and dispersal. The land will be converted to land uses that aren't expected to be used by panthers or their prey. The habitat lost due to the Project may adversely affect the panther by decreasing the spatial extent of lands available to the panther and their prey, and will result in further fragmentation of panther habitat in the area. We anticipate any resident panthers with home ranges overlapping the Project area will adjust the size and location of their ranges to account for this loss and that adjustment is anticipated to occur in concert with Project construction. Narrowing of a panther corridor From the panther telemetry on the Project site and within the adjacent ranchettes to the east, it is evident that panthers crossing Tamiami Trail from the Secondary Zone to the northeast have been crossing along this 1 mi (1.6 km) wide area to access lands south of the Project site(Figure 9). The Project development is likely to deter panthers from crossing into the Project site which will limit them to either using the 0.50 mi (0.8 km)wide area in the ranchettes, or going about 2 mi (3.2 k.m)to the southeast to cross. The area of the ranchettes appears to be preferred as indicated by the greater number of telemetry locations. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how negative the effect of the narrower corridor will be. Harassment by construction activities Land clearing and excavation, additional vehicle access, additional human presence, heavy equipment operation, road traffic, noise, and lighting associated with the Project have the potential to disturb panthers on or near the Project site. The timing of construction for this Project, relative to sensitive periods of the panther's life cycle, is unknown. However, the land clearing for the proposed Project will be completed in a single phase at the start of development activities and the construction operations will be conducted during daylight hours. Panthers are intelligent and highly mobile creatures that prefer to avoid human activities. Construction activities will not occur at night when panthers are more likely to be active. The Service does not anticipate construction of the Project will result in the direct mortality or injury of any panthers. Adult panthers are expected to avoid the project area during construction. The Project site has not been known to be used for denning. Therefore, direct mortality to kittens is not expected. 15 Indirect effects are those effects that result from the proposed action, are later in time. and are reasonably certain to occur. The indirect effects this Project could have on the panther within the action area are discussed below and in the assessment of functional habitat values previously discussed. They include: (1) increased potential for panther mortality due to motor vehicle collisions; (2) increased disturbance to panthers and their prey due to human activities; and (3) an increase in the potential for intraspecific aggression among panthers due to reduction of the geographic distribution of habitat of the panther. Risk of panther injury and mortality from motor vehicle collisions In evaluating a Project's potential to increase injuries and mortalities to panthers resulting from motor vehicle collisions, we consider the location of the Project in relation to surrounding native habitats, preserved lands, and wildlife corridors that are frequently used by the panther. We also consider the current configuration and traffic patterns of surrounding roadways and the projected increase and traffic patterns expected to result from the proposed action. We evaluate the habitats present on-site, their importance in providing feeding needs for the panther and panther prey species, and if the site development would further restrict access to surrounding lands important to the panther and panther prey species. The Project will result in minor increased vehicular traffic in the Project vicinity during and after construction. The Project involves construction of internal roads, but these are not expected to pose high risk to panthers because the speed limit will be lower than the main roads and access to these internal roads from natural areas is minimized due to the surrounding residential development separating the natural areas from the roads. Ingress and egress from the Project site will be on existing roads, and the majority of traffic expected to head west and out of the Panther Focus area. Panther vehicle injury and mortality was discussed in the Environmental Baseline section of this document. It is likely panther vehicle interactions will continue to occur in the action area during implementation of the proposed Project, and it will be difficult to determine if injuries or mortalities are directly related to the minor increases resulting from the Project. Disturbance to panthers and panther prey from an increase in human activities The completed Project will increase potential disturbance to panthers and their prey from the expected increase in human activities at the Project site (e.g., lights, noise from human activities and operation of motor vehicles using the roadways, etc.). The disturbance resulting from the increase in human activities and presence in the Project footprint are expected to affect the movements of panthers and panther prey species. Consequently, panthers and panther prey species may be less likely to approach the Project site, or they may choose to avoid the Project site altogether. The additional human activity at the Project site in conjunction with the loss of panther habitat resulting from the Project could affect panther use patterns in the Project area. 16 Increased potential for intraspecific aggression Panther mortalities resulting from attacks of con-specifics are known to occur in the panther population (e.g.,males may kill other rival males when defending a territory). A total of 22 panther deaths due to intraspecific aggression have occurred within the action area. The closest death due to intraspecific aggression occurred 3 mi to the northeast in the Primary Zone. There are no records of intraspecific aggression in the Other Zone in southwest Florida. Habitat loss may increase the potential for intraspecific aggression among panthers in the action area. As discussed above, construction of the Project will result in panther habitat loss in the Other Zone. However, this Project should not significantly increase the potential for intraspecific aggression in the action area because the Project site is located in the Other Zone where intraspecific aggression has not been documented and the Project will result in the loss of only a small percent of a panther home range. Beneficial effects Beneficial effects are those effects of the proposed action that are completely positive, without any adverse effects to the listed species or its critical habitat. The 614.03 ac(248.5 ha)of preserve areas will be enhanced and restored by removal of invasive exotic vegetation and re- establishment of native vegetation. Following restoration and enhancement activities, regular management and monitoring of these areas in perpetuity will ensure that the habitat is maintained in good condition for use by the same panthers affected by the Project development and other wildlife. The proposed preserve lands provide connectivity between Collier Seminole State Park, Ten Thousand Islands NWR, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the existing of the Fiddler's Creek preserve lands. The preserve lands also protect the southern end of the corridor that panthers use to travel between the Secondary Zone to the north and the lands to the south of the Project. Interrelated and interdependent actions An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. Interrelated or interdependent actions are not expected to result from the Project. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Biological Opinion. Future Federal actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 17 The Consultant has reported that past and ongoing state and county actions (non-Federal) affecting panther habitat within the action area include: (1) State of Florida Development of Regional Impact(DRI) orders; (2) Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (3) Collier County Zoning Amendments; (4) Collier County Planned Unit Developments(PUDs); (5) Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permits; and (6) South Florida Water Management District's Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs). To estimate future non-Federal actions, the Consultant chose to identify and tabulate recent non-Federal actions and project this level of development as representative of future non-Federal actions. The Consultant's projections of the non-Federal actions (i.e., cumulative effects) in the action area incorporates Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) mapping to determine if a property may be exempt from the Federal Clean Air Act, section 404 wetland regulatory review by the Corps. To determine if a development project would likely be exempt from regulatory review, the Consultant identified the percentage of the property site that was classified as wetland habitat based on the FLUCCS 600 series (wetland), and the 411 and 261 mapping unit classifications. Projects on properties with less than 5 percent wetlands were considered to be exempt from the Corps regulatory review, because impacts to wetlands could likely be avoided by project design. Based on the information provided by the Consultant, it appears that over the period from January 1, 2013, through January 31, 2016, 147 projects in the action area affecting 1,618.2 ac (654.9 ha)of land were exempt from regulatory review (Figures 12, 13 and 14). Therefore the Service estimates that approximately 540 ac (218.5 ha)per year(1,618.2 ac [654.9 ha] 3 years 540 ac [218.5 ha]) would be exempt from regulatory review in the action area per year. Based on the information provided by the Consultant, we find this value representative of future yearly development likely to occur in the action area. Many unforeseen factors can affect the rate of development in the action area. Therefore, we acknowledge that it is difficult to forecast the rate of development as it relates to non-Federal actions in the action area with certainty. However, this estimate provides the best approximation available of future. non-Federal development actions reasonably certain to occur based on the most recent 36 months of development data. FBB This level of development represents less than 0.01 percent of the approximately 5,691.000 ac (230,306.6 ha) FBB consultation area in South Florida. Panther This level of development represents 1.9 percent of a female panther's average home range (29,059 ac [11,760 ha]), 0.86 percent of a male panther's average home range(62,542 ac [25,309 ha]), and 0.03 percent of the non-urban private lands at risk in the Service's panther core area (1,962,294 ac [794.000 ha]). Based on the above analysis, the Service believes the loss of the habitat associated with these lands is insignificant in the short term,but may adversely impact the Florida panther as development continues to occur. 18 CONCLUSION FBB After reviewing the current status of the FBB, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects,it is the Service's biological opinion that the Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the FBB. We have reached this conclusion because: (1) the loss of foraging habitat resulting from the Project is a small percentage of available foraging habitat; (2) the disturbance to FBBs that may be roosting on site is not expected to exceed that which is already occurring due to agricultural activities; (3) FBBs are not expected to be injured or killed as a result of the Project because potential roost trees will not be removed; and, (4) exotic removal in the preserve areas will improve their accessibility to FBBs. Panther After reviewing the current status of the panther, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the panther. We have reached this conclusion because: (1) the permanent loss of 718.8 ac(290.9 ha) of habitat currently used by panthers and panther prey is a small percent of a male or female panther territory; (2)the narrowing of the panther corridor on and adjacent to the Project leaves the preferred part of the corridor intact; (3) the increase in motor vehicle traffic is not expected to significantly increase the potential for vehicle-related injuries and deaths of panthers; (4) the small reduction in panther habitat from the Project is not expected to result in increased potential for intraspecific aggression among panthers in the action area; and (5) the loss of panther habitat due to the Project will be offset through the Applicants acquisition of 1,309 PHUs from a Service approved Conservation Bank and provide an additional 1,393 PHUs associated with the preservation and enhancement of on-site and off-site preserve areas. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(0)(2). taking that is incidental to, and not 19 intended as part of the agency action, is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. The terms and conditions described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the Corps so they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the Applicants, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps 1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or 2) fails to require the Applicants to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protection coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)]. AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED FBB The Service anticipates incidental take of the FBB will be difficult to detect and quantify because the roost location of the FBBs that forage at the Project site is unknown which makes it difficult to monitor the effects to individual FBBs. Therefore, the Service will use 723.0 ac (292.6 ha)of FBB foraging habitat as a surrogate for all FBBs in the 1 roost that will be taken. If, during the course of this action, this level of take is exceeded, such take would represent new information requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately reinitiate consultation with the Service. The Service has reviewed the biological information for the FBB, information presented by the Applicants, and other available information relevant to this action. The Service anticipates take of FBBs could result from the loss of 723.0 ac(292.6 ha) of FBB habitat proposed for the Project. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm due to habitat loss, and harassment due to increased noise and lights following construction. The Service finds that no more than of 723.0 ac(292.6 ha)of FBB foraging habitat will be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. Panther The Service anticipates incidental take of panthers will be difficult to detect because monitoring panthers in their large territories is difficult, especially un-collared panthers. Therefore, the Service will use 718.8 ac (290.9 ha) of panther habitat as a surrogate for the panthers that use the 20 Project site. If, during the course of this action,this level of take is exceeded, such take would represent new information requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately reinitiate consultation with the Service. The Service has reviewed the biological information for the panther, information presented by the Applicants, and other available information relevant to this action. The Service anticipates all panthers using 718.8 ac(290.9 ha)of panther habitat could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm due to habitat loss, and harassment due to construction and post-construction activities. The Service finds that no more than 718.8 ac(290.9 ha) of panther habitat will be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. EFFECT OF TAKE In the accompanying Biological Opinion, the Service determined this level of expected take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the FBB or panther. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES When providing an incidental take statement, the Service is required to give reasonable and prudent measures it considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the take along with terns and conditions that must be complied with, to implement the reasonable and prudent measures. The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize effects of the Project on panthers: Implement the Project as described in the Description of Proposed Action section of this Biological Opinion and in the February 2016 Biological Assessment. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Applicants must comply with the following terms and conditions, which carry out the reasonable and prudent measures, described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions arc non-discretionary. 1. The Corps shall ensure the preservation sites will be managed in perpetuity for the control of invasive exotic vegetation as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's Pest Plant List Committee's 2016 List of Invasive Species(Category 1) and managed for the benefit of the panther, and Florida bonneted bat in accordance with the management and monitoring plans provided as part of this action; 21 a. Management and monitoring of the 606.8 ac off-site preserve area will be conducted in accordance with the Off-site Preserve Management Plan for Estancia and Oyster Harbor, provided by the Applicants and approved by the Corps and Service. Annual reports to the Service are required until the success criteria outlined in the Off-site Preserve Management Plan for Estancia and Oyster Harbor are achieved, and then reports detailing management actions and maintenance of success criteria are required every 5 years in perpetuity. b. The Applicants will fund the perpetual maintenance and monitoring of the 606.8 acre off-site preserve areas by either establishing a non-wasting escrow fund in an amount approved by the Service prior to the time the conservation easement is filed and recorded, or, in the case of a CDD or District created by Special Act funding the management, collecting funds annually through taxes and'or assessments to pay for that year's management and monitoring. In either case, the monies must be sufficient to fund all land management costs including site fencing and fire break maintenance, taxes(if nongovernment), liability insurance (if site access is proposed and if non-government), site maintenance and monitoring actions, corresponding monitoring reports, escrow holder handling fee, and a 10 percent contingency category. c. The Corps will provide a copy of the final permit to the Service upon issuance. The Corps will monitor the permit conditions regarding conservation measures to minimize incidental take of panthers by providing the Service a report on the status of implementation and compliance with the conservation measures within 1 year of the issuance date of the permit. d. The Corps will provide documentation to the Service of all proposed restoration, and verification of the execution and terms of the conservation easements within 1 year of completion of the restoration and after the permit success criteria are satisfied. 2. The Corps shall ensure the proposed 606.8 ac off-site preserve area shall be protected through a conservation easement or other equivalent deed restriction with inspection, enforcement, and approval rights granted to the South Florida Water Management District, and or CDD. Third-party entry and enforcement rights within the conservation easement shall also be granted to the Service and Corps. The conservation easement for these areas will be filed and recorded within 90 days prior to construction authorized by permit SAJ-2015-00853. It is also the responsibility of the Applicants to reach the success criteria MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3),the Applicants must provide adequate monitoring and reporting to determine if the amount or extent of take is approached or exceeded. Following land 22 clearing associated with the Project, the Applicants must provide a report to the Service indicating the acreage of each habitat type cleared by the Project. DISPOSITION OF DEAD OR INJURED SPECIMENS Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick threatened or endangered species, initial notification must be made to the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office: Fish and Wildlife Service, 20501 Independence Boulevard, Groveland, Florida 34736-8573; 352-429-1037. Secondary notification should be made to the FWC: Southwest Region, 3900 Drane Field Road, Lakeland, Florida 33811-1299; 1-863-248-3200. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care or in the handling of dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis as to the cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured panthers or caracaras, or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The Service recommends conducting acoustic surveys for FBBs to determine if they are roosting on the Project site or off-site preserves. REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the Project. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Corps involvement or control over the action has been retained(or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded (723.0 ac [292.6 ha] of FBB foraging habitat or 718.8 ac [290.9 ha] of panther habitat); (2) new information reveals effects of the Corps' action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion: (3) the Corps' action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or(4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. 23 Thank you for your cooperation in the effort to protect fish and wildlife resources. If you have any questions regarding this Project, please contact Constance Cassler at 772-469-4243. Sincerely yours, Tor` Roxanna Hinzman Field Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Office Enclosures cc: electronic only Corps, Fort Myers, Florida(Robert M. Tewis) FWC, Naples, Florida(Darrell Land) FWC, Tallahassee, Florida(FWC-CPS) Service, Florida Panther NWR, Naples, Florida(Kevin Godsea) Service, Vero Beach, Florida (David Shindle, Paula Halupa) Turrell, Hall, and Associates, Naples, Florida (Timothy C. Hall) 24 LITERATURE CITED Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. Comiskey, E.J., O.L. Bass, Jr., L.J. Gross, R.T. McBride. and R. Salinas. 2002. Panthers and forests in south Florida: an ecological perspective. Conservation Ecology 6:18. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2014. Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) telemetry locations Feb 1981-June 2014. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Saint Petersburg, Florida. http: www.tloridapanthernet.org Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. [Pachauri, R.K. et al.] 133 pp. http: www.►pcc.ch•pdf assessment- report ar5,syr AR5_SYR FINAL SPM.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). 2013. Annex III: Glossary [Planton,S.(ed.)]. Pp. 1147-1465 In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia. V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,New York, USA. https: www.ipcc.ch pdf'assessmentreport ar5 wgl WGIAR5 Annexlll FINAL.pdf Kautz, R., R. Kawula. T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey. D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation. Land, E.D. 1994. Response of the wild Florida panther population to removals for captive breeding. Final Report 7571. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. Florida. Land, E.D., D.B. Shindle. R.J. Kawula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz. and D.P. Onorato. 2008. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:633-639. Lotz, M., D. Land, M. Cunningham, and B. Ferree. 2005. Florida panther annual report 2004-05. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, D.B. Shindle, O.L. Bass, and T.S. Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. 25 Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, J.C. Roof, and J.W. McCown. 1990. Day beds, natal dens, and activity of Florida panthers. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44:310-318. Melillo J. M., T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. htt1): nca2014.globalchange.gov,downloads Ober. H.K., E.C. Braun de Torrez J.A. Gore, A.M. Bailey, J.K. Myers, K.N. Smith, and R. Miller, L. 2010. Climate of South Florida; Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Phase I Biological Opinion. Vero Beach, Florida: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thatcher, C., F.T. van Manen, and J.D. Clark. 2006. Identifying suitable sites for Florida panther reintroduction. Journal of Wildlife Management. University of Florida. 2009. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Projections Bulletin 151. Gainesville, Florida. www.leecountybusiness.com pdf'FB_community.pdf U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service). 2013. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. http: www.fws.gov verobeach/ListedSpeciesReptiles.html U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service). 2010. Letter to Corps. South Florida Programmatic Concurrence, Wood Stork. http:: www.fws.gov verobeach/BirdsPDFs 20100518LetterServicetoCorpsFLProgrammat icStorkRevised l.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service). 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the National Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geologic Survey. 48 pages. 26 Table 1. Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) impacted by the Fiddler's Creek Project PROJECT WORKSHEET Habitat types of land to be developed Habitat tees o_f land to be developed Primary Primary Habitat Tipe Assigned Secondary Other Equivalent Secondary Other Equivalent value Zone Zone Habitat Zone Zone Habitat Units Units Pine forest 9.5 0 0 _ Hardwood Pine 9.3 0 804.5 0 Cypress swamp _ 9.2 6.48 20 G 0 Hardwood 9.2 2.2 7 0 swamp _ Hardwood 9 0 0 forest Dry prairie 6.3 27 57 0 — Unimproved 5.7 0 0 pasture Shrub 5.5 0.1 0 0 swamp/brush Improved 5 2 0 0 pasture Cropland 4.8 508 813 0 Orchards groves 4.7 15 24 0 _ Marsh wet 4.7 128 2 0 prairie Xeric scrub 4.5 0 0 Exotic 3 104.78 105 0 nuisance plants Coastal 3 54 0 wetlands Barren/ 3 54.01 0 0 disturbed lands Water ____s 0 41.55 0 0 Urban 0 44.1 0 0 _ Reservoirs 0 --- 0 STA Total 0.00 0.00 804.50 1080.60 0.00 0.00 804.50 0.00 COMPENSATION REQUIRED 2701 Habitat Units 27 Table 2. Panther Habitat Units(PHUs) provided by the preserve areas offered as compensation for the Fiddler's Creek Project. COMPENSATION Habitat types of land being offered as Habitat types of land being offered as compensation compensation flssigned Secondary Other Equivalent Secondary Other Equivalent Habitat Tipe value Zone Zone Habitat Zone Zone Habitat Units Units Pine forest 9.5 94.3 299 222.47 704 _ Hardwood Pine 9.3 65 202 162.52 504 Cypress swamp 9.2 14.12 43 28.25 87 Hardwood swamp 9.2 0 0 Hardwood 9 0 0 forest Dry prairie 6.3 0 0 Unimproved 5.7 142.89 271 142.89 271 _pasture Shrub 5.5 0 7.2 13 swamp/brush improved — pasture 5'2 0 0 Cropland 4.8 0 0 Orchards groves 4.7 0 0 Marsh wet prairie 4.7 25.35 40 50.7 79 Xeric scrub 4.5 0 0 Exotic, 3 270.23 270 0 nuisance plants Coastal wetlands 3 0 0 Barren I disturbed lands 3 1.59 0 0 Water 0 0.55 0 0 Urban 0 0 0 Reservoirs 0 0 STA COMPENSATION PROPOSED 1393 Habitat Units 28 Table 3. Reported minimum panther population counts. Year Total Mortality Net 2000 62 13 49 2001 78 11 _ 67 2002 80 14 66 2003 87 24 63 2004 78 20 58 2005 82 12 70 2006 97 19 78 2007 117 25 92 2008 104 23 81 2009 113 24 89 2010 115 24 91 2011 111 24 87 2012 123 29 94 2013 133 29 104 2014 138 24 ; 114 2015 140 41 99 2016 i * 43 -* *Data not yet available 29 Table 4. Targeted and acquired acreage totals of conservation lands in South Florida directly affecting the panther within the consultation area. Name Targeted' Acquired Indian j Acreage Acreage Reservation Federal Conservation Lands j Everglades National Park 1,508,537 , 1,508.537 -- Big Cypress National Preserve 720,000 720,000 -- Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 26,400 26,400 -- Subtotal 4254,937 2,254,937 -- State of Florida: Florida Forever Program Belle Meade 28,505 19,107 -- Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed 69,500 . 24,028 -- 'I'welvemile Slough 15,653 . 7,530 -- Panther Glades 57,604 22,536 -- Devil's Garden 82,508 0 -- Caloosahatchee Ecoscape 18,497 2,994 -- Babcock Ranch 91,361 0 -- Fisheating Creek 176,760 _ 59,910 -- Subtotal 540,388 136,105 -- State of Florida: Other State Acquisitions ( 1 Water Conservation Area Number 3 491,506 491.506 -- Holey Land Wildlife Management Area 33,350 33,350 -- Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area 25.019 20,659 -- Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve 74,374 58,373 -- Picayune Strand State Forest 55,200 55,200 -- Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and WMA 34,962 34,962 -- Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area 79,013 79,013 -- Subtotal. 793,424 773,063 -- Indian Reservations2 Miccosukee Indian Reservation -- -- 81,874 Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation -- -- 68,205 Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation -- -- 37_447 Subtotal -- -- 187,526 GRAND TOTALS 3,588,749 3,164,105 187,526 Targeted acres not available for all lands. In Such cases, targeted equals acquired acreage. 2 Indian lands are included due to their mention in the MSRP. Acreages taken from GIS data. * The above table was excerpted from the Brief of Amicus (2003). However, the lands shown as acquired in this table may include some private in-holdings and may include lands currently under sales negotiations or condemnation actions. 30 Isn STATE OF FLORIDA N O a — _ I:. liaNCT s• • 0 • v . T -A CO CC... NAP. ;t li ‘,.. FT.YYERS" N 11411111 CA s ....... c Nzy VICINITY MAP CO 1 $001EC suwo ` � KEY WES- iftillt • ' O anl.��w1I ury CD O COLLIER COUNTY W„ O SITE ADDRESS: ] ..US 41 O NAPES Ft.3d114 n ,,THESE DRAW NOS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY O AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTR UC'ION USE C ••LATITUDE N 78 1'13 S97" • LONGITUDE We1 3e'5431o• COUNTY AERIAL ^�1 3. Tarrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. FIDDLERS CREEK ESTANCIA&OYSTER HARBOR T •Mime&Envmmenul Cawlting• ,, 36H Wry Ame.Sae9*IN FL34ID13713 LOCATION MAP r Nalum2mlamles Nom 0Ml613-0I66 I.(UEMS1AS IlGI NE I ., eecnON.,ell IA PoWNn,wv el s RANO,27r.. N.' p 1 l' w..*3 .,.1i .. N —iK7. t . 1;':," OYSTER , 1 (t>4�i g ).1..A HARBOR ., H _ w fit, s 1` SITE ..:7) _/ L' m a� mama anamman iN * 1 j• i; s47 1`•• ,. r- ,r` 1 , I " r { �, III SITE '. '1 .. I �..+r71►•—....4• .. . a� •'` �� r•� �� fir. �- �... �,� _.14.73 ac e F t `Y91 rltwRn -+ 'Li- ,--tp ,� �` { �r J In • 'pre jai 1: .I 1 :I 2 fr �; 1 Ft i. . - - E1 1___ _ o =a }r.V I7l'1.--e-i-„,..t_,4-.‘—$..I'.S..,,'N,-,_, !Iw!, r J , •,,, ,• / / ...;"/ , ,1::.,, ,.. ..... yl w.- / J1 ' ' gip►,. - . • . moilik �J * - 137.90 ac ,.j �/ --- 1 :138.29 ac i j i /j ' i-,'149.61 ac --' j �' —� _____- POTENTIAL ___-- /jlfA � I PRESERVES +`' ij , I / ,4182.03ac . •1 *1 .1 4. 11 INTERNAL PRESERVES 37 41 ac "�' 4 '• *:zS +�,'` _�j 2-FALLOW TRIANGLE 7 20 ac *_. d: •+rt 4 n•r.,e I 3-SECTIONS 19 b 29 FORESTED 458 22 ac - • +`>' 2 t j y'+�w $74, 1 4-SECTION 29 PASTURE 149 61 ac V 1 OESIORy�� ell,Hall&Associates,Inc. wtAWN ,+ REVISION ,neru/.e t` + FIDDLERSCREEN-ESTMifYAA80YSTERHARBOR OAIF F I NM SCAF o+ Marine B Environmental Consulting n,c es,t.,o x.. sole 3584 Exchange ANC.Sulic B hapIrs FL 34104•3732 .00 40 vox 7 r,iA `F2l tunnasyr11-asacuueu a Maw(239)613.0166 Fax 1239)6436632 PRESERVE EXHIBIT I __. SECTION-t6at9TOWNSN �k IP-�;} RANGE Figure 2. Location of on-site and off-site preserves for the Fiddler's Creek Project. 32 r \\\�`\\\\ ` \, iq \\ \ \\K. 5 . \: _ \\, gin! II 0 \* \ \‘N'18 ' , \ \:;::,s.\\.% ,,,,,,A ...„-\,:,..„, _ ,. ,.?,...-. ,,. \ N.. . --- 4 , ' k' ' 'D 't d i' + ? 7_ .\. , / 0 ,I.L....„iimAi.. \\•:;; \t„;,...\\ t, -..--t- . 5 i3��'•iligI ��r i�i • rr t \vpil‘. :,i VI.t sail ,.7. ..%`. ii, _, 3, ,s., . :.&41:. ., . r ZN a U .r p i. _1l i ..OW .I i i: si0l'. t4 Figure 3. Map of the action area for the Fiddler's Creek Project. The action area is defined as all lands within 25 miles(40.2 kilometers) of the Project footprint (denoted by red circle) that are located in Service's Florida Panther Focus Area and Other Zone. 3, T : , Q"r C.S alt.] , ""'N.\\\ f a 1 • • , ,III. \ rellif 1111111, . j 1 411- tj.". ., � i \... b ...y t;^ kopy, ., .•. --- or ,. litil.....w% , i 44-44.).-ir lib. air i E j Panther Focus Area Ck\ '1,°1111(1.11V,./I'' kiP i ) V. Pnmary Zone '�� Secondary Zone 1 'i'• Dispersal Zone I 1u•_•1� / / / I l Pnmary Dispersal Expansion Area / ` ,- - -, Original Panther Consultation Area `� . / -- - i South of the Caloosahatchee River / / ' SFESO Service Area '` / �= Dispersal Pathways(Thatcher 2006) 0 +o , • 0 3! • 9:.3 Figure 4. Florida Panther Focus Arca. 34 r ,•r•:r. IGLA '. MARTIN ''z 1ARLOTTE r ®. �...••x. •TC n D oty AC Ft.Myers HENDRY PALM BEACH L ,E 1 .... •%• • • clf „ ARD N .km •• Ø . . • lily". . • • � Jr . , } 0 1 0 • /_ Upend South Ftortla Conservation lands .i. North of the Utoosanalcte N+..r(711,2f1l Acres) Q. .' MIs^ • t ?t S[ wr+e«.l.r.M.er.,....•t. .• fa.. •• /_ • . . . ... . _. ._.. ..... •ry;.' . • : : 1 South Honda Conservation Lands 4.. _ — Soon of In.CelOown•.Jae River 13 arsIsi Acres) _ � a • Y . • r • ` _ • • . • =a: 'aS.1 .,,, ..:... .,.,... . ..„.. ` . '....• ` a�. .• t .F AD E aJ ..,.c 0.7 MX/c r✓.ilw ul. n le...go ~.�41.02i R0�:�-. •Z•; t' . do nR..•ct.w.ar.tiar..•l• :IL...:IL....... • T .. ...., - ".- - .. is.ac..WMrn..•.um rat.,.... w 110... amr '�anew ci.Kaa,,..1....1% •Mk,. • . '' .'•r... �..•.,*sn...o 1.•rt.on., .a..r.. II*I• A. w0•t R+,.-4.'.e.r •t rut WAR ,III,... •� y'..R.I Jy'_.1. �__• � ` • itr,,/...W..•MM..••.a.r■r•.. I...E... . « 4. - Y Ir�l.•AT,..r•o•••.••••.aw••M. ,Ira.. ,1 —{.R..+� 1 '-� �,... l W Wll.WMfi.Wt...IMMe9.t.R• •-......... •' - e. +i ��.>. n.an.. ua. _L•, .i•Of. OA+,*,.. G eM..1.•M•14.Y I Wse.1...1••.e4 tJ® 'R M J.•r• •• / .s-S. . . 1 t ya�Z f uH..K9.WMV M.N.., .]!.•••eiel - _• •1 rnat.t nc ko..r.. a ' .w'•" 1113.YYOKOne.1 N.T..stet,'loll• ta•e.e 03<a.ta,M•:.. ....•M '- .1 .I.D.... .4[11,W.% •••••... ` /,•, . W Y•.•c.its••••.. ..•. -.M.., ti dr',, WC•..t.gi ,uu.ot l0..•1a1.,.• usr a•. \ %L , W7IsOnIWIlel South Florida ..1t 1 inch equals 10 miles __ _ '�.��•Y.-. Conservation Lands CI. e ` is) 23 30 - _ M _:etc 1 = �.ntes Figure 5. South Florida conservation lands. 35 f • ►I SUBJECT PROPERTY tfr' 1:1;>11.1:: • A Legend Q FIDDLERS CREEK i 0 1BONNETED EAT FOCAL AREAS BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREAS 'riE '-MWN BY RI!) LSpII f;:ALE I. Turrell, Hall&Assaiutes,Inc L iEf a",;REEF•E V I'ANCIA&',,Y.7TER EAU C R =REATED 1241 I, N:n Fic Petx Man"&Enwime 4 fcinwh" FLORIPABONNETEL BAT CONSULTATION AREA wBEri. . ,al11rc�Eu rata a3:Ettrssk7A.e YukB 11 Oa rl Jz;JiP32 31ET ',as'cm*_Jana aananu Ptm 613.01E Pc giP16466'; ^I BEC owa cvc LOWIAunOBANDfOCAlAREA' KON-lBSr19 •IL]\L'vSHIP•SOS RANGE-2'E Figure 6. Fiddler's Creek project location within a Florida bonneted bat Focus Area. 36 liv t� �i;�'F T 27 r �'Y r: : 2. q 1 .,.. Iii• ,•••,,,.• ....• . ..__,..- --4,4v.smo, 4. ..:.. -, . --, 4.- IN.\ , .• . .4.1..414 ''7,' 1 -'"4" / . : 7;*.t.i t •..t r •F_ b Tula FanthrFt NV�l,P• 1 t 1. s_ 4 • •1 11 +,• 3 J 1 13 I k-, Tel Thnussnd I, NWR • r r a i •j i. rl/ \ 1 • 20170228FiddlersCreek j 20170228FddlersCreek_25mIDufte- f— ' 20170228FddlersCreek_5mleuffer ~� 20170228FddlersCreek 2mi13uffer '), Florida bonneted bat presences Miles 0 5 10 20 National Wildlife Refuges _ -en Thousand is NWR FlOrdaPantherNVJR z,Y"= -.Sr.,r1,L,Nis,Jl,'10_-,•_-o=/a_catlirsit4•:oytapir}.., ' flE'�L.lrrx L•' r03L• .,1.331: �!rr:sppini,:sro j1L4, 1'N,1•?7,sst�:i.3po,W❑J'$,a 113rls;tranni9niiy Figure 7. Locations where Florida bonneted bats have been recorded within the 25-mile action area for the Fiddler's Creek project. 37 J,• t 4.. ' tr.004,i 'i 1 A '-• '-'t.•"'41 3••••..„.r-. 4 .-..-.4.::--...7.,.-f-;::..-.:: . •-•••• '-':•°:'.. ;- ..• ....:.:4•41..4.- ..51... 11.1(11:•64.•.,.. .•*.t..,4,•••.4.'••.:.•'"4'1.‘,4,.4:•.•r.',...',„•••*'..•t•'• ••. ----•• !�J .s.,1" 1: M.r{�' a .•. ,''•• •• ��.:.•::tt .'.;•.•_ :• ♦ .f /� r. y`sa f.• • •t o ♦1i• ' is ••'• •• 1, ,..,* ,4.--.i r,.1: . -•.2 ...., ....,.•..,•..,,,. •••••....-... . ,..„.,.,. • . .. .. • • • •••••••• •54' 4:111141.4: 0 7.-....•.1.:P.:''',1•••;':•.:••••••;...•• ....i •••:4;i • •. :.•::::. ••.:....• . ......., • ,.. it . ,/..,ilk • " •••'•••. .• < : * . .+. . :••' • ' • • '•-•ITZ.I.,,„•C':...,...„••,,..„A ti.4, „..:.: ... •.... , .• , ., ..... ..(41,7"•••••\ •• ,-.4.•- •'-. .• •• ,... •• •• •I • •041. • .•fit'• `••• j . / , • . Imo^ r • '. x _ *.. • • i �•yM. •y. f t�"... ., . n9 s \q‘k look • Nim. ......M11es 20170228FrddlersCreek_2mrBuffer es 1 25 2 5 5 ,r1, 20170228F iddlersCreek_5mi5u ffer 20170228Fjddersreek . ` o panther-telemetry r _ v+.._•i,,;1J,r,19.1.,1c1.,:•-,'•-'r=h,-,isir `-•i•.)r�pi 11 ,_Z,;,z GJi J,L 3Z1i. 1J3 .,••=7n_.2,1n),:smritll, • r gtrh.=30;o,anrJ En-.21-Z a -r C omrntinu/ Figure 8. Panther telemetry within 5 miles of the Fiddler's Creek project. 38 .: . 4100111411 i rr' wee ' 1.1 iti* '4t441111411h, • rI'" . - - ,, ...., . li`.0:17-,-..... ... .0 • I •Xi . r to f fl i, •17 11/4 illit . --jit"."7:4 1 iIN• 0 1 - ' e'R ia '� V.topiosiiik 2.\- - •• 3, o • . b • 1' I" O • Cr i •i • • • • ••• • • • f 1 20 17 022 8FiddlersCreek_1miBufter Q20170228FiddlersCreek immr ___-----_ 11111=Mlles o Panthers not recorded on Fiddlers Creek 0 0-25 0 5 1 Cat number of panthers recorded on site i 158 / 801^: r1,LL1JL>-.rk=10r _�-4=fS=3:rJtSf.i ti-U:itlpif;•:, / O 193 gtag rY� I c. yr•.,c� n_ L_ /�Jf^�._ ,Jam_ �^:^.= :-.. lnapplu J,::-r0.tir}J, 1^ ,19?,ael.7?0p0,Jud'J,?^lam J.=f 0u:nrurri'sy Figure 9. Locations of panthers recorded within 1 mile of the Fiddler's Creek project site. 39 ^ Nab Panther impact data N 6em 1572 Jure30 2011 4 • !n<Udeavencfrrehled mitaMea anib e!, ® c,) Esteroe • �� 9b Immo� 0 7.5 15 • if Mi • ---- - -i -4, eB�ta 51n . • • • • ao ill • s. • • • • • • • • • • El • 41 NAPIFSLR/t'A!ev)FF4, 4114 • • .• es*i111 • UCFP199(2013) • •i i TX104(1998) • • •• UCFP211(2014) • UCFP88(2006) ^ -� • • .*TC • • 1 UCFP76(2005) 7.Alk UCFP14(1985) • • • • 2 UCFP143(2010) , f 3 UCFP167(2012)! FP196(2012) • 4 UCFP180(2012) °., . �; , UCFP60(2003)r + • • UCFP107(2008)on +�I ' • - 4 • UCFP13B(2010) t >.<,u• `t ' 0 Hr ' FP158(2010) • • 5 MILE BUFFER t 41 111 15 CATS K3901UCFP215(2014) LEGEND ^?2014 Partner De]a,a 25 MILE BUFFER Q -,_;PERFYBDUNDAR'+ 122 CATS 1_1) '.1!BUFFER r:d BUFFER PANTHER PRIORITYZONE ZONE PR MAR• .E 1:ONDAR e BRAWN BY HMI FL,:_I-.11 2-A:E 11'^ Turret,Hall8 Associates,Inc FIDDLERS CREEK-EStPNCIA 3 OYSTER HARE,R CREATEC 09 2C 1d FILE FAT-H .)„,.. ,IN Maim&imirommild(muting JOB NO 1703 2 N;A o Ind J er er.0 ntr 3.Cd�n:d.e..su�R H,r+r.;•i 1!•Pt3t3± PANTHER MORTALITY MAP SHEET B+ NA voiorura®,rwn:� Emig atugenneleevnaevmr flow fro..633.0i65 Fs r23:0-0!83] NtQ NC?Amin M0)Lutfl PIC SEC ION•18&1:,, TOWNSHIP-50S RANC£•27E Figure 10. Location of panther deaths within the 25-mile action area of the Fiddler's Creek project. 40 A u i • �^"P Note Ps tenet upped d�ti from 1972 June 3p 3714 includes rek,fed �F nvtaWeo irULrF•l,„ y J � Ester)* A • 'Yen JI 0 7.5 15 MI 4B..nit prtn A ,E1 NAPLES FNM A R WIF l .MIA A • lit s n♦• r Naples, • • UCFP199 • UCFP88 . Z 1 UCFP76 _`-I • 2.UCFP143' 3.UCFP1OT67 j � D FP195 4 UCFP180 UCFP107 K UCFFQO Marco l eland It m FP153 5 MILE BUFFER -- 11 CATS K390/UCFP215 LEGEND ♦ PANTHER+EHICLE DEATHS 1972 2:,4 25 MILE BUFFER Q PROPERTY BOUNDARY 83 CATS _ BUF 5MLE BUFER 25MN PANTHER PRIORY/ZONE ZONE PRII.APV L CO'1LARY --_ DRAWN HMI FEVL3Ot1 SALE ll.n1., Turret Ha B Associates,Inc FIDDLERS CREEK-ESfANCIA&-YSTER HPTROP,`°I ') OJ N I6 ALE PATH _ . Maine!Intranet!Crawling Hoe 110 INS 2 IVA JAW It:w.uou PANTHER VEHICLE MORTALITY MAP 34-1Faduro km S..2 NpIK FL 34104 . SHEET 01 If,A Eeat LeNgantl.awwmrt. P1v.f_'IP)>ODIM Fs 02gleain31FI01TRE 6 -C.URCE FWC PAI+THEP MORTAL IT' SECI1C7N-:881+ TuwNsHip.50S RANGE•2 E Figure 11. Location of panther deaths due to vehicles within the 25-mile action area of the Fiddler's Creek project. 41 d Flit \'—\\: \ 1 il i44 . - -..\-, -- ---\, \ \\,, \ b „ ., \\ \ \ \ t \ , 7-' :;,' ,6- 'A 6`'D [ \N \\.\ \ l'..\ .-\,,, N_R,. , e 1 ` 9 M., \.4: Milli \ 1 b . .114' (a\-.'-'4" •141frIe‹.• \% \\\\-\\-.\\%•\\..\\ ' t.:1 ., ° '. !'ANfe,',Nikh, k\.\\ :--)' - 43 z 1 k o .,...4....a....4....+.0,.. ..N „,-.,..4.,...„ , .-s \ , r„,- r '•A�947i • r _, zz ,i '•a . 4,. 9 _ i 1. ,4 r W ii ?Y 1!i Figure 12. Location of South Florida Water Management District permits with less than five percent wetlands located within the action area for the Fiddler's Creek project. 42 0 ,,2f ..., :,. . . : _ :,„ -_\_- _..?: 1 Oa cD �, co W G' a co z UI \ . .. - , - - • , • i z SF te¢ * S =i d o - - -0 F, W E ; - j 0 N = N , `S W m cv f ill a • ',1 ♦ • N ,.., jr-,„•,N17%,;,'. • ' „ -, - ' , - - ,V"." :..,e, . .y -,.•tiq . , 'I i li4INSittii."11-)117:11 e'.1 7 }, 'tz,44S, :ic..0 -- 11\ r� ItoIi ) o co ;3 \tis 1 58 *5 ✓ a Figure 13. Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit exemptions issued within the action area for the Fiddler's Creek project. 43 .11 t t° l a II xa• i{ dA 1 c2. ? n Z. 3 P p OM es O. N Legend % COLITR CWNLY ectluiNG RERACT PARCELS O25 M1LE RADIUS O :Nt Es ;� PANTHER HABITAT ZONES Q. SUBJECT ZONE N PROPERTY FAIMARY .- sEccso PY ram❑ � i�TuRe1,Hal6 Aswdoteslnc -sY arm, -KL 1.._ O� `'�,_'�'6 Mane[Memmaad Com* FIDDLERS CREEK xww m i? ..v-x s< i NWI WITH BUILDItv(i PY.R.Mit PARCH OVERLAID 'NM a IUY suer 1.r..a..sa.�n.. n._n..,I.o.n v..1.v1w a.1 ii(:UM6 tl ID n N i Status of the Species-Florida bonneted bat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service February 2016 STATUS OF THE SPECIES-Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus) Legal status-Federal: endangered, 2013; State:Federally-designated endangered The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)proposed to list the Florida bonneted bat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on October 4, 2012 (Service 2012). The final listing determination published on October 2, 2013, and became effective November 1, 2013 (Service 2013). This species is also listed as "Federally-designated endangered"on the Florida List of Endangered and Threatened Species under the Florida Administrative Code (Chapter 68A-27 rules(68A-27.0011 and 68A-27.003)). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Species Description Appearance/Morphology The Florida bonneted bat is a member of the Molossidae(free-tailed bats) family within the order Chiroptera. The species is approximately 130 to 165 millimeters (mm) (5.1 to 6.5 inches (in)in length (Timm and Genoways 2004) and the largest bat in Florida(Owre 1978; Belwood 1992; Florida Bat Conservancy [FBC] 2005). The length of the tail ranges from 46 to 57 min (1.8 to 2.2 in), hind foot 11 to 15 mm(0.4 to 0.6 in), ear 20 to 30 mm(0.8 to 1.2 in), and forearm 60.8 to 66.0 mm (2.39 to 2.60 in) (Timm and Genoways 2004). Masses average 39.7 grams (g) (1.4 ounces [oz])and range from 30.2 to 46.6 g(1.1 to 1.6 oz) (Owre 1978; Belwood 1981; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). A pregnant female with a single fetus weighed 55.4 g(2.0 oz) (Belwood 1981). Males and females are not significantly different in size(Timm and Genoways 2004). Timm and Genoways (2004) found no pattern of size-related geographic variation in this species. Members of the genus Eumops have large, rounded pinnae (ears), arising from a single point or joined medially on the forehead (Best et al. 1997). The common name of"bonneted bat" originates from characteristic large broad ears,which project forward over the eyes (FBC 2005). Ears are joined at the midline of the head. This feature, along with its large size, distinguish the Florida bonneted bat from the smaller Brazilian(=Mexican) free-tailed bat(Tadarida brasiliensis) (Belwood 1992). Wings of the members of the genus Eumops are among the narrowest of all molossids (Freeman 1981, as cited in Best et al. 1997) and are well-adapted for rapid,prolonged flight (Vaughan 1959, as cited in Best et al. 1997). This wing structure is conducive to high-speed flight in open areas (Findley et al. 1972, as cited in Best et al. 1997). 1 The Florida bonneted bat's fur is short and glossy, with hairs sharply bicolored with a white base (Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Like other molossids, color is highly variable; color varies from black to brown to brownish-gray or cinnamon brown with ventral pelage paler than dorsal (Owre 1978; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). The basisphenoid pits (paired depressions in the basisphenoid bone) of the skull are ovoid (egg-shaped) and moderately deep (Timm and Genoways 2004). The tail projects beyond the interfemoral membrane (skin that stretches between the legs) (Owre 1978; Belwood 1992). Taxonomy The Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus)was previously known as Florida mastiff bat, Wagner's mastiff bat, and mastiff bat(E. glaucinus floridanus) (Owre 1978; Belwood 1992; Best et al. 1997). While earlier literature found the Florida bonneted bat distinct at the subspecies level,the most current scientific information confirms that E.floridanus is a full species, and this taxonomic change has been accepted by the scientific community(Timm and Genoways 2004; McDonough et al. 2008; R. Timm, pers. comm. 2008, 2009; in Litt. 2012; Baker et al. 2009). The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Timm and Arroyo- Cabrales 2008), the Florida Natural Areas Inventory(FNAI) (2015), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)use the name E.floridanus. Life History Relatively little is known about the Florida bonneted bat's life history. Lifespan is not known. Based upon the work of Wilkinson and South(2002), Gore et al. (2010) inferred a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for the Florida bonneted bat, with an average generation time of 5 to 10 years. The Florida bonneted bat has a fairly extensive breeding season during summer months (Timm and Genoways 2004). The maternity season for most bat species in Florida occurs from mid- April through mid-August (Marks and Marks 2008a). During the early portion of this period, females give birth and leave young in the roost while they make multiple foraging excursions to support lactation(Marks and Marks 2008a). During the latter portion of the season, young and females forage together until the young become sufficiently skilled to forage and survive on their own(Marks and Marks 2008a). The Florida bonneted bat is a subtropical species, and limited data suggest the species may be polyestrous(having more than one period of estrous in a year) (Timm and Genoways 2004; Florida Bat Conservancy [FBC] 2005). Recent studies at Babcock- Webb Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in 2014 have helped document pregnant bonneted bats in April with pups born in May(H. Ober,pers. comm. 2014a; J. Myers,pers. comm. 2014a— c). Preliminary data from the same site also suggest a prolonged maternity season, as some pregnant and post-lactating females were observed in late August(H. Ober,pers. comm. 2014b). Pups were also observed within a known natural roost at Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) in mid-October(B. Scofield,pers. comm. 2014; P. Halupa,pers. obs. 2014b). The full extent of the maternity season is not well understood,but is a time of particular sensitivity,with increased energy demands and risks as females leave young in roosts while making multiple foraging excursions to support lactation(Kurta et al. 1989; Kurta et al. 1990; Kunz et al. 1995; Marks and Marks 2008a;H. Ober,pers. comm. 2014c). Exploitation of insects in patches that yield high energy returns for pregnancy and lactation is important(Kunz et al. 1995). Reduced insect populations in urban areas may make it difficult for females to successfully raise offspring to maturity(Kurta et al. 1990; Kurta and Teramino 1992). Information on reproduction and 2 demography is sparse. The Florida bonneted bat has low fecundity; litter size is one(FBC 2005; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). At present, only three active, natural roost sites are known, and only limited information on historical sites is available. Based upon limited information, the species roosts singly or in colonies consisting of a male and several females (Belwood 1992). G.T. Hubbell believed individuals in Miami roosted singly(Belwood 1992). However,Belwood(1981) suggested a colony, consisting of seven females and one male using a longleaf pine cavity as a roost site in Punta Gorda, was a harem group,based on its sex ratio. Belwood(1981; 1992) suggested this behavior has been recorded in a few bat species and such social groupings may be facilitated by roosting in tree cavities, which can be defended from other males (Morrison 1979). Few details are available for the composition of the currently known active natural roosts. At APAFR, approximately 22 bats emerged from the roost in October 2014, with several others including young remaining at the roost after emergence(P. Halupa,pers. obs. 2014b). At Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge(FPNWR), 12 bats emerged from the roost tree on 2 consecutive nights in July 2015,with others,possibly pups, remaining in the roost after emergence(E. Braun de Torrez,pers. comm. 2015). At Big Cypress National Preserve(BCNP), 11 bats emerged from a natural roost in December 2015 (R. Arwood,pers. comm. 2015). Information on roosting habits from artificial structures is also limited. The Florida bonneted bat colony using bat houses on private property in Lee County consisted of 8 to 25 individuals, including one albino (S. Trokey,pers. comm. 2006a, 2006b; 2008a, 2008b; 2012). Sex ratio is not known. Some movement between the houses has been observed(S. Trokey,pers. comm. 2006a). Periodic simultaneous counts taken at bat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA and recent research suggest that use fluctuates among the seven roost sites (artificial structures) (FWC, in litt. 2012; J. Myers,pers. comm. 2013, 2014a—b, d, 2015 ). Simultaneous counts taken at bat houses at emergence from 2012 to 2014 indicated that Florida bonneted bat roosts are generally small, occupied by 1-14 individuals, except for one location which generally supports 25-44 individuals among two houses (J. Myers,pers. comm. 2013, 2014b). It is not known if there is movement between houses and unknown natural roosts within Babcock-Webb WMA. The Florida bonneted bat is active year-round and does not have periods of hibernation or torpor. The species is not migratory, but there might have been seasonal shifts in roosting sites (Timm and Genoways 2004). Belwood(1992)reported that,prior to 1967, G.T. Hubbell routinely obtained several individuals per year collected during the winter from people's houses. Precise foraging and roosting habits and long-term requirements are unknown(Belwood 1992). Active year-round, the species is likely dependent upon a constant and sufficient food supply, consisting of insects, to maintain its generally high metabolism. Based upon limited information, Florida bonneted bats feed on flying insects of the following orders: Coleoptera(beetles), Diptera(true flies), Hemiptera(true bugs), and Lepidoptera(moths) (Belwood 1981; Belwood 1992; FBC 2005). An analysis of bat guano (droppings) from the colony using the pine flatwoods in Punta Gorda indicated the sample (by volume)contained coleopterans(55 percent), dipterans (15 percent), and hemipterans (10 percent) (Belwood 1981; Belwood 1992). More recent analyses of bat guano collected from occupied bat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA indicated that the samples contained high percentages of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera(Marks 2013). 3 Molossids, in general, seem adapted to fast flight in open areas (Vaughan 1966). Various morphological characteristics (e.g., narrow wings, high wing-aspect ratios [ratio of wing length to its breadth])make Eumops well-adapted for efficient, rapid, and prolonged flight in open areas (Findley et al. 1972; Freeman 1981; Norberg and Rayner 1987;Vaughan 1959, as cited in Best et al. 1997). Barbour and Davis (1969) noted that the species flies faster than smaller bats,but cannot maneuver as well in small spaces. Belwood(1992) stated E. glaucinus is"capable of long, straight, and sustained flight,"which should allow individuals to travel large distances. Norberg and Rayner(1987) attributed long distance flights of Brazilian free-tailed bats to their high wing-aspect ratios, with that species capable of traveling 65 kilometers (km) (40 miles[m]) from its roosting site to its foraging areas (Barbour and Davis 1969). Like other molossids,the Florida bonneted bat's morphological characteristics make it capable of dispersing large distances and generally adapted for low cost, swift, long distance travel from roost site to foraging areas (Norberg and Rayner 1987; K. Gillies, in litt. 2012;H. Ober, in lilt. 2012). Given this, it seems likely that foraging areas may be located fairly long distances from roost sites (H. Ober, in list. 2012). Nonetheless, average foraging distances for the Florida bonneted bat are not known(G. Marks,pers. comm. 2012). Although the species can fly long distances, it likely does not travel farther than necessary to acquire food needed for survival (G. Marks,pers. comm.n 2012). Bonneted bats are"fast hawking"bats that rely on speed and agility to catch target insects in the absence of background clutter, such as dense vegetation(Simmons et al. 1979; Belwood 1992; Best et al. 1997). Foraging in open spaces,these bats use echolocation to detect prey at relatively long range, roughly 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 feet [ft]) (Belwood 1992). Based upon information from G.T. Hubbell, Belwood(1992) indicated that individuals leave roosts to forage after dark, seldom occur below 10 m(33 ft) in the air, and produce loud, audible calls when flying; calls are easily recognized by some humans (Belwood 1992; Best et al. 1997; Marks and Marks 2008a). Relatively little is known of the ecology of the Florida bonneted bat, and long-term habitat requirements are poorly understood(Robson 1989; Robson et al. 1989; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Habitat for the Florida bonneted bat mainly consists of foraging areas and roosting sites,including artificial structures. At present, only three active, natural roost sites are known, and only limited information on historical sites is available. Recent information on foraging habitat has been obtained largely through acoustical surveys, designed to detect and record bat echolocation calls(Marks and Marks 2008a). Acoustical methods have generally been selected over mist netting as the primary survey methodology because this species flies and primarily forages at heights of 9 m(30 ft) or more (Marks and Marks 2008a). The Florida bonneted bat has a unique and easily identifiable call. While most North American bats vocalize echolocation calls in the ultrasonic range that are inaudible to humans, the Florida bonneted bat echolocates at the higher end of the audible range,which can be heard by some humans as high-pitched calls(Marks and Marks 2008a). Most surveys conducted using acoustical equipment can detect echolocation calls within a range of 30 m(100 ft); call sequences are analyzed using software that compares calls to a library of signature calls(Marks and Marks 2008a). Florida bonneted bat calls are relatively easy to identify because calls are issued at frequencies well below that of other Florida bat species (Marks and Marks 2008a). 4 More recently, radio-telemetry studies in natural environments are being used as part of studies to close data gaps on the Florida bonneted bat to better understand the species and its relationship and response to fire (Ober and McCleery 2012; A. Bailey,pers. comm. 2013; H. Ober,pers. comm. 2013). Results from a limited pilot study testing the tolerance and effectiveness of transmitters on three female bonneted bats at Babcock-Webb WMA in December 2014 indicated that individuals foraged several miles from their roosts (H. Ober,pers. comm. 2014d; E. Braun de Torrez,pers. comm. 2014). Habitat Relatively little is known of the ecology of the Florida bonneted bat, and long-term habitat requirements are poorly understood (Robson 1989; Robson et al. 1989; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Habitat for the Florida bonneted bat mainly consists of foraging areas and roosting sites, including artificial structures. At present, only three active, natural roost sites are known, and only limited information on historical sites is available. Roosting and foraging areas appear varied, with the species occurring in forested, suburban, and urban areas (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). Florida bonneted bats are closely associated with forested areas because of their tree-roosting habits (Robson 1989; Belwood 1992; Eger 1999), but specific information is limited. Eger (1999) noted that in forested areas, old, mature trees are essential roosting sites for this species. Recent acoustical data and other information indicate that the Florida bonneted bat uses forests and a variety of other natural areas. Echolocation calls have been recorded in a wide array of habitat types: pine flatwoods,pine rocklands, cypress, hardwood hammocks, scrubby flatwoods, mixed shrubs, mangroves, wetlands, swamps, rivers, lakes,ponds, canals, developed park lands, groves, tropical gardens, disturbed nonnative areas, rural lands, residential areas, and urban landscapes (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a—b, 2012, 2013a—c, 2014a—d; Marks and Marks 2008a—c; 2012; Smith 2010; S. Snow,pers. comm. 2011a—b, 2012a—g, 2013; in list. 2012; M. Owen,pers. comm. 2012a—b; R. Rau,pers. comm. 2012; Maehr 2013; S. Maehr,pers. comm. 2013a—b; K. Relish,pers. comm. 2013; F. Ridgley,pers. comm. 2013a—d; 2014a—c; B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a—f; K. Smith,pers. comm. 2013). One of the few historical roost sites used by a small colony of Florida bonneted bats used a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) cavity that had been excavated by a red-cockaded woodpecker (RC W) (Picoides borealis) and later enlarged by a pileated woodpecker(Dryocopus pileatus); the cavity was 4.6 m(15.1 ft)high(Belwood 1981). One known active natural roost at APAFR, discovered in 2013, is also in an enlarged cavity in a live longleaf pine; the cavity is 6.4 m(21 ft) high with a diameter at breast height (dbh)of 32.8 cm (12.9 in) (B. Scofield,pers. comm. 2013g—i; P. Halupa,pers. obs. 2014a). The known active natural roost at FPNWR, discovered in July 2015, is in a slash pine (Pinus elliottii) snag; the cavity is—9 m(30 ft) high with a dbh of 27.4 cm (10.8 in) and seems to have been formed from a decaying knot or branch(E. Braun de Torrez,pers. comm. 2015). The known active natural roost at BCNP, discovered in December 2015, is also in an old woodpecker tree (slash pine snag); this cavity is also 9 m(30 ft)high (R. Arwood,pers. comm. 2015). Limited information suggests that the Florida bonneted bat may prefer large pines (live and dead) with woodpecker activity for potential roosting, at least in some areas. However, since data are limited, any large or mature trees with suitable structure (e.g., cavities, hollows, or loose/exfoliating bark) may represent potential habitat. 5 In general, open, fresh water and wetlands provide prime foraging areas for bats (Marks and Marks 2008c). Bats will forage over ponds, streams, and wetlands and will drink when flying over open water(Marks and Marks 2008c). During dry seasons, bats become more dependent on remaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging purposes (Marks and Marks 2008c). The presence of roosting habitat is critical for day roosts,protection from predators, and the rearing of young(Marks and Marks 2008c). For most bats, the availability of suitable roosts is an important, limiting factor(Humphrey 1975). Bats in south Florida roost primarily in trees and manmade structures (Marks and Marks 2008a). Protective tree cover around bat roosts may be important for predator avoidance and allowing earlier emergence from the roost,thereby allowing bats to take advantage of the peak in insect activity at dusk and extend foraging time (Duverge et al. 2000). The Florida bonneted bat also uses human structures and other non-natural environments. Florida bonneted bats have been found in the shafts of royal palm leaves (Belwood 1992),under Spanish tile roofs on dwellings (Belwood 1992), in buildings (e.g., in attics,rock or brick chimneys of fireplaces, and especially buildings dating from about 1920-1930) (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008), in rocky crevices and outcrops on the ground(Timm and Genoways 2004), at golf courses in urban Coral Gables (Marks and Marks 2008a; 2008b; 2012), at a boat dock(R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a), at Zoo Miami and surrounding areas within urban public parks (Marks and Marks 2012; Ridgley 2012; F. Ridgley,pers. comm. 2013a, 2013b), and within tropical gardens (S. Snow,pers. comm. 201 lb, 2012b, 2012g; Marks and Marks 2012). Distribution Records indicating historical range are limited. Morgan(1991)indicated that E. glaucinus had been identified from four late Pleistocene(approximately 11,700 years ago)and Holocene(time period beginning 10,000 years ago)fossil sites in the southern half of the Florida peninsula. Late Pleistocene remains are known from Melbourne,Brevard County,and Monkey Jungle Hammock in Miami-Dade County(Allen 1932; Martin 1977,as cited in Belwood 1981 and Timm and Genoways 2004;Morgan 1991). Holocene remains are known from Vero Beach,Indian River County(Ray 1958;Martin1977; and Morgan 1985,2002, as cited in Timm and Genoways 2004;Morgan 1991), and also Monkey Jungle Hammock(Morgan1991). The largest fossil sample(9 specimens)was reported from the Holocene stratum at Vero Beach(Morgan 1985,as cited in Morgan 1991). The fossil records from Brevard County and Indian River County are considerably farther north than where living individuals have typically been recorded(Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008b). Most of the historical records and sightings for this species are several decades old from the cities of Coral Gables and Miami in extreme southeastern Florida,where the species was once believed to be common(Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). G.T.Hubbell also reported a female with young from Fort Lauderdale in Broward County; all of his sightings of Florida bonneted bats were near human dwellings(Belwood 1992). Prior to 1967, G.T.Hubbell regularly heard loud,distinctive calls at night as the bats foraged above buildings,and he routinely obtained several individuals per year that were collected during the winter months from people's houses(Belwood 1992). Other early literature also mentioned Fort Lauderdale as an area where the species occurred(Barbour and Davis 1969;Belwood 1992). However, in their comprehensive review,none of the specimens examined by Timm and Genoways (2004)were from 6 Broward County. Belwood(1981)found a colony in Punta Gorda;however,the longleaf pine in which the bats roosted was felled during highway construction. Recent specimens are only known from extreme southern and southwestern Florida, including Miami-Dade County on the east coast and Charlotte,Collier, and Lee Counties on the Gulf coast(Timm and Genoways 2004). Endemic to Florida,the Florida bonneted bat has one of the most restricted distributions of any species of bat in the New World(Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Although numerous acoustical surveys for the Florida bonneted bat have been conducted in the past decade by various parties,the best scientific information indicates that the species exists only within a very restricted range,confined to south Florida(Timm and Genoways 2004;Marks and Marks 2008a, 2012). Based upon available information,the Florida bonneted bat appears to be restricted to south, southwest,and south-central Florida. The core range may primarily consist of habitat within Charlotte,Lee, Collier,Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties. Recent data also indicate use of portions of Okeechobee,Polk,DeSoto,Hendry,and Broward Counties and possible use of areas within Glades and Highlands Counties. Population Dynamics Little information exists on historical population levels. The Florida bonneted bat was considered common in the Miami-Coral Gables area because of regular collection of specimens from 1951 to 1965 (Robson 1989; Belwood 1992). Jennings (1958) indicated the species was not abundant, noting a total of 20 individuals had been taken from 1936 to 1958. Prior to 1967, G.T. Hubbell regularly heard loud, distinctive calls at night as the bats foraged above buildings in the Miami area(R. Timm,pers. comm. 2012), and he routinely obtained several individuals per year that were collected from people's houses (Beiwood 1992). Barbour and Davis(1969) indicated that, on average, about two individuals per year were brought to the Crandon Park Zoo in Miami, due to injuries,but no time period was specified. Unpublished data from a survey of 100 pest control companies in 1982 on the southeastern coast of Florida showed that requests to remove "nuisance"bats from this area all but ceased beginning in the 1960s (Belwood 1992), indicating a sharp decline in bats in general. Timm and Genoways (2004) found only three records of Florida bonneted bats in the greater Miami area after 1965. The colony found near Punta Gorda in 1979 appeared to be the only recorded occurrence since 1967 (Belwood 1981). A 6-week field trip in 1980 to locate other occurrences was unsuccessful and led to the belief this species was "probably extinct in Florida" (Beiwood 1992). No new evidence of this species was found from 1979 until 1988 when Robson et al. (1989) found a pregnant female in Coral Gables (Robson 1989). Timm and Genoways (2004) surmised the Florida bonneted bat may have been uncommon for several decades, based upon the work of previous researchers (Barbour 1945, as cited in Timm and Genoways 2004; Jennings 1958; Layne 1974), who noted the scarcity of bats in southern Florida. Owre (1978) observed fewer than a dozen individuals in roughly 25 years and noted few mammalogists had success in finding the species. Robson(1989) indicated the decline of specimens and sightings in the mid-1960s is reflected in the museum record and noted the 1950s and 1960s was a period of rapid growth in the Miami area. Robson(1989) suggested the resulting disturbance and destruction of native habitat may have flushed a large number of specimens out of established roosts, resulting in a high collection rate. A status survey 7 conducted in 1989, encompassing 25 sites within natural areas within a nine county area, found no new evidence of this species (Robson 1989). Based upon available data and information, the Florida bonneted bat occurs within a restricted range and in apparent low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a; 2012; Timm and Arroyo- Cabrales 2008;FWC 201 la; FWC 2011b;R. Timm,pers. comm. 2012, in litt. 2012). Actual population size is not known, and no population viability analyses are available(FWC 201 la; 2013; K. Bohn, in list. 2012). However, population size is thought to be less than that needed for optimum viability(Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008; K. Bohn, in litt. 2012). As part of their evaluation of listing criteria for the species, Gore et al. (2010) found the extent of occurrence appears to have declined on the east coast,but trends on the west coast could not be inferred due to limited information. In his independent review of the FWC's Biological Status Report, Ted Fleming, Emeritus Professor of biology at University of Miami, noted anecdotal evidence from the 1950s and 1960s suggests this species was more common along Florida's southeast coast compared with the present(FWC 2011b). Fleming stated, "There can be no doubt that E.floridanus is an uncommon bat throughout its very small range. Its audible echolocation calls are distinctive and easily recognized, making it relatively easy to survey in the field"(FWC 201 lb). He also stated he does not doubt the total State population numbers"in the hundreds or low thousands"(FWC 2011b). Similarly, in response to a request for information as part of the Service's annual Candidate Notice of Review, Robert Timm(pers. comm. 2012), Curator of Mammals at Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, indicated that numbers are low, in his view, as documented by survey attempts. "Eumops are very obvious bats where they occur because of their large size and distinctive calls. Given the efforts to locate them throughout southern Florida, if they were there in any significant numbers, they would have been located" (R. Timm, pers. comm. 2012). Results of the 2006-2007 range-wide survey suggested that the Florida bonneted bat is a rare species with limited range and low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a). Based upon results of both the range-wide study and survey of select public lands,the species was found at 12 locations (Marks and Marks 2008b), but the number and status of the bat at each location are unknown. Based upon the small number of locations where calls were recorded,the low numbers of calls recorded at each location, and the fact that the species forms small colonies, Marks and Marks (2008a) stated that it is possible that the entire population of Florida bonneted bats may number less than a few hundred individuals. Results of the 2010 to 2012 surveys and additional surveys by other researchers identified new occurrences within the established range(i.e., within Miami area, areas of Everglades National Park [ENP] and BCNP) (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012; R. Arwood,pers. comm. 2012; Marks and Marks 2012), however,not in sufficient numbers to alter previous population estimates. In their 2012 report on the status of the species,Marks and Marks (2012)provided an updated estimation of population size,based upon 120 nights of surveys at 96 locations within peninsular Florida, results of other known surveys, and personal communications with others involved in Florida bonneted bat work. Based upon an average colony size of 11 and an estimated 26 colonies within the species' range, researchers estimated the total Florida bonneted bat population at 286 bats at that time (Marks and Marks 2012). Since that time, the discovery of 8 the three natural roost sites and the continuation of additional research at occupied bat houses has provided opportunities for more quantitative emergence counts. This suggests that previous estimates of hundreds to a few thousand might be more representative of population size. In summary, we cannot accurately estimate population size at this time. This is in part because so few roosts are known,roost switching can occur, emergence counts are not conducted simultaneously(or even at the same time of year), and precise counts are difficult to obtain due to environmental conditions and the propensity for some individuals to remain within roosts during counts. Threats The uncertainty regarding the Florida bonneted bat's specific habitat needs and requirements (i.e., location of roost sites) arguably contributes to the potential impacts from the following threats by increasing the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to and losses of habitat. Present or Threatened Destruction,Modification or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range Loss of Forested Habitat and Other Land Use Changes Loss of native forested habitat and roost sites are major threats to the Florida bonneted bat (Belwood 1992; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). The retention of old trees with hollows and cavities are particularly important to this species. In natural areas, this species may be impacted when forests are converted to other uses or when old trees with cavities are removed(Belwood 1992; Timin and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). Significant land use changes have occurred through time in south Florida, including major portions of the species' historical and current range. In his examination of Florida's land use history, Solecki (2001) stated that tremendous land use changes took place from the early 1950s to the early and mid-1970s. The human population in south Florida increased from fewer than 20,000 people in 1920, to more than 4.6 million by 1990 (Solecki 2001). The population of Miami-Dade County, one area where the Florida bonneted bat was historically common, increased from fewer than 500,000 people in 1950, to more than 2.6 million in 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov). In one projection, all counties with current Florida bonneted bat occurrences were forecasted to increase in human population density,with most counties expected to grow by more than 750 people per square mile by 2060 (Wear and Greis 2011). As a result of the growth in human population, approximately 90 percent of the forested habitats in Florida have been altered or eliminated, and losses are expected to continue (Wear and Greis 2002). In the Southern Forest Resource Assessment, Florida was identified as one of the areas expected to experience substantial losses of forest in response to human population and changes in income (Wear and Greis 2002). Land Management Practices Although species occurrences on conservation lands are inherently more protected than those on private lands, habitat alteration during management practices may impact natural roosting sites because the locations of such sites are unknown. For example, removal of old or live trees with cavities during activities associated with forest management(e.g., thinning, pruning),prescribed fire, exotic species treatment, or trail maintenance may inadvertently remove roost sites, if such 9 sites are not known. Loss of an active roost or removal during critical life-history stages (e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young)can have severe ramifications, considering the species' small population size, low fecundity, and roost site fidelity. Loss of Artificial Structures Since the Florida bonneted bat will use human dwellings and other artificial structures, it is also vulnerable to habitat loss and alteration in urban environments (Belwood 1992; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). Removal of buildings with spaces suitable for roosting is a threat to this species (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). Robson(1989) stated that seemingly innocuous activities like destroying abandoned buildings and sealing barrel-tile roof shingles may have a severe impact on remaining populations in urban areas. The use of buildings or other structures inhabited by or near humans places bats at risk of inadvertent or purposeful removal and displacement. Disease or Predation The effects of disease and predation are not well known. Given the Florida bonneted bat's overall vulnerability,both disease and predation could pose threats to its survival. White-nose syndrome (WNS) is an emerging infectious disease affecting insectivorous, cave-dwelling bats. WNS is caused by the cold-loving fungus, Geomyces destructans, a newly described fungus, and is named after the white fungal growth that often occurs on the muzzle of affected bats (Gargas et al. 2009; Lorch et al. 2011). In North America, G. destructans appears to infect bats only during winter hibernation. Because the Florida bonneted bat spends its entire life cycle outside of caves and mines and in subtropical environments where no torpor or hibernation is required, we do not anticipate that it will be adversely affected by WNS. However, since the fungus is new to science and North America, it is not known how it may evolve or change in the future. At this time, it is difficult to assess whether disease is currently or likely to become a threat to the Florida bonneted bat. With anticipated climatic changes and increased environmental stress, it is possible that disease will have a greater impact on the Florida bonneted bat in the future. In general, animals such as owls, hawks, raccoons, skunks, and snakes prey upon bats (Harvey et al. 1999). However, few animals consume bats as a regular part of their diet(Harvey et al. 1999). There is only one record of natural predation on the Florida bonneted bat (Timm and Genoways 2004). A skull of one specimen was found in a regurgitated owl pellet at the Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park(FSPSP) in June 2000 (Timm and Genoways 2004; C. Marks,pers. comm. 2006; Marks and Marks 2008a; M. Owen,pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b). Although evidence of predation is lacking,the species is presumably affected by some level of predation from native wildlife (e.g., hawks, owls, raccoons, rat snakes) and the large number of introduced and nonnative reptiles (e.g., young Burmese pythons,boa constrictors)(Krysko et al. 2011; M. Ludlow, in lilt. 2012; R. Timm, in litt. 2012). Giant constrictors are habitat generalists, can grow and reproduce rapidly, and are arboreal when young,placing birds and arboreal mammals, such as bats, at risk(http://wwwfort.uss.gov/FL('onstrictors/). Due to limited information, we are not able to determine the extent to which predation may be impacting the Florida bonneted bat at this time. However, given the species' apparent small population size and overall vulnerability, it is reasonable to assume that predation is a potential threat, which may increase in the future. 10 Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts from Humans In general, bats using old or abandoned and new dwellings are at significant risk. Bats are often removed when they are no longer tolerated by humans or inadvertently killed or displaced when structures are demolished. Adverse human impacts on bats involve direct killing,persecution, vandalism, and disturbance of hibernating and maternity colonies (Harvey et al. 1999). Homeowners and professionals use a variety of methods to remove bats, including lethal means. Even when attempts are made to remove bats humanely, bats may be sealed into buildings. Despite regulations and efforts to raise awareness, in some situations, bats are still likely removed through inhumane and prohibited methods (e.g., removed from roosts with vacuum cleaner—like apparatuses) and excluded from artificial roost sites during sensitive time periods (e.g., inside the maternity season before young are volant(capable of flying)) (A. Kropp,pers. comm. 2009). Since roosting sites are largely unknown, the potential to remove and exclude Florida bonneted bats from human dwellings and artificial structures, either inadvertently or accidentally, is high. Despite regulatory protections provided under Federal and Florida laws, direct and indirect threats from humans continue, especially in urban, suburban, and residential areas. Bonneted bats using urban or suburban areas may be negatively impacted by activities such as: routine landscaping,removing dead pine or royal palm trees,pruning or trimming trees (especially cabbage palms), sealing barrel-tile roof shingles with mortar, destroying abandoned buildings, and clearing lots of native vegetation(Robson 1989). As the species may also use palm fronds for roosting, the trimming of fronds and removal of mature palm trees for landscaping may negatively impact individuals (K. Gillies, in litt.2012). Disturbance to summer maternity colonies of bats is extremely detrimental (Harvey et al. 1999). In general, maternity colonies of bats do not tolerate disturbance, especially when flightless newborns are present (Harvey et al. 1999). Newborns or immature bats may be dropped or abandoned by adults if disturbed(Harvey et al. 1999). In short, wherever this species occurs in or near human dwellings or structures, it is at risk of inadvertent or purposeful removal, displacement, and disturbance. Routine maintenance and repair of bridges and overpasses or other infrastructure are potential threats. Bats can use highway structures either as day or night roosts (Keeley and Tuttle 1999). An estimated 24 of the 45 species of bats in the United States have been documented to use bridges or culverts as roosts, and 13 other bat species are likely to use such structures based upon their known roosting preferences(Keeley and Tuttle 1999). To date,the Florida bonneted bat has not been documented to use these structures. However, like other molossids, bonneted bats can potentially use these structures for roosting(Keeley and Tuttle 1999). When bridges and overpasses are cleaned,bats may be subjected to high water pressure from hoses,which likely results in injury or death(C. Marks,pers. comm. 2007). Incidences involving high pressure water hoses have reportedly decreased in Florida, and the FDOT is working with FWC to increase their efforts to protect bats during maintenance and repair activities at bridge sites with bats (FWC, in litt. 2012). Competition for Tree Cavities 11 Suitable natural roost sites in south Florida appear limited, and competition for available tree cavities may be greater now than historically. In 1992,Belwood (1992) stated that tree cavities were rare in southern Florida and that competition for available cavities from native wildlife (e.g., southern flying squirrel, red-headed woodpecker, corn snake)was intense. Competition for cavities since that time has presumably increased, due largely to continued loss of cavity trees and habitat and the influx of nonnative or introduced species, which vie for available roosting or nesting locations. Proposed Wind Energy Facilities Migratory, tree-dwelling, and insectivorous bat species are being killed at wind turbines in large numbers across North America(Kunz et al. 2007; Cryan and Barclay 2009). Based upon data modified from Johnson(2005, as cited in Arnett et al. 2008),researchers found that the Brazilian free-tailed bat comprised 85.6 percent of bat mortalities noted at a wind energy facility in Woodward, Oklahoma, and 41.3 percent of bat mortalities at a High Wind, California, wind energy facility. Since the Florida bonneted bat is also a free-tailed bat, it may demonstrate some similar behaviors that place it at risk when encountering wind energy facilities. The cause of bat mortality at wind energy facilities is not a simple one of direct contact with blades or towers. Baerwald et al. (2008) found that barotrauma is the cause of death in a high proportion of bats found at wind energy facilities. Barotrauma involves tissue damage to air— containing structures(such as lungs) caused by rapid or excessive pressure change; wind turbine blades may create zones of low pressure as air flows over them. In their examination,Baerwald et al. (2008) found 90 percent of the bat fatalities involved internal hemorrhaging consistent with barotrauma, suggesting that even if echolocation allows for bats to detect and avoid turbine blades,they may be incapacitated or killed by internal injuries caused by rapid pressure reductions that they cannot detect. While bat fatalities from wind energy facilities are well documented,potential impacts to the Florida bonneted bat are difficult to evaluate at this time, partly due to the uncertainty involving many factors (e.g., location of facilities, operations, foraging distance). Certain aspects of the species' status and life history may increase vulnerability to impacts from wind energy facilities. The species' small population and low fecundity make any additional potential sources of mortality cause for concern. The species' high and strong flight capabilities and fast-hawking foraging behavior may increase risk. Conversely, as the species is non-migratory,potential impacts from wind energy facilities may not be as great in magnitude as perhaps other bat species that are migratory. Pesticides and Contaminants The impacts of pesticides and other environmental contaminants on bat species are largely unstudied, particularly in the case of the Florida bonneted bat. The life history of the Florida bonneted bat may make it susceptible to pesticide exposure from a variety of sources. Mosquito control spraying activities commonly begin at dusk when mosquitoes are most active (http://www.miamidade.t;ov/publicworks/mosquito-spraving.asp). Because the Florida bonneted bat forages at dusk and after dark,the possibility exists for individuals to be directly exposed to airborne mosquito control chemicals or to consume invertebrates containing pesticide residues from recent applications. Additionally,because the Florida bonneted bat has been documented 12 to roost in residential areas (Belwood 1992), it is possible for individuals to be exposed, either directly or through diet, to a variety of undocumented, localized pesticide applications conducted by homeowners. The potential exposure to or impacts of agricultural chemical application on the Florida bonneted bat in Florida are largely unknown. A reduction in the number of flying insects is a potential secondary effect to consider when evaluating the impact of pesticides on the Florida bonneted bat. In his status survey for the Florida bonneted bat, Robson(1989) suggested that mosquito control programs are contributing to reduced food supplies for bats. In addition to pesticide exposure, mercury represents another potential threat to the Florida bonneted bat that has not been investigated. According to the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, the mercury deposition rate in south Florida is among the highest in the United States (http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu). The movement of mercury through the aquatic system and into the terrestrial food web through emergent invertebrates has been documented in other areas (Cristol et al. 2008; Konkler and Hammerschmidt 2012). Assuming that a similar mechanism is occurring in south Florida, coupled with high mercury deposition rates, the consumption of such invertebrates may constitute a pathway for the Florida bonneted bat to be exposed to mercury. Ecological Light Pollution Depending upon scale and extent, ecological light pollution can have demonstrable effects on behavioral and population ecology of organisms by: disrupting orientation (or causing disorientation), affecting movements (attraction or repulsion), altering reproductive behaviors, and influencing communication(Longcore and Rich 2004). The effects of artificial lighting on bats and their prey have been partially studied. A wide array of insects have been found to be attracted to lights (Frank 1988; Eisenbeis and Hassel 2000; Kolligs 2000, as cited in Longcore and Rich 2004). Although the primary prey items for the Florida bonneted bat are not known, it is possible that artificial lighting may be affecting insect abundance or availability and prey base in some locations. Longcore and Rich (2004) suggested that increased food concentration at artificial light sources may be a positive effect for those species that can exploit such sources, but it also could result in altered community structure. The Florida bonneted bat's behavioral response to ecological light pollution has not been examined, and effects are not known. The species' fast-flight and long range flight capabilities may make it more able to exploit insects congregated at artificial light sources or more susceptible to risks associated with such responses (e.g., increased predation or harm from humans). Effects of Small Population Si:e, Isolation, and Other Factors The Florida bonneted bat is vulnerable to extinction due to its small population size,restricted range, few occupied areas, low fecundity, and relative isolation. The Florida bonneted bat only occurs in south, southwest, and south-central Florida and only in limited numbers (Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008a; 2008b; 2012). Based on the small number of locations where calls were recorded, the low numbers of calls recorded at each location, and the fact that the species forms small colonies, Marks and Marks (2008a) stated that it is possible that the entire population of Florida bonneted bats may number less than a few hundred individuals. Other experts suggested the population may be "in the hundreds or low thousands" (FWC 2011b). In general, species with restricted ranges are often characterized by small population 13 sizes and high habitat specialization and are, therefore,more vulnerable to stochastic, demographic, and environmental processes (L,ande et al. 2003, as cited in Lee and Jetz 2011). Slow reproduction and low fecundity are also serious concerns because this species produces only one young at a time and roosts singly or in small groups (FBC 2005; Timm and Arroyo- Cabrales 2008). Assuming a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for bats of this size (Wilkinson and South 2002), the average generation time is estimated to be 5 to 10 years (Gore et al. 2010). The small numbers within localized areas may also make the Florida bonneted bat vulnerable to extinction due to genetic drift (loss of unique genes through time), inbreeding depression(reduced fitness or survival due to low genetic diversity), extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes), and random or chance changes to the environment(Lande 1988; Smith 1990) that can significantly impact its habitat. In general, isolation, whether caused by geographic distance, ecological factors, or reproductive strategy, will likely prevent the influx of new genetic material and can result in low diversity, which may impact viability and fecundity(Chesser 1983). Distance between subpopulations or colonies, the small sizes of colonies, and the general low number of bats may make recolonization unlikely if any site is extirpated. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization from other sites and potentially result in extinction. The probability of extinction increases with decreasing habitat availability(Pimm et al. 1988; Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Thomas 1994; Kale 1996). Although changes in the environment may cause populations to fluctuate naturally, small and low density populations are more likely to fluctuate below a minimum viable population(i.e., the minimum or threshold number of individuals needed in a population to persist in a viable state for a given interval) (Shaffer 1981; Shaffer and Samson 1985; Gilpin and Soule' 1986). If populations become fragmented, genetic diversity will be lost as smaller populations become more isolated (Rossiter et al. 2000). Fragmentation and aspects of the species' natural history (e.g., reliance on availability of suitable roost sites, constant supply of insects) can contribute to and exacerbate other threats facing the species. Environmental Stochasticity Natural events such as severe hurricanes may cause the loss of old trees with roosting cavities (Timm and Genoways 2004). Major impacts of intense storms may include mortality during the storm, exposure to predation immediately following the storm, loss of natural or artificial roost sites, and impacts on foraging areas and insect abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a; W. Kern, Jr. in litt. 2012; R. Timm, in Litt. 2012). In general,bats could be blown into stationary objects or impacted by flying debris, resulting in injury or mortality(Marks and Marks 2008a). Trees with cavities can be snapped at their weakest point,which for the Florida bonneted bat may have the most severe impact since the species uses cavities (Marks and Marks 2008a); competition for available cavities in south Florida is intense(Belwood 1992), and suitable roosting sites in general are often limiting factors (Humphrey 1975). Displaced bats may be found on the ground or other unsuitable locations and exposed to natural predators, domestic pets, and humans (Marks and Marks 2008a). As pregnant females have been found in June through September, hurricanes in Florida can occur at critical life-history stages—when females are pregnant or rearing young—possibly resulting in losses of pregnant females, newborns, or juvenile pups (Marks and Marks 2008a). Because the entire population may be less than a few hundred individuals (Marks and Marks 2008a; 2012),the Florida bonneted bat may not be able 14 to withstand losses from intense storms or storms at a critical life-history stage. Alternatively, less intense hurricanes or mild, isolated storms may create roosting opportunities, if tree snags (dead trees) are left in place. Given the Florida bonneted bat's tree-roosting habits, apparent low abundance, few isolated colonies, and use of coastal areas, the species is at risk from hurricanes, storms, or other extreme weather. Depending on the location and intensity, it is possible that the majority of Florida bonneted bats could be killed in a fairly broad area during a single, large, high-intensity hurricane(R. Timm, in litt. 2012). More frequent and intense storms, increased storm surges, and coastal flooding can impact Florida bonneted bats and roosting and foraging habitat. This species is also vulnerable to prolonged extreme cold weather events. Molossids, the family of bats which includes the Florida bonneted bat, appear to be an intermediate between tropical and temperate zone bat families(Arlettaz et al. 2000). Members of this family that inhabit the warmer temperate and subtropical zones incur much higher energetic costs for thermoregulation during cold weather events than those inhabiting northern regions (Arlettaz et al. 2000). At such temperatures, bats are likely unable to find food and cannot rewarm themselves. Such a stochastic,but potentially severe, event poses a significant threat to the entire population. Impacts of past cold weather events are evident, but the effect on all colonies is not known. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise The effects resulting from climatic change, including sea level rise and coastal squeeze, are expected to become severe in the future and result in additional habitat losses, including the loss of roost sites and foraging habitat. Three subpopulations of the Florida bonneted bat occur in at- risk coastal locations (Gore et al. 2010), and the effects of sea level rise are expected to be a continual problem for species using coastal habitats (Saha et al. 2011). Within the species' range, low-lying areas in Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties appear most vulnerable to inundation. Much of low-lying, coastal south Florida"will be underwater or inundated with saltwater in the coming century" (U. S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2008). This means that large portions of occupied, suitable, and potential roosting and foraging habitat for the Florida bonneted bat in low-lying areas will likely be either submerged or affected by increased flooding. Climate change is likely to increase occurrence of saltwater intrusion as sea level rises (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2008), resulting in changes to plant species composition based upon tolerance to salinity and drought. Such changes in vegetation will likely impact the Florida bonneted bat, since the species uses forested areas and coastal habitats. Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in these and other coastal areas(IPCC 2008). Such communities typically grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. Human developments will also likely be significant factors influencing whether natural communities can move and persist((IPCC 2008; CCSP 2008). Climate change, human population growth, forest management, and land use changes are also expected to increase water stress (water demand exceeding availability) within areas of the south, and south Florida is considered a hot spot for future water stress (Wear and Greis 2011). For the Florida bonneted bat, this means that some 15 habitat in coastal areas will likely change as vegetation changes and additional human developments encroach. Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation are also expected to increase the severity of wildfire events. Climate changes are forecasted to extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events throughout the Coastal Plain(Wear and Greis 2011). Increases in the scale, frequency, or severity of wildfires could also have severe ramifications on the Florida bonneted bat, considering its forest-dwelling nature and general vulnerability. Climate changes may also affect foraging habitat and prey availability. Increased plant water stress is likely to impact vegetation community composition and chemical composition of plants, which would likely affect insect availability and the timing of insect availability to foraging bats (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). Ongoing Conservation Efforts Extensive conservation efforts are underway by researchers, government agencies, non-profit organizations, stakeholders, and private individuals. Efforts are focusing on: (1) filling information gaps regarding the species and its habitat needs and preferences; (2) conserving roosting and foraging habitats; (3)reducing known threats, wherever possible; and(4) increasing public awareness. Research efforts continue to examine life history, population dynamics, and habitat needs for the Florida bonneted bat. Studies are being conducted to identify additional occupied areas, evaluate diet, determine roost site fidelity, examine population dynamics,understand movement and foraging distance, develop a protocol for attachment of radio transmitters, identify habitat needs, analyze effects of fire, and locate natural roost sites. Identifying natural roost sites is particularly important, as only three are currently known. Finding additional roost sites is a key component to better understanding the species' habitat needs, which will greatly contribute to conservation of the species. Knowing where roosts occur and determining better methods to detect them will enhance endeavors to learn more about life history and help focus habitat protection efforts on specific locations, especially if roost sites may be a limited resource for the species. The FWC's Species Action Plan details the actions necessary to improve the conservation status of the Florida bonneted bat. The Florida Bonneted Bat Working Group was established in 2012 to bring together a consortium of public and private agencies, organizations, and educational institutions to leverage available resources, prioritize conservation actions, and collaborate on research directives for the Florida bonneted bat. The Service intends to work with stakeholders to develop a recovery outline and recovery plan in the near future. Literature Cited Allen, G.M. 1932. A Pleistocene bat from Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 13(3):256-259. Arlettaz, R., C. Ruchet, J. Aeschimann, E. Brun, M. Genoud, and P. Vogel. 2000. Physiological 16 traits affecting the distribution and wintering strategy of the bat Tadarida teniotis. Ecology 81(4):1004-1014. Arnett, E.B., K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, T.H. Henry, G.D. Johnson,J. Kerns, R.R. Kolford, C.P. Nicholson, T. O'Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61-78. Arwood, R. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. March 11, 2008. Arwood, R. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. March 13, 2008. Arwood, R. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. March 5, 2012. Arwood, R. 2013a. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. April 13, 2013. Arwood, R. 2013b. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. June 6, 2013. Arwood, R. 2013c. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. July 29, 2013. Arwood, R. 2014a. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. February 2, 2014. Arwood, R. 2014b. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. March 2, 2014. Arwood, R. 2014c. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. March 17, 2014. Arwood, R. 2014d. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City, Florida. November 23, 2014. Arwood, R. 2015. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades City, Florida. December 22, 2015. Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D'Amours, B.J. Klug., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16):695-696. Bailey, A. 2013. Presentation and discussion of research to be undertaken by the University of Florida for the "Closing data gaps for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus)" study. Meeting hosted by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission at 17 Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area. November 14, 2013. Baker,R.J., M.M. McDonough,V.J. Swier,P.A. Larsen, J.P. Carrera, and L.K. Ammerman. 2009. New species of bonneted bat, genus Eumops (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from the lowlands of western Ecuador and Peru. Acta Chiropterologica 11(1):1-13. Barbour, T. 1945. A naturalist in Cuba. Little, Brown and Company. Boston, Massachusetts. Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky. Lexington,Kentucky. Belwood, J.J. 1981. Wagner's mastiff bat,Eumops glaucinus floridanus (Molossidae) in southwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62(2):411-413. Belwood, J.J. 1992. Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinus floridanus. Pages 216-223 in S.R. Humphrey(ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville,Florida. Best, T.L., W.M. Kiser, and J.C. Rainey. 1997. Eumops glaucinus. Mammalian Species 551:1- 6. Bohn, K. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0016). Florida International University. Miami, Florida. November 20, 2012. Braun de Torrez, E. 2014. Email to Paula Halupa. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. December 19, 2014. Braun de Torrez, E. 2015. Email to Paula Halupa et al. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. July 11, 2015. Chesser, R.K. 1983. Isolation by distance: relationship to the management of genetic resources. Pages 66-77 in C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, F. MacBryde, and L. Thomas, editors. Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc; Menlo Park, California. Cristol, D.A.,R.L. Brasso, A.M. Condon, R.E. Fovargue, S.L. Friedman, K.K. Hallinger, A.P. Monroe, A.E. White. 2008. The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs. Science 320:335. Cryan,P.M., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy 90(6):1330-1340. 18 Duverge, P.L., G. Jones, J. Rydell, and R.D. Ransome. 2000. Functional significance of emergence timing in bats. Ecography 23(1):32-40. Eger, J.L. 1999. Wagner's mastiff bat,Eumops glaucinus. Pp. 132-133 in The Smithsonian book on North American Mammals (D.E. Wilson and S. Ruff, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Eisenbeis, G., and F. Hassel. 2000 . Zur Anziehung nachaktiver Insekten durch Strassenlanternen-eine Studie kommunaler Beleuchtungseinrichtungen in der Agrarlandschaft Rheinhessens [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights—a study of municipal lighting systems in rural area of Rheinhessin]. Nat Landsch 75:145-156. Findley, J.S., E.H. Studier, and D.E. Wilson. 1972. Morphologic properties of bat wings. Journal of Mammalogy 53(3): 429••444. Florida Bat Conservancy. 2005. Florida bonneted bat(Eumopsfloridanus). Bay Pines, Florida http://www.floridabats.org/Species EUFL.htm Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 la. Florida bonneted bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011b. Supplemental information for the Florida bonneted(mastiff) bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat(Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0039). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. November 30, 2012. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. A species action plan for the Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus. Draft. March 13, 2013. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2015. FNAI- element tracking summary. Tallahassee, Florida. October 6, 2015. http://vvww.fnai.org/PDF/Element_tracking_sumrnary_current.pdf Frank, K.D. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42(2):63-93. Freeman, P.W. 1981. A multivariate study of the family Molossidae (Mammalia, Chiroptera): morphology, ecology, evolution. Mammalogy Papers: University of Nebraska State Museum. Paper 26. http:/idigitalcommons.unl.edu/museummammalogv/26 19 Gargas, A.,M.T. Trest, M. Christensen, T.J. Volk, and D.S. Blehert. 2009. Geomyces destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon 108:147-154. Gillies,K. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0026). Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. November 29, 2012. Gilpin,M.E., and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: the processes of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in M.E. Soule (ed.), Conservation Biology-the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Gore,J., C. Marks, and H. Ober. 2010. Biological status review information findings - Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). In: Florida bonneted bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Halupa, P. 2014a. Personal observation. Observations from Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. September 25, 2014. Halupa, P. 2014b. Personal observation. Observations from Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. October 15, 2014. Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Published by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. In cooperation with the Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Humphrey, S.R. 1975. Nursery roosts and community diversity of Nearctic bats. Journal of Mammalogy 56(2):321-346. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2008. Climate Change and Water [B.C. Bates, Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, Editors]. Technical paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat; Geneva, Switzerland. Jennings, W.L. 1958. The ecological distribution of bats in Florida. A dissertation presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Johnson, G.D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46:45-49. Kale, H.W., II. 1996. Dusky seaside sparrow. Pages 7-12 in J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith(eds.),Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,Florida. 20 Keeley, B.W., and M.D. Tuttle. 1999. Bats in American bridges. Bat Conservation International, Inc. Austin, Texas. Kern, Jr., W. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0038). University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Davie, Florida. December 3, 2012. Kolligs, D. 2000. Okologische Auswirkungen kunstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch- Okologische Mitteilungen Suppl 28: 1-136. Konkler, M.J., and C.R. Hammerschmidt. 2012. Methylmercury in mosquitoes around a large coal-fired power plant in central Ohio. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31(7):1657-1661. Kropp, A. 2009. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Ocala, Florida. July 28, 2009. Krysko, K.L., J.P. Burgess, M.R. Rochford, C.R. Gillette, D. Cueva, K.M. Enge, L.A. Somma, J.L. Stabile, D.C. Smith, J.A. Wasilewski, G.N. Kieckhefer III, M.C. Granatosky, and S.V. Nielsen. 2011. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028:1-64. Kunz, T.H., J.O. Whitaker, Jr., and M.D. Wadanoli. 1995. Dietary energetics of the insectivorous Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)during pregnancy and lactation. Oecologia 101(4):407-415. Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Hresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6):315-3 24. Kurta, A., G.P. Bell, K.A. Nagy, and T.H. Kunz. 1989. Energetics of pregnancy and lactation in free-ranging little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Physiological Zoology 62(3):804-818. Kurta, A., T.H. Kunz, and K.A. Nagy. 1990. Energetics and water flux of free-ranging big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) during pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Mammalogy 71(1):59-65. Kurta,A., and J.A. Teramino. 1992. Bat community structure in an urban park. Ecography 15(3):257-261. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455-1460. 21 Lande, R., S. Engen, and E. Saether. 2003. Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press. Layne, J.N. 1974. The land mammals of South Florida. Pp. 386-413 in Environments of South Florida: present and past (P. J. Gleason, ed.). Memoir Miami Geological Society 2:1-452. Lee, T.M., and W. Jetz. 2011. Unravelling the structure of species extinction risk for predictive conservation science. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278:1329-1338. Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4):191-198. Lorch, J.M., C.U. Meteyer, M.J. Behr, J.G. Boyles, P.M. Cryan, A.C. Hicks, A.E. Ballmann, J.T.H. Coleman, D.N. Redell,D.M. Reeder, and D.S. Blehert. 2011. Experimental infection of bats with Geomyces destructans causes white-nose syndrome. Nature 480:376-379. Ludlow, M.E. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0029). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Park Service. November 30, 2012. Maehr, S.C. 2013. Florida bonneted bat: a survey for abundance on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Naples, Florida. Maehr, S.C. 2013a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Naples, Florida. May 7, 2013. Maehr, S.C. 2013b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Naples, Florida. May 9, 2013. Marks, C. 2006. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. July 26, 2006. Marks, C. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines,Florida. February 28, 2007. Marks, C. 2013. Preliminary dietary analysis report for the Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus). Draft copy. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Marks, G. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. May 21, 2012. Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008a. Status of the Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus). Submitted by George E. Marks and Cynthia S. Marks of the Florida Bat Conservancy for 22 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under grant agreement number 401815G192. January 31, 2008. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008b. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops jloridanus). Supplemental report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number 401815G192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008c. Bat conservation and land management Kissimmee River WMA. May 2008. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2012. Status of the Florida bonneted bat(Eumops jloridanus). Submitted by George E. Marks and Cynthia S. Marks of the Florida Bat Conservancy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under grant agreement number 40181AG121. May 4, 2012. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Martin, R.A. 1977. Late Pleistocene Eumops from Florida. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science 22:18--19. McDonough, M.M., L.K. Ammerman, R.M. Timm, H.H. Genoways, P.A. Larsen, and R.J. Baker. 2008. Speciation within bonneted bats (Genus Eumops): the complexity of morphological, mitochondrial, and nuclear data sets in systematics. Journal of Mammalogy 89(5):1306-1315. Morgan, G.S. 1985. Fossil bats(Mammalia: Chiroptera) from the Late Pleistocene and Holocene Vero Fauna, Indian River County, Florida. Brimleyana 11:97--117. Morgan, G.S. 1991. Neotropical Chiroptera from the Pliocene and Pleistocene of Florida. Pages 176-213 in T.A. Griffiths and D. Klingener(eds.), Contributions to Mammalogy in Honor of Karl F. Koopman. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 206:1- 432. Morrison, D.W. 1979. Apparent male defense of tree hollows in the fruit bat,Artibeus jamaicensis. Journal of Mammalogy 60(1):11-15. Myers, J. 2013. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. April 3, 2013. Myers, J. 2014a. Email to Jeff Gore et al. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. May 14, 2014. Myers, J. 2014b. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. May 16, 2014. Myers, J. 2014c. Email to Jeff Gore et al. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. May 21, 2014. 23 Myers, J. 2014d. Email to Holly Ober et al. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. April 29, 2014. Myers, J. 2015. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Frostproof, Florida. August 4, 2015. Norberg, U.M. and J.M.V. Rayner. 1987. Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 316 (1179):335-427. Noss,R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife. Island Press, Washington,D.C. Ober,H.K. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0033). University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. November 20, 2012. Ober,H.K. 2013. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa and Marilyn Knight. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. May 9, 2013. Ober, H.K. 2014a. Email to Paula Halupa (includes data from April pit-tagging). University of Florida,Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. May 16, 2014. Ober, H.K. 2014b. Email to Paula Halupa and Marilyn Knight(includes data from August pit- tagging). University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. September 16, 2014. Ober, H.K. 2014c. Conversation with Paula Halupa. University of Florida,Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. August 27, 2014. Ober, H.K. 2014d. Email to Jeff Gore et al. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. December 19, 2014. Ober, H., and B. McCleery. 2012. Scope of work: closing data gaps for the Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus). University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. Owen,M. 2012a. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park. Copeland, Florida. July 31, 2012. 24 Owen, M. 2012b. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park. Copeland, Florida. August 1, 2012. Owre, O.T. 1978. Status undetermined, Florida mastiff bat,Eumops glaucinus floridanus. Pages 43-44 in J.N. Layne(ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville,Florida. Pirrm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. American Naturalist 132(6): 757-785. Rau, R. 2012. Email to Sally Braem and Paula Halupa. Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park. Copeland, Florida. July 26, 2012. Relish, K. 2013. Email to Paula Halupa and Mike Owen. Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park. Copeland, Florida. February 4, 2013. Ridgley, F. 2012. Bat species survey of three Miami-Dade County Park properties and evaluation of diet and roosting preference of the Florida bonneted bat(Eumops floridanus). Proposal submitted by Zoo Miami to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces, Miami, Florida. Ridgley, F. 2013a. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. February 20, 2013. Ridgley, F. 2013b. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. June 3, 2013. Ridgley, F. 2013c. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. July 13, 2013. Ridgley, F. 2013d. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. June 12, 2013. Ridgley, F. 2014a. Email to Marilyn Knight and Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami,Florida. August 18, 2014. Ridgley, F. 2014b. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. August 18, 2014. Ridgley, F. 2014c. Email to Paula Halupa. Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. Miami, Florida. August 18, 2014. Robson, M. 1989. Status survey of the Florida mastiff bat. Final performance report. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Bureau of Nongame Wildlife, Division of 25 Wildlife. Tallahassee, Florida. Robson, M.S., F.J. Mazzotti, and T. Parrott. 1989. Recent evidence of the mastiff bat in southern Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 17(4):81-82. Rossiter, S.J., G. Jones,R.D. Ransome, E. Barratt. 2000. Genetic variation and population structure in the endangered greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Molecular Ecology 9: 1131-1135. Saha,A.K., S. Saha, J. Sadle, J. Jiang, M.S. Ross, R.M. Price, L.S.L.O Sternberg,K.S. Wendelberger. 2011. Sea level rise and South Florida coastal forests. Climatic Change 107:81-108. Scofield, B. 2013a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. April 24, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range,Florida. April 24, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013c. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. May 29, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013d. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. April 24, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013e. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. July 22, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013f. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. August 23, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013g. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. October 28, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013h. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range,Florida. November 1, 2013. Scofield, B. 2013i. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. November 15, 2013. Scofield, B. 2014. Email to South Florida Ecological Services Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. October 27, 2014. Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31(2):131- 134. 26 Shaffer, M.L., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Population size and extinction: a note on determining critical population sizes. The American Naturalist 125(1):144-152. Simmons, J.A., M.B. Fenton, and M.J. O'Farrell. 1979. Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science 203(4375):16-21. Smith, K. 2010. Capture of Eumops floridanus in a mist net in south Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Big Cypress Field Office,Naples, Florida. Smith, K. 2013. Email to Paula Halupa. :Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Estero, Florida. June 14, 2013. Smith,R.L. 1990. Ecology and Field Biology. 4th ed. HarperCollins. West Virginia University. Morgantown, West Virginia. Snow, S. 2011 a. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. December 13, 2011. Snow, S. 2011b. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. December 30, 2011. Snow, S. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document#FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0031). National Park Service, Everglades National Park. December 2, 2012. Snow, S. 2012a. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January 3, 2012. Snow, S. 2012b. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. March 30, 2012. Snow, S. 2012c. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead,Florida. March 30, 2012. Snow, S. 2012d. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. April 12, 2012. Snow, S. 2012e. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. March 26, 2012. Snow, S. 2012f. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. May 9, 2012. Snow, S. 2012g. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. May 9, 2012. 27 Snow, S. 2013. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead,Florida. February 20, 2013. Solecki,W.D. 2001. The role of global-to-local linkages in land use/land cover change in south Florida. Special section—south Florida: the reality of change and the prospects for sustainability. Ecological Economics 37: 339-356. Thomas, C.D. 1994. Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species. Conservation Biology 8(2):373-378. Timm, R. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. University of Kansas. Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Lawrence, Kansas. May 28, 2008. Timm, R. 2009. Email to Paula Halupa. University of Kansas. Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center,Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Lawrence,Kansas. December 31, 2009. Timm, R. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa. University of Kansas. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity Institute. Lawrence, Kansas. January 1, 2012. Timm,R.M. 2012. Comments on proposed endangered species status for Florida bonneted bat (Document ft FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078-0025). University of Kansas, Kansas University Natural History Museum. Lawrence, Kansas. November 27, 2012. Timm, R. and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 2008. Eumops floridanus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on 11 April 2012. Timm, R.M., and H.H. Genoways. 2004. The Florida bonneted bat,Eumops floridanus (Chiroptera: Molossidae): distribution, morphometrics, systematics, and ecology. Journal of Mammalogy 85(5):852-865. Trokey, S. 2006a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. July 7, 2006. Trokey, S. 2006b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. July 17, 2006. Trokey, S. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. February 5, 2008. Trokey, S. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. October 18, 2008. 28 Trokey, S. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. January 10, 2012. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West, editors; J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott, authors]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered species status for the Florida bonneted bat. Federal Register 77:60750-60776. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered species status for the Florida bonneted bat. Federal Register 78:61004-61043. Vaughan, T.A. 1959. Functional morphology of three bats: Eumops, Myotis, Macrotus. University of Kansas Publishing., Museum of Natural History 12: 1-153. Vaughan, T.A. 1966. Morphology and flight characteristics of molossid bats. Journal of Mammalogy 47(2):249-260. Wear, D.N., and J.G. Greis. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment—technical report. General technical report SRS-53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/index.htm Wear, D.N., and J.G. Greis. 2011. The Southern Forest Futures Project: summary report. Draft report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/futures/ Wilkinson, G.S., and J.M. South. 2002. Life history, ecology and longevity in bats. Aging Cell 1:124-133. 29 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 STATUS OF THE SPECIES—Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi) Legal Status—On March 11, 1967,the Service listed the panther as endangered(32 FR 4001) throughout its historic range, and they received Federal protection under the passage of the Act in 1973. In addition,the Florida Panther Act(Florida Statute 372.671), a 1978 Florida State law, made killing a panther a felony. The panther is listed as endangered by the States of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi in addition to its Federal listing. Critical habitat has not been designated for the panther. Species Description Appearance/Morphology An adult panther is unspotted and typically rusty reddish-brown on the back,tawny on the sides,and pale gray underneath. Adult males can reach a length of 7 feet(ft)(2.1 meters [m]) from their nose to the tip of their tail and may exceed 161 pounds(lbs)(73 kg)in weight; but,typically adult males average around 116 lbs (52.6 kg) and stand about 24 to 28 inches (in) (60 to 70 centimeters [cm]) at the shoulder(Roelke 1990). Female panthers are smaller with an average weight of 75 lbs (34 kg) and length of 6 ft(1.8 m) (Roelke 1990). Panther kittens are gray with dark brown or blackish spots and five bands around the tail. The spots gradually fade as the kittens grow older and are almost unnoticeable by the time they are 6 months old. At this age,their bright blue eyes slowly turn to the light- brown straw color of the adult(Belden 1988). Three external characteristics: a right angle crook at the terminal end of the tail, a whorl of hair or cowlick in the middle of the back, and irregular, white flecking on the head, nape, and shoulders—not found in combination in other subspecies of Puma (Belden 1986),were commonly observed in panthers through the mid-1990s. The kinked tail and cowlicks were considered manifestations of inbreeding(Seal 1994);whereas the white flecking was thought to be a result of scarring from tick bites(Maehr 1992). Four other abnormalities prevalent in the panther population prior to the mid-1990s were cryptorchidism(one or two undescended testicles), low sperm quality, atrial septal defects (the opening between two atria in the heart fails to close normally during fetal development), and immune deficiencies; and these were suspected to be the result of low genetic variability(Roelke et al. 1993). Taxonomy The panther was first described by Charles B. Cory in 1896 as Felis concolor floridana (Cory 1896). The type specimen was collected in Sebastian, Florida. Bangs(1899), however,believed the panther was restricted to peninsular Florida and could not intergrade with other Felis sp. Therefore,he assigned it full specific status and named it Felis coryi since Felis floridana had been used previously for a bobcat(Lynx rufus). 1 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Culver et al. (2000) examined genetic diversity within and among the described subspecies of Puma concolor using three groups of genetic markers and proposed a revision of the genus to include only six subspecies, one of which encompassed all puma in North America including the panther. They determined the panther was one of several smaller populations that had unique features. Specifically, the number of polymorphic microsatellite loci and amount of variation were lower, and it was highly inbred. The degree to which the scientific community accepted the results of Culver et al. (2000) and the proposed change in taxonomy is not resolved (Service 2008). The panther remains listed as a subspecies, and continues to receive protection pursuant to the Act. Life History Male panthers are polygynous, maintaining large, overlapping home ranges containing several adult females and their dependent offspring. Breeding activity peaks from December to March (Shindle et al. 2003). Litters (n=82) are produced throughout the year, with 56 to 60 percent of births occurring between March and June (Jansen et al. 2005; Lotz et al. 2005). The greatest number of births occurs in May and June (Jansen et al. 2005; Lotz et al. 2005). Average litter size is 2.4± 0.91 (standard deviation)kittens. Seventy percent of litters are comprised of either two or three kittens. Panther dens are usually located closer to upland hardwoods, pinelands, and mixed wet forests and farther from freshwater marsh-wet prairie (Benson et al. 2008). Most den sites are located in dense saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), shrubs, or vines (Maehr 1990a; Shindle et al. 2003, Benson et al. 2008). Den sites are used for 6 to 8 weeks by female panthers and their litters from birth to weaning(Benson et al. 2008). Independence and dispersal of young typically occurs at 18 months, but may occur as early as one year(Maehr 1992). Benson et al. (2009)analyzed survival and cause-specific mortality of subadult and adult panthers. They found that sex and age influenced panther survival, as females survived better than males, and older adults(>10 years) survived poorly compared with younger adults. Genetic ancestry strongly influenced annual survival of subadults and adults after introgression, as Fl generation admixed panthers survived longer than pre-introgression panthers and non-Fl admixed individuals (Benson et al. 2009). Mortality records for uncollared panthers have been kept since February 13, 1972, and for radio-collared panthers since February 10, ].981 (FWC 2013, and FWC unpublished data). Through June 25, 2014, 424 mortalities have been documented(FWC 2014). Of the 424 total mortalities, 181 were radio-collared. Intraspecific aggression was the leading cause of mortality for radio-collared panthers, and was more common for males than females (Benson et al. 2009). Older-adult males had significantly higher, and subadult males had marginally higher, mortality due to intraspecific aggression than adult males in their prime (Benson et al. 2009). Most 2 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 intraspecific aggression occurs between male panthers;but, aggressive encounters between males and females have occurred,resulting in the death of the female. Defense of kittens or of a kill is suspected in half(five of ten) of the known instances through 2003 (Shindle et al. 2003). Following intraspecific aggression, the greatest causes of mortality for radio-collared panthers was from unknown causes, vehicles, and other (Benson et al. 2009). From February 13, 1972, through June 30, 2014, 215 panthers (radio-collared and uncollared)were hit by vehicles (FWC 2014). These collisions resulted in 203 panther fatalities and 12 non-fatal injuries. The number of panther/vehicle collisions per year is positively correlated with the annual panther count (McBride et al. 2008). Female panthers are considered adult residents if they are older than 18 months,have established home ranges, and have bred(Maehr et al. 1991). Land et al. (2004) reported 23 of 24 female panthers first captured as kittens survived to become residents and 18 (78.3 percent)produced litters; 1 female was too young to determine residency. Male panthers are considered adult residents if they are older than 3 years and have established a home range that overlaps with females. Thirty-one (31)male panthers were captured as kittens and 12 (38.7 percent)of these cats survived to become residents (Jansen et al. 2005). "Successful male recruitment may depend on the death or home range shift of a resident adult male" (Maehr et al. 1991). Turnover in the breeding population is low with documented mortality in radio-collared panthers being greatest in subadult and non-resident males (Maehr et al. 1991; Shindle et al. 2003). Den sites of female panthers have been visited since 1992 and the kittens tagged with passive integrated transponder chips. Annual survival of these kittens has been determined to be 0.328 ± 0.072 (SE) (Hostetler et al. 2009). There was no evidence survival rate differed between male and female kittens or was influenced by litter size. Hostetler et al. (2009) found kitten survival generally increased with degree of admixture with introduced Texas pumas and decreased with panther abundance. Kitten survival is lowest during the first 3 months of their lives (Hostetler et al. 2009). Panther dispersal begins after a juvenile becomes independent from its mother and continues until it establishes a home range. Dispersal distances are greater for males than females. The maximum dispersal distance recorded for a young male was 139.2 mi (224.1 km) over a 7-month period followed by a secondary dispersal of 145 mi (233 km). Comiskey et al. (2002) found males disperse an average distance of 25 mi(40 km) and females typically remain in or disperse short distances from their natal ranges. Female dispersers establish home ranges less than one average home range width from their natal range (Maehr et al. 2002a). Maehr et al. (2002a) reported all female dispersers (n=9)were successful at establishing a home range whereas only 63 percent of males(n= 18)were successful. Dispersing males usually go through a period as transient (non-resident) subadults, moving through the fringes of the resident population and often occupying suboptimal habitat until an established range becomes vacant(Maehr 1997). 3 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Most panther dispersal occurs south of the Caloosahatchee River. However,panthers have been documented north of the Caloosahatchee River many times since February 1972 through field signs (e.g., tracks, urine markers, scats), camera-trap photographs, carcasses from vehicle-related mortalities, telemetry from radio-collared animals (Land and Taylor 1998; Land et al. 1999; Shindle et al. 2000; Maehr et al. 2002b; Belden and McBride 2005), captured animals (one of which was radio collared), and one skeleton. The Caloosahatchee River, a narrow(295-328 ft [90-100 m]), channelized river, is probably not a significant barrier to panther movements. Western subspecies of Puma are known to cross wide, swift-flowing rivers up to a mile in width(Seidensticker et al. 1973; Anderson 1983). However, the combination of the river, SR 80, and land uses along the river seems to have somewhat restricted panther dispersal northward (Maehr et al. 2002b). Documented physical evidence of at least 15 uncollared male panthers has been confirmed north of the river since 1972, but neither female panthers nor reproduction have been documented in this area since 1973 (Belden and McBride 2005). Panthers require large areas to meet their needs. Numerous factors influence panther home range size, including: habitat quality,prey density, and landscape configuration(Belden 1988; Comiskey et al. 2002). Home range sizes of six radio-collared panthers monitored between 1985 and 1990 averaged 128,000 ac (51,800 hectares [ha]) for resident adult males and 48,000 ac (19,425 ha)for resident adult females;transient males had a home range of 153,599 ac(62,160 ha) (Maehr et al. 1991). Comiskey et al. (2002) examined the home range size for 50 adult panthers (residents greater than 1.5 years old)monitored in south Florida from 1981 to 2000 and found resident males had a mean home range of 160,639 ac (65,009 ha) and females had a mean home range of 97,920 ac (39,627 ha). Beier et al. (2003) found home range size estimates for panthers reported by Maehr et al. (1991) and Comiskey et al. (2002) to be reliable. Annual minimum convex polygon home range sizes of 52 adult radio-collared panthers monitored between 1998 and 2002 ranged from 15,360 to 293,759 ac (6,216 to 118,880 ha), averaging 89,600 ac (36,260 ha)for 20 resident adult males and 44,160 ac (17,871 ha) for 32 resident adult females (Land et al. 1999, 2002; Shindle et al. 2000, 2001). The most current estimate of home-range sizes(minimum convex polygon method) for established,non- dispersing, adult, radio-collared panthers averaged 29,056 ac (11,759 ha) for females (n = 11) and 62,528 ac (25,304 ha) for males(n = 11) (Lotz et al. 2005). The average home range was 35,089 ac (14,200 ha) for resident females (n = 6) and 137,143 ac (55,500 ha) (n =5) for males located at Big Cypress National Preserve (BICY) (Jansen et al. 2005). Home ranges of resident adults tend to be stable unless influenced by the death of other residents. Activity levels for panthers are greatest at night with peaks around sunrise and after sunset (Maehr et al. 1990b). The lowest activity levels occur during the middle of the day. Female panthers at natal dens follow a similar pattern with less difference between high and low activity periods. 4 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Telemetry data indicate panthers typically do not return to the same resting site day after day, with the exception of females with dens or panthers remaining near kill sites for several days. The presence of physical evidence such as tracks, scats, and urine markers, confirms panthers move extensively within home ranges,visiting all parts of the range regularly in the course of hunting,breeding, and other activities (Maehr 1997; Comiskey et al. 2002). Males travel widely throughout their home ranges to maintain exclusive breeding rights to females. Females without kittens also move extensively within their ranges (Maehr 1997). Panthers are capable of moving large distances in short periods of time. Nightly panther movements of 12 mi (20 km) are not uncommon(Maehr et al. 1990a). Adult females and their kittens interact more frequently than any other group of panthers. Interactions between adult male and female panthers last from 1 to 7 days and usually result in pregnancy(Maehr et al. 1991). Aggressive interactions between males often result in serious injury or death. Independent subadult males have been known to associate with each other for several days and these interactions do not appear to be aggressive in nature. Based on radio- collared panthers, aggression between males is the most common cause of male mortality(FWC 2014) and an important determinant of male spatial and recruitment patterns based on(Maehr et al. 1991; Shindle et al. 2003). Primary panther prey species are white-tailed deer and feral hog (Sus scrofa) (Maehr et al. 1990b; Dalrymple and Bass 1996). Generally, feral hogs constitute the greatest biomass consumed by panthers north of the Alligator Alley section of I-75, while white-tailed deer are the greatest biomass consumed to the south (Maehr et al. 1990b). Secondary prey species include raccoons (Procyon lotor), nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris) (Maehr et al. 1990b), and American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) (Dalrymple and Bass 1996). No seasonal variation in diet has been detected. Maehr et al. (1990b) rarely observed domestic livestock in scats or kills of the panther, although cattle were readily available in the study area. In a study of calf depredation on two ranches in southwest Florida (Main and Jacobs 2014), panthers were determined to be the cause of calf mortality for 0.5 percent of calves on one ranch and 5.3 percent of calves on the other ranch. Little information on the feeding frequency of the panther is available. However,the feeding frequency of the Puma is likely similar to the feeding frequency of the panther. Ackerman et al. (1986) reported a resident adult male puma generally consumes one deer-sized prey every 8 to 11 days. Moreover, a resident female puma will consume one deer-sized prey item every 14 to 17 days, and one deer-sized prey item every 3.3 days for a female with three 13-month-old kittens. Habitat Noss and Cooperrider(1994) considered the landscape implications of maintaining viable panther populations. Assuming a male home range size of 137,599 ac (55,685 ha) (Maehr 1990), an adult sex ratio of 50:50 (Anderson 1983), and some margin of safety, they determined a reserve network as large as 15,625 to 23,438 mi2 (40,469 to 60,703 km2) would be needed to 5 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 support an effective population size of 50 individuals (equating to an actual adult population of 100 to 200 panthers [Ballou et al. 1989]). However, to provide for long-term persistence based on an effective population size of 500 individuals (equating to 1,000 to 2,000 adult panthers [Ballou et al. 1989]),could require as much as 156,251 to 234,376 mi2 (404,687 to 607,031 km2). This latter acreage corresponds to roughly 60 to 70 percent of the panther's historical range. Although it is uncertain whether this much land is needed for panther recovery, it does provide some qualitative insight into the importance of habitat conservation across large landscapes for achieving a viable panther population(Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Radio-collar data and ground tracking indicate that panthers use the mosaic of habitats available to them as resting and denning sites, hunting grounds, and travel routes. The majority of telemetry locations (Belden 1986; Belden et al. 1988; Maehr 1990; Maehr et al. 1991; Maehr 1992; Smith and Bass 1994; Kerkhoff et al. 2000; Comiskey et al. 2002, Cox et al. 2006, Kautz et al. 2006, Land et al. 2008) and natal den sites (Benson et al. 2008)were within or close to forested cover types,particularly cypress swamp,pinelands, hardwood swamp, and upland hardwood forests. Global Positioning System data has shown panthers (n= 12) use all habitats contained within their home ranges by selecting for forested habitat types and using all others in proportion to availability(Land et al. 2008). Kautz et al. (2006)found that the smallest class of forest patches (i.e., 9 to 26 ac [3.6 to 10.4 ha]) were the highest ranked forest patch sizes within panther home ranges. The diverse woody flora of forest edges probably provides cover suitable for stalking and ambushing prey(Belden et al. 1988; Cox et al. 2006). Also, dense understory vegetation comprised of saw palmetto provides some of the most important resting and denning cover for panthers (Maehr 1990; Benson et al. 2008). Shindle et al. (2003) estimated 73 percent of panther dens were in saw palmetto thickets. Between 1981 and 2010, more than 90,000 locations were collected from more than 180 radio- collared panthers. Belden et al. (1988); Maehr et al. (1991); Maehr and Cox (1995); Maehr (1997); Kerkoff et al. (2000); Comiskey et al. (2002); Cox et al. (2006); and Kautz et al. (2006) provide information on habitat use based on various subsets of these data. Land et al. (2008), investigated habitat selection of 12 panthers in the northern portion of the breeding range using Global Positioning System (GPS)telemetry data collected during nocturnal and diurnal periods, as well as VHF telemetry data collected only during diurnal periods, and found analysis of both types of telemetry data yielded similar results. Even though some suitable panther habitat remains in south-central Florida, it is widely scattered and fragmented (Belden and McBride 2005). Thatcher et al. (2006) used a statistical model in combination with a geographic information system(GIS)to develop a multivariate landscape- scale habitat model based on the Mahalanobis distance statistic (D2) to evaluate habitats in south central Florida for potential expansion of the panther population. They identified four potential habitat patches: the Avon Park Bombing Range area, Fisheating Creek/Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area(WMA), eastern Fisheating Creek, and the Duette Park/Manatee County area. These habitat patches are smaller and more isolated compared with the current panther 6 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 range, and the landscape matrix where these habitat patches exist provides relatively poor habitat connectivity among the patches (Thatcher et al. 2006, 2009). Major highways and urban or agricultural development isolate these habitat patches, and they are rapidly being lost to the same development that threatens southern Florida(Belden and McBride 2005). Travel and dispersal corridors In the absence of direct field observations/measurements, Harrison(1992) suggested landscape corridors for wide-ranging predators should be half the width of an average home range size. Following Harrison's (1992) suggestion, corridor widths for panthers would range from 6.1 to 10.9 mi (9.8 to 17.6 km) depending on whether the target animal was an adult female or a transient male. Beier(1995) suggested that corridor widths for transient male puma in California could be as small as 30 percent of the average home range size of an adult panther; however, topography in California is dramatically different from that in Florida. Without supporting empirical evidence,Noss (1992) suggests regional corridors connecting larger hubs of habitat should be at least 1.0 mi(1.6 km)wide. Beier(1995) makes specific recommendations for very narrow corridor widths based on short corridor lengths in a California setting of wild lands completely surrounded by urban areas; he recommended corridors with a length less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) should be more than 328 ft(100 m)wide, and corridors extending 0.6 to 4 mi (1 to 7 km) should be more than 1,312 ft (400 m) wide. The Dispersal Zone, which connects lands between the Panther Focus Area south of the Caloosahatchee River and the Panther Focus Area north of the Caloosahatchee River, encompasses 44 mi2 (113 km2) with a mean width of 3.4 mi (5.4 km) (Figure 5). Although it is not adequate to support a single panther, the Dispersal Zone is strategically located and expected to function as an important landscape linkage to south-central Florida (Kautz et al. 2006). Transient male panthers currently use this zone as they disperse northward into south-central Florida. Distribution The panther is the last subspecies of Puma (also known as mountain lion, cougar,panther, or catamount) still surviving in the eastern United States. Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States (Young and Goldman 1946), today the panther is restricted to less than 5 percent of its historic range located in south Florida. When Europeans first came to this country,pumas roamed most all of North, Central, and South America. Early settlers attempted to eradicate pumas by every means possible. By 1899, it was believed panthers had been restricted to peninsular Florida(Bangs 1899). By the late 1920s to mid-1930s, it was thought by many the panther had been completely extirpated (Tinsley 1970). In 1935, Dave Newell, a Florida sportsman, hired Vince and Ernest Lee, Arizona houndsmen, to hunt for panthers in Florida. They killed eight in the Big Cypress Swamp (Newell 1935). Every survey conducted since then confirmed a breeding panther population in southern Florida south of the Caloosahatchee River, and no survey since then has been able to confirm a reproducing panther population outside of southern Florida. 7 Status of the Species-Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Although generally considered unreliable, sightings of panthers regularly occur throughout the southeast. Nonetheless, a reproducing population of panthers has not been documented to occur outside of south Florida for at least 30 years despite an extensive search effort(Belden et al. 1991; McBride et al. 1993; Clark et al. 2002). Survey reports and more than 70,000 locations of radio-collared panthers recorded between 1981 and 2004 clearly define the panther's current breeding range. Reproduction is known only in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades physiographic region in Collier, Lee,Hendry, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, south of the Caloosahatchee River(Belden et al. 1991). As discussed previously,panthers occasionally disperse north of the Caloosahatchee River. However, these animals are likely all males searching to establish new territories. There is no evidence of female panthers or successful panther reproduction currently occurring north of the Caloosahatchee River(Nowak and McBride 1974;Belden et al. 1991; Land and Taylor 1998; Land et al. 1999; Shindle et al. 2000; McBride 2002; Belden and McBride 2005). In 1973, McBride captured one female in Glades County(Nowak and McBride 1974). This was the last time a female panther was identified north of the Caloosahatchee River. Population Dynamics McBride et al. (2008) and McBride(2010)reported minimum population counts (i.e., number known alive)based on physical evidence (e.g., tracks, urine markers,panther treed with hounds, trail-camera photos). They counted adult and subadult panthers, but not kittens at the den. Three rules were used to distinguish individuals: (1) gender was determined by track size or stride length; (2)time (freshness) was determined by known events within the past 24 hours, such as wind or rain; and(3)distance between individual track sets. These rules were used as an exclusionary tool to avoid over-counting(McBride et al. 2008). The number of panthers detected and verified by physical evidence from 1981 to 1994 fluctuated between a high of 30 and a low of 19 adult and juvenile panthers, with the lowest point occurring in 1991 following the removal of seven juveniles and three kittens to initiate a captive breeding program(McBride et al. 2008). In 1995, eight female pumas from Texas were released to address suspected deleterious effects of inbreeding. From 1996 to 2003, the panther population increased at a rate of 14 percent per year with 26.6 kittens being produced annually(Johnson et al. 2010). The effective population size (Ne)rose from 16.4 in 1995 to 32.1 in 2007,with corresponding census populations(N) of 26 and 102,respectively. The population tripled since 1995 (McBride et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2010), reaching a high of 117 by 2007 (mortalities not subtracted). Data reported in McBride (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007,2008, and 2009), McBride et al. (2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013), and Johnson et al. (2010)noted minimum population counts of 62 panthers in 2000, 78 in 2001, 80 in 2002, 87 in 2003, 78 in 2004, 82 in 2005, 97 in 2006, 117 in 2007, 104 in 2008, 113 in 2009, 115 in 2010, 111 in 2011, 123 in 2012, and 133 in 2013. Maehr et al. (1991)provide an estimate of population density of 1 panther per 27,520 ac, based on 17 radio-collared and 4 uncollared panthers. They extrapolated this density to the area occupied by radio-collared panthers (1,245,435 ac) during the period 1985 to 1990 to achieve a 8 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 population estimate of 46 adult panthers for southwest Florida(excluding Everglades National Park [ENP], eastern BICY, and Glades and Highlands Counties). Beier et al. (2003), however, argued this estimate of density, although"reasonably rigorous,"could not be extrapolated to other areas because it was not known whether densities were comparable in those areas. Kautz et al. (2006)provided a density estimate of 1 panther per 31,923 ac by dividing the panther count at that time (67)by the area within the Primary Zone. This estimate does not take into account the variability in panther densities across the landscape. Using an average of the 2007 to 2009 panther counts in the eight survey units covered by McBride et al. (2008) and Kautz et al. (2006), the density estimates range from a low of one panther per 81,479 ac to a high of one panther per 7,850 ac for the Primary Zone lands within these survey units. The FWC (2010)provided an upper bound population estimate of 0.0177 panthers per square- kilometer(km2) or one panther per 13,929 ac. Applying this density estimate to the Primary Zone (9,189 km2) (2,270,652 ac) yields an upper estimate of 163 adult panthers. The FWC's lower estimate is 100 panthers(1.09 panthers per 100 km2 or 1 panther per 22,707 ac) and is based on annual verified panther sign data(McBride et al. 2008) and minimum number of panthers known to be alive (FWC 2010). Applying the four densities to the Primary Zone would yield a population based on Kautz et al.'s (2006) density estimate of 71 panthers (1 panther per 31,923 ac). Maehr et al.'s (1991)estimate would yield a population of 83 panthers (1 panther per 27,520 ac) and the FWC's (2010)estimate would yield a low of 100 panthers (1 panther per 22,707 ac) and a high of 163 panthers (1 panther per 13,929 ac). For our evaluations however, the Service is continuing to use the average densities provided by Kautz et al. (2006)of one panther per 31,923 ac (12,919 ha) or one panther per 129 km2. Population Viability Analysis(PVA) has emerged as a key component of endangered species conservation. This process is designed to incorporate demographic information into models that predict if a population is likely to persist in the future. PVAs incorporate deterministic and stochastic events including demographic and environmental variation, and natural catastrophes. PVAs have been criticized as being overly optimistic about future population levels (Brook et al. 1997) and should be viewed with caution; however, they are and have been shown to be surprisingly accurate for managing endangered taxa and evaluating different management practices (Brook 2000). Shaffer(1981) originally defined a viable population as follows: "a minimum viable population for any given species in any given habitat is the smallest isolated population having a 99 percent chance of remaining extant for 1,000 years despite the foreseeable effects of demographic, environmental and genetic stochasticity, and natural catastrophes." However,the goal of 95 percent probability of persistence for 100 years is the standard recommended by population biologists and is used in management strategies and conservation planning,particularly for situations where it is difficult to accurately predict the future (Shaffer 1978, 1981, 1987). 9 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 From 1981 through 2010, 182 panthers were been radio-collared and monitored on public and private lands throughout south Florida (FWC 2010). Radio-collar data were used by researchers to estimate survival rates and fecundity and were incorporated into PVA models previously developed for the panther(Seal and Lacy 1989, 1992; Cox et al. 1994; Maehr et al. 2002b). These models incorporated a range of different model parameters such as sex ratios,kitten survival rates, age distributions, and various levels of habitat loss, density dependence, and intermittent catastrophes or epidemics. The outputs of these models predicted a variety of survival scenarios for the panther and predicted population levels needed to ensure the survival of the species. Root (2004) developed an updated set of PVA models for the panther based on RAMAS GIS software(Akcakaya 2002). These models were used to perform a set of spatially explicit PVAs. Three single-sex(i.e., females only)models were constructed using demographic variables from Maehr et al. (2002b) and other sources. A conservative model was based on Seal and Lacy (1989), a moderate model was based on Seal and Lacy(1992), and an optimistic model was based on the 1999 consensus model of Maehr et al. (2002b). In each model, first-year kitten survival was set at 62 percent based on information from panther population monitoring(Shindle et al. 2001). All of the models assumed a 1:1 sex ratio, a stable age distribution, 50 percent of females breeding in any year, and an initial population of 41 females (82 individuals), which was the approximate population size in 2001 and 2002 (McBride 2001, 2002). The basic versions of each model incorporated no catastrophes or epidemics, no change in habitat quality or amount, and a ceiling type of density dependence. The basic versions of the models incorporated a carrying capacity of 53 females (106 panthers with a 50:50 sex ratio). The models were run with differing values for density dependence, various levels of habitat loss, and intermittent catastrophes or epidemics. Each simulation was run with 10,000 replications for a 100-year period. The minimum number of panthers needed to ensure a 95 percent probability of persistence for 100 years was estimated in a series of simulations in which initial abundance was increased until probability of extinction at 100 years was no greater than 5 percent. More detailed information concerning the PVA model parameters appears in Root(2004). The results of an earlier, conservative PVA model run done by Seal and Lacy(1989)predicted a probability of extinction of 78.5 percent in 100 years with a mean final total abundance of 3.5 females. Also, the probability of a large decline in abundance(50 percent) was 94.1 percent. Later work based on improved panther modeling and a larger sample of monitored panthers produced both a moderate and optimistic scenario (Root 2004). The moderate model resulted in a 5 percent probability of extinction and a mean final abundance of 42.3 females in 100 years. The probability of panther abundance declining by half the initial amount was 20 percent in 100 years under the moderate model. The optimistic model resulted in a 2 percent probability of extinction and mean final abundance of 51.2 females in 100 years. The probability of panther abundance declining by half the initial amount was only 9 percent in 100 years under the 10 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 optimistic model. These models also provide a probability of persistence(100 percent minus probability of extinction)over a 100-year period of 95 percent for the moderate model and 98 percent for the optimistic model. Model results were also provided by Root(2004) for probability of extinctions for 1 percent loss of habitat per year, within the first 25 years of the model run, based on both the moderate and optimistic scenarios. The 1 percent loss of habitat equates to essentially all remaining non-urban privately owned lands in the Primary Zone and corresponds to the estimated rate of habitat loss from 1986 to 1996 for the five southwest counties based on land use changes (Root 2004). For the moderate model,the model runs predict a probability of extinction increase of about 1 percent to 6 percent with 1.0 percent habitat loss per year for the first 25 years. For the optimistic model, probability of extinction increased from about 2 percent with no loss of habitat to 3 percent with 1.0 percent habitat loss per year, for the first 25 years. These models also predicted the mean final abundance of females would decrease from 41 to 31 females, a 24.3 percent reduction for the moderate model and from 41 to 38 females, a 7.3 percent reduction for the optimistic model. The probability of persistence over a 100-year period with a 1 percent loss of habitat changed to approximately 94 percent for the moderate model and 97 percent for the optimistic model. The model runs also predicted a mean final abundance of 62 individuals (31 females and 31 males) for the moderate model and 76 individuals (38 females and 38 males) for the optimistic model. The results of the PVA lead to the development of population guidelines for the panther. Kautz et al. (2006) developed recommendations for panther population size as it relates to persistence following review of the output of Root's PVA models (2004) and those of other previous PVAs for the panther. These recommendations are: (1)populations of less than 50 individuals are likely to become extinct in less than 100 years; (2)populations of 60 to 70 are barely viable and expected to decline by 25 percent over 100 years; (3) populations of 80 to 100 are likely stable but would still be subject to genetic problems (i.e., heterozygosity would slowly decline); and (4)populations greater than 240 have a high probability of persistence for 100 years and are demographically stable and large enough to retain 90 percent of original genetic diversity. Kautz et al.'s (2006)population recommendations,when applied to the populations predicted by Root's (2004)moderate models, describe the"with habitat loss"population(62 panthers) as barely viable and expected to decline by 25 percent over a 100-year period. The"without habitat loss"population(84 panthers) is likely stable but would still be subject to genetic problems. The Service believes McBride's verified population of 97 panthers in 2006, 117 panthers in 2007, 104 in 2008, 113 in 2009, 115 in 2010, and 111 in 2011, 123 in 2012, and 133 in 2013 is within Kautz et al.'s (2006)population recommendations representing a population that is likely stable but still may be subject to genetic problems. 11 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 The Service also believes the model runs show lands in the Primary Zone are important to the survival and recovery of the panther, and sufficient lands need to be managed and protected in south Florida to provide for a population of 80 to 100 panthers, the population range defined as likely stable over 100 years, but subject to genetic problems. Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for the panther. Threats Present or Threatened Destruction,Modification or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range Panthers, because of their wide-ranging movements and extensive spatial requirements, are particularly sensitive to habitat fragmentation(Harris 1984). Mac et al. (1998) defines habitat fragmentation as: "The breaking up of a habitat into unconnected patches interspersed with other habitat which may not be inhabitable by species occupying the habitat that was broken up. The breaking up is usually by human action, as, for example, the clearing of forest or grassland for agriculture, residential development, or overland electrical lines." The reference to "unconnected patches"is a central underpinning of the definition. For panther conservation, this definition underscores the need to maintain contiguous habitat and protected habitat corridors in key locations in south Florida and throughout the panther's historic range. Habitat fragmentation can result from road construction, urban development, and agricultural land conversions. Roads and highways facilitate the movement of people and goods by cars and trucks, and may adversely affect the panther. The construction of new roads and the widening of existing roads can result in the direct loss of wildlife habitat (Forman et al. 2003). In addition, disturbance resulting from motorized vehicles may cause panthers to avoid busy roads. Maher(1990) reported that female panthers are less likely to cross busy highways. Consequently, roads may act as barriers affecting panther movement and fragmenting panther habitat. Panthers can also be injured or killed due to collisions with motorized vehicles when attempting to cross highways, and the potential for collisions increases as traffic increases. Adverse effects resulting from roads and highways represent a potential threat to the existing panther population. Collisions with motor vehicles on highways are a significant source of mortality for the panther. The FWC documented 165 vehicle-related panther mortalities and 8 vehicle- related panther injuries from 1972 to the present on highways in south Florida. In portions of the panther's range, the rate of panther vehicle-related mortalities may be increasing. Smith et al. (2006) found that vehicle-related panther mortalities in Collier 12 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 County increased by a factor of four from 2000 to 2005, compared to previous decades. This increase in panther mortality is likely related to the increase in traffic from Collier County's population growth. Unfortunately,the effect of vehicle-related mortality on the existing panther population is largely unknown. Wildlife underpasses, or crossings, can be constructed within highway corridors to reduce the potential for panther injuries and mortalities resulting from vehicle collisions. Underpasses allow panthers and other wildlife to safely cross under busy roadways, and maintain connectivity and gene flow within the panther population. Underpasses usually consist of a bridge,prefabricated concrete box, or culvert(Forman et al. 2003). Effective crossing structures are large enough to allow the passage of panthers and include adequate wing fencing to funnel panthers to the crossing site. Crossings should be designed so panthers have an unobstructed view of habitat on the opposite side of the underpass (Foster and Humphrey 1995). The status of lands adjacent to the crossing site should also be considered when determining the location of a crossing. Unprotected private lands adjacent to the crossing could be developed and render the crossing unviable. Accordingly, lands adjacent to crossings should be acquired or placed under a conservation easement or other protective covenant to ensure the crossing will function in perpetuity. A number of wildlife crossings with associated fencing have already been constructed on major roadways in southwest Florida to benefit the panther and other wildlife species. In 1991, the FDOT finished the construction of 28 wildlife crossings within the I-75 corridor from U.S. Highway 27 to just west of Everglades Boulevard. The FDOT also constructed six wildlife crossings on SR 29 between Oil Well Road and US 41. Crossings A, B, C, and D are located north of 1-75 and Crossings E and F are located south of I-75. Crossings A and B were constructed in 2007, Crossings C and D were constructed in 1995, Crossing E was constructed in 1997, and Crossing F was constructed in 1999. Prior to construction of the SR 29 Crossings, a total of 10 vehicle- related panther mortalities were recorded near the locations of Crossings A and B from 1980 through 2004, and 2 vehicle-related panther mortalities were recorded near the location of Crossings C and D from 1979 through 1990. Vehicle-related panther mortalities have not been recorded in the vicinity of Crossings A, B, C, or D following their installation. A total of two vehicle-related panther mortalities were documented within 3.5 mi of the location of Crossing E prior to construction, and vehicle-related panther mortalities were not observed within 2.5 mi of the location of Crossing F prior to construction. Following construction of Crossings E and F, a total of four vehicle-related panther mortalities have been reported within 3 mi of Crossing E, and two vehicle-related panther mortalities have been documented within 1 mi of Crossing F. Lee County, Collier County, and other entities have been working with the Service to construct additional needed crossings for the panther. For example, the Collier County Road Department recently constructed two wildlife underpasses and barrier fencing 13 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 within the Oil Well Road (CR 858) corridor at Camp Keais Strand, in association with the Oil Well Road widening project. Lee County constructed a wildlife underpass and barrier fencing on Corkscrew Road in 2004. Moreover, in 2011, a wildlife underpass and barrier fencing was installed east of Immokalee on County Road(CR) 846 in Collier County, as part of a Habitat Conservation Plan. A wildlife underpass has also been installed on Immokalee Road near CR 951. Although these wildlife crossings have contributed to minimization of panther-vehicle interactions, more crossings are needed within the major roadways of south Florida to further reduce this threat to the panther and other wildlife species (Smith et al. 2006). Recent studies have been conducted to identify locations for wildlife crossings in south Florida. Swanson et al. (2005)used a Least Cost Pathway(LCP)modeling approach to identify the most likely travel routes for panthers among six major use areas in southwest Florida. LCP modeling takes into consideration elements in the landscape that permit or impede panther movement when traveling. Swanson et al. (2005) identified 20 key highway segments where LCPs intersected improved roadways. Smith et al. (2006) studied the movements of the panther, the Florida black bear, and other wildlife species along SR 29, CR 846 and CR 858 in Collier County, Florida. Data analyzed in the study were obtained from roadkill and track surveys, infra-red camera monitoring stations, existing data provided by the FWC (panther radio telemetry and vehicle mortality reports), and other studies. Smith et al. (2006)recommended new wildlife crossings be considered at various sites along these roadways to reduce vehicle-related mortality of panthers and other wildlife species, and to increase connectivity among wildlife populations. The Service continues to work with the FDOT, county road departments, and other entities to ensure wildlife crossings are installed as needed to promote safe passage of panthers and other wildlife across roadways. Overutilization for Commercial,Recreational,Scientific, or Educational Purposes Prior to 1949,panthers could be killed in Florida at any time of the year. In 1950, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission(now Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]) declared the panther a regulated game species due to concerns over declining numbers. The FWC removed panthers from the game animal list in 1958 and gave them complete legal protection. On March 11, 1967, the Service listed the panther as endangered(32 FR 4001) throughout its historic range, and these animals received Federal protection under the passage of the Act in 1973. In addition, the Florida Panther Act(Florida Statute 372.671), a 1978 Florida State law, made killing a panther a felony. The panther is listed as endangered by the States of Florida, Georgia,Louisiana, and Mississippi in addition to its Federal listing. 14 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Restricted Range Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States(Young and Goldman 1946),today the panther is restricted to south Florida in an area that is less than 5 percent of its historic range. Ongoing Conservation Efforts Habitat protection has been identified as being one of the most important elements to achieving panther recovery. While efforts have been made to secure habitat, continued action is needed to obtain additions to and inholdings for public lands, assure linkages are maintained, restore degraded and fragmented habitat, and obtain the support of private landowners for maintaining property in a manner that is compatible with panther use. Conservation lands used by panthers are held and managed by a variety of entities including the Service,NPS, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,FWC,Florida Department of Environmental Protection(DEP), Florida Division of Forestry(FDOF), Water Management Districts, non- governmental organizations, counties, and private landowners. To further refine the land preservation needs of the panther, and to specifically develop a landscape-level program for the conservation of the panther population in south Florida, the Service appointed a Florida Panther Subteam in February 2000. The Subteam was charged with developing a landscape-level strategy for the conservation of the panther population in south Florida. The results of this collaborative effort are partially presented in Kautz et al. (2006). One of the tasks for this subteam was to identify a strategically located set of lands containing sufficient area and appropriate land cover types to ensure the long-term survival of the south Florida population of the panther. Kautz et al. (2006) focused their efforts on the area south of the Caloosahatchee River, where the reproducing panther population currently exists. Kautz et al. (2006) created an updated panther potential habitat model. The potential habitat map was reviewed in relation to telemetry data, recent satellite imagery(where available), and panther home range polygons. Boundaries were drawn around lands defined as the Primary Zone, the most important area needed to support a self-sustaining panther population. Kautz et al. (2006) referred to these lands as essential; however, as observed in the two previous plans (Logan et al. 1993; Cox et al. 1994), lands within the boundaries of the Primary Zone included some urban areas and other lands not considered to be panther habitat(i.e., active rock and sand mines). The landscape context of areas surrounding the Primary Zone was modeled and results were used to draw boundaries of the Secondary Zone (Figure 5), the area capable of supporting the panther population in the Primary Zone, but where habitat restoration may be needed(Kautz et al. 2006). Kautz et al. (2006) also identified,through a LCP model, the route most likely to be used by panthers crossing the Caloosahatchee River and dispersing out of south Florida into south-central Florida. Kautz et al. (2006)used GIS-based analysis to construct the LCP models and identify 15 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 optimum panther dispersal corridor(s). The LCP models operated on a cost surface that ranked suitability of the landscape for use by dispersing panthers with lower scores indicating higher likelihood of use by dispersing panthers. Those dispersal routes connecting lands between the Panther Focus Area south of the Caloosahatchee River and the Panther Focus Area north of the Caloosahatchee River were defined as the Dispersal Zone (Kautz et al. 2006). The preservation of lands within this zone is important for the survival and recovery of the panther, as these lands are the dispersal pathways for expansion of the panther population. 16 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, B. B., F. G. Lindzey, and T. P. Hemker. 1986. Predictive energetics model for cougars. Pages 333-352 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett(eds). Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Washington, D. C. and Kingsville, Texas. Akcakaya, H. R. (2002). RAMAS Metapop: viability analysis for stage-structured metapopulations. Version 4.0(pre-release). Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, New York. Anderson, A.E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma(Fells concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ballou, J.D., T.J. Foose, R.C. Lacy, and U.S. Seal. 1989. Florida panther(Fells concolor coryi) population viability analysis and recommendations. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley,Minnesota. Bangs, O. 1899. The Florida puma. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 13:15-17. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. Beier P., M.R. Vaughan, M.J. Conroy, and H. Quigley. 2003. An analysis of scientific literature related to the Florida panther. Final report, Project NG01-105, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Belden, R.C. 1986. Florida panther recovery plan implementation- a 1983 progress report. Pages 159-172 in S.D. Miller and D.D. Everett (eds). Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Washington, D.C. and Kingsville, Texas. Belden, R.C. 1988. The Florida panther. Pages 515-532 in Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. National Audubon Society,New York,New York. Belden, R.C., and R.T. McBride. 2005. Florida panther peripheral areas survey final report 1998-2004. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee,Florida. Belden,R.C., W.B. Frankenberger, R.T. McBride, and S.T. Schwikert. 1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:660-663. 17 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Belden, R.C., W.B. Frankenberger, and J.C. Roof. 1991. Florida panther distribution. Final Report 7501, E-1 II-E-1. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Benson, J.F., M.A. Lotz, and D. Jansen. 2008. Natal den selection by Florida panthers. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:405-410. Benson, J.F., J.A. Hostetler, D.P. Onorato, W.E. Johnson, M.E. Roelke, S.J. O'Brien, D. Jansen, and M.K. Oki. 2009. Chapter 2: Survival and cause-specific mortality of sub-adult and adult Florida panthers. Pages 10—61 in J.A. Hostetler, D.P. Onorato, and M.K. Oli, (eds). Population ecology of the Florida panther. Final report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Brook, B. 2000. Pessimistic and optimistic bias in population viability analysis. Biology Conservation 14:564-566. Brook, B.W., L. Lim, R. Harden, and R. Frankhain. 1997. Does population viability analysis software predict the behaviour of real populations? A retrospective study of the Lord Howe Island Woodhen Tricholimnas sylvestris (Sclater). Biology Conservation 82:119-128. Clark J.D., D. Huber, and C. Servheen. 2002. Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:335-345. Comiskey, E.J., O.L. Bass, Jr., L.J. Gross, R.T. McBride, and R. Salinas. 2002. Panthers and forests in south Florida: an ecological perspective. Conservation Ecology 6:18. Cory, C.B. 1896. Hunting and fishing in Florida. Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massechusettes. Cox J.,R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida's wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Cox,J.J., D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. 2006. Florida panther habitat use: New approach to an old problem. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1778-1785. Culver, M., W.E. Johnson, J. Pecon-Slattery, and S.J. O'Brien. 2000. Genomic ancestry of the American puma(Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity 91:186-197. Dalrymple, G.H. and O.L. Bass. 1996. The diet of the Florida panther in Everglades National Park, Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 39:173-193. 18 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Dees, C.S., J.D. Clark, and F.T. Van Manen. 2001. Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:141-147. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Use of least cost pathways to identify key highway segments for panther conservation. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Statement on estimating panther population size. Tallahassee, Florida. http://myfwc.com/news/resources/fact- sheets/panther-population/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. Mortality data via email transmittal. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and Division of Habitat and Species Conservation. Naples, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2014. Annual report on the research and management of Florida panthers: 2013-2014. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute & Division of Habitat and Species Conservation,Naples, Florida, USA. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2015. Mortality data via email transmittal. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and Division of Habitat and Species Conservation. Naples,Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2014a. Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi)telemetry locations Feb 1981-June 2014. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. St. Petersburg, Florida. http://www.floridapanthernet.org/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2014b. Cooperative Land Cover v3.0 Raster- Site Classes. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Tallahassee, Forida. http://myfwc.com/res earch/gis/applications/articles/Cooperative-Land-Cover Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2014c. Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi) mortality locations 1972-2014. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Tallahassee, Florida. http://www.floridapanthernet.org Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson,T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 19 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(1):95-100. Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Harrison, R.L. 1992. Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology 6:293-295. Hostetler,J.A., D.P. Onorato, and M.K. Oli (eds). 2009. Population ecology of the Florida panther. Final report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. IPCC 2013. Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. (ed.)]. Pp. 1147-1465 In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F.,D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,New York,USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg 1/WG 1 AR5_AnnexlIl_FINAL.pdf IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. [Pachauri, R.K. et al.] 133 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR FINAL_SPM.pdf Jansen, D. K., S.R. Schulze, and A.T. Johnson. 2005. Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi) research and monitoring in Big Cypress National Preserve. Annual report 2004-2005. National Park Service, Ochopee, Florida. Johnson, W.E., D.P. Onorato, M.E. Roelke, E.D. Land, M. Cunningham, R.C. Belden, R. McBride, D. Jansen, M. Lotz, D. Shindle, J. Howard, D.E. Wildt, L.M. Penfold, J.A. Hostetler, M.K. Oli, and S.J. O'Brien. 2010. Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. SCIENCE 329:1641-1645. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation. Kerkhoff, A.J., B.T. Milne, and D.S. Maehr. 2000. Toward a panther-centered view of the forests of south Florida. Conservation Ecology 4:1. 20 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Land, E.D. 1994. Response of the wild Florida panther population to removals for captive breeding. Final Report 7571. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Land, E.D. and S.K. Taylor. 1998. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 1997-98. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Land, E.D., B. Shindle, D. Singler, and S. K. Taylor. 1999. Florida panther genetic restoration annual report 1998-99. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Land, E.D., D. Shindle, M. Cunningham, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. 2004. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 2003-04. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Land, E.D., M. Cunningham, R. McBride, D. Shindle, and M. Lotz. 2002. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 2001-02. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Land, E.D., D.B. Shindle, R.J. Kawula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz, and D.P. Onorato. 2008. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:633-639. Logan, T.J., A.C. Eller, Jr., R. Morrell, D. Ruffner, and J. Sewell. 1993. Florida panther habitat preservation plan- south Florida population. Prepared for the Florida Panther Interagency Committee. Lotz, M., D. Land, M. Cunningham, and B. Ferree. 2005. Florida panther annual report 2004-05. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,Tallahassee, Florida. Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources. 2 volumes. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Maehr, D.S. 1990. Florida panther movements, social organization, and habitat utilization. Final Performance Report 7502. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Maehr, D.S. 1992. Florida panther. Pages 176 189 in S.R. Humphrey(ed). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I: mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 21 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Maehr, D.S. 1997. The comparative ecology of bobcat,black bear, and Florida panther in south Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 40:1-176. Maehr, D.S. and J.A. Cox. 1995. Landscape features and panthers in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:1008-1019. Maehr, D.S. and J.A. Cox. 1995. Landscape features and panthers in Florida. Conservation Biology, 9: 1008-1019. Maehr, D.S. and J.L. Larkin. 2004. Do prescribed fires in south Florida reduce habitat quality for native carnivores. Natural Areas Journal 24:188-197. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, J.C. Roof, and J.W. McCown. 1990a. Day beds, natal dens, and activity of Florida panthers. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44:310-318. Maehr, D.S., R.C. Belden, E.D. Land, and L. Wilkins. 1990b. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:420-423. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, and J.C. Roof. 1991. Social ecology of Florida panthers. National Geographic Research and Exploration 7:414-431. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, D.B. Shindle, O.L. Bass, and T.S. Hoctor. 2002a. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. Maehr, D.S., R.C. Lacy, E.D. Land, O.L. Bass, T.S. Hoctor. 2002b. Populaton viability of the Florida Pa nther: A multi-perspective approach. In S. Beissinger and D. McCullough (Eds). Population Viability Analysis. Univeristy of Chicago Press, Chicago., Illinois. Main, M.B., and C.E. Jacobs. 2014. Calf Depredation by the Florida panther in Southwest Florida. Final Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.University of Florida IFAS, Gainesville, Florida. 46 pp. McBride, R.T. 2000. Current panther distribution and habitat use: a review of field notes, fall 1999-winter 2000. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. McBride, R.T. 2001. Current panther distribution,population trends, and habitat use: report of field work: fall 2000-winter 2001. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. McBride, R.T. 2002. Current panther distribution and conservation implications -- highlights of field work: fall 2001 -- winter 2002. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. 22 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 McBride, R.T. 2003. The documented panther population(DPP) and its current distribution from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. Appendix IV in D. Shindle, M. Cunningham, D. Land, R. McBride, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual report 93112503002. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. McBride, R.T. 2004. Personal communication, Chris Belden. Professional Tracker- Houndsman. Rancher's Supply Incorporated, P.O. Box 725, Alpine, Texas 79831. McBride, R.T. 2005. Personal communication, Chris Belden. Professional Tracker- Houndsman. Rancher's Supply Incorporated, P.O. Box 725,Alpine, Texas 79831. McBride, R.T. 2006. Personal communication, Chris Belden. Professional Tracker- Houndsman. Rancher's Supply Incorporated, P.O. Box 725,Alpine, Texas 79831. McBride, R.T. 2007. Personal communication, Chris Belden. Professional Tracker- Houndsman. Rancher's Supply Incorporated, P.O. Box 725, Alpine, Texas 79831. McBride, R.T. 2008. Personal communication, Chris Belden. Professional Tracker- Houndsman. Rancher's Supply Incorporated, P.O. Box 725,Alpine, Texas 79831. McBride, R.T. 2010. Synoptic survey of Florida panthers 2010. Annual Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Agreement#401817G005). Rancher's Supply, Incorporated, Alpine, Texas. McBride, R.T.,R.M. McBride, J.L. Cashman, and D.S. Maehr. 1993. Do mountain lions exist in Arkansas? Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:394-402. McBride, R.T., R.T. McBride, R.M. McBride, and C.E. McBride. 2008. Counting pumas by categorizing physical evidence. Southeastern Naturalist 7:381-400. McBride, R. T., C.E. McBride, and R. Sensor. 2012. Synoptic Survey of Florida Panthers 2011. Annual Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Agreement#401817G005), South Florida Ecological Services Office,Vero Beach, Florida. 145 pp. Melillo J. M., T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. http:;:nca2014.globalchange.gov downloads Miller, L. 2010. Climate of South Florida; Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Phase I Biological Opinion. Vero Beach, Florida: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Newell, D. 1935. Panther. The Saturday Evening Post. July 13:10-11, 70-72. Noss, R.F. 1992. The wildlands project land conservation strategy. Wild Earth(Special Issue):10-25. Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Nowak, R.M., and R.T. McBride. 1974. Status survey of the Florida panther. Project 973. World Wildlife Fund Yearbook 1973-74:237-242. Roelke, M. E. 1990. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Final Performance Report 7506. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Roelke, M.E.,J.S. Martenson, and S.J. O'Brien. 1993. The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther. Current Biology 3:340-350. Root, K. 2004. Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi): Using models to guide recovery efforts. Pages 491-504 in H.R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman, O. Kindvall, C.C. Wood,P. Sjogren- Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M. McCarthy(eds). Species Conservation and Management, Case Studies. Oxford University Press,New York,New York. Seal, U.S. (ed). 1994. A plan for genetic restoration and management of the Florida panther (Fells concolor coryi). Report to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, Minnesota. Seal, U.S. and R.C. Lacy(eds). 1989. Florida panther(Fells concolor coryi) viability analysis and species survival plan. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, Minnesota. Seal, U.S. and R.C. Lacy(eds). 1992. Genetic management strategies and population viability of the Florida panther(Felis concolor corgi). Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, Minnesota. Seidensticker, J.C., IV, M.G. Hornocker, W.V. Wiles, and J.P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho primitive area. Wildlife Monographs 35:1-60. 24 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Shaffer, M.L. 1978. Determining Minimum Viable Population Sizes: A Case Study of the Grizzly Bear. Ph. D. Dissertation, Duke University. Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in M.E. Soule(ed). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York. Shindle, D., D. Land, K. Charlton, and R. McBride. 2000. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 7500. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Shindle, D., D. Land, M. Cunningham, and M. Lotz. 2001. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 7500. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Shindle D., M. Cunningham, D. Land, R. McBride, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. 2003. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 93112503002. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Smith, D.J., R.F. Noss, and M.B. Main. 2006. East Collier County wildlife movement study: SR 29, CR 846, and CR 858 wildlife crossing project. Unpublished report. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Smith, T.R., and O.L. Bass, Jr. 1994. Landscape, white-tailed deer, and the distribution of Florida panthers in the Everglades. Pages 693-708 in S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden(eds). Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. Delray Beach, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. 2015. ERR Environmental Resource Permits. West Palm Beach, Florida. http://www.sfwmd.gov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dataview.asp?query=unq—id=1128 Swanson, K., D. Land, R. Kautz and R. Kawula. 2005. Use of least cost pathways to identify key highway segments for Florida panther conservation. Pages 191-200 in R.A. Beausoleil and D.A. Martorello, editors. Proceedings of the Eighth Mountain Lion Workshop, Olympia, Washington. Thatcher, C., F.T. van Manen, and J.D. Clark. 2006. Identifying suitable sites for Florida panther reintroduction. Journal of Wildlife Management. 25 Status of the Species—Florida panther U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2015 Thatcher, C., F.T. van Manen, and J.D. Clark. 2009. A Habitat Assessment for Florida Panther Population Expansion into Central Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 900:918-925. Tinsley, J.B. 1970. The Florida panther. Great Outdoors Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2000. Florida panther final interim standard local operating procedures (SLOPES) for endangered species. Fish and Wildlife Service; Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Florida panther recovery plan: third revision. January 2006. Prepared by the Florida Panther Recovery Team and the South Florida Ecological Services Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2012. Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; South Florida Ecological Services Offices; Vero Beach, Florida. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDF s/20120924_Panther%20Hab itat%20As se s sment%20Method Appendix.pdf Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and.F.G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:95-102. Young, S.P., and E.A. Goldman. 1946. The puma-mysterious American cat. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 26 ~ 8 TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Avenue•Naples,Florida 34104-3732•239-643-0166•Fax(239)643-6632•tuna@THAnaples.com THAnaples.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED TO: Constance Cassler DEC O Ott US Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida ES alce FROM: Tim Hall Vero Beach, FL DATE: December 1,2016 JOB: Estancia and Oyster Harbor 2106-TA-0129 /SAJ-2009-03476 (SP-KDS) We are sending you the attached items listed below via: n U.S Mail ® Priority Mail ❑ Courier ❑ Fed-Ex /UPS ❑ Hand Delivery H Other Description Quantity 1 Off Site Preserve Management Plan They are transmitted as checked below: n For approval ® For your use E As requested ❑ Returned for corrections n For bids due _ ❑ For review and comment REMARKS: OFF-SITE PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ESTANCIA AND OYSTER HARBOR NOVEMBER 2016 Prepared by: TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES,FL 34104 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the proposed management plan for the off-site preserve areas associated with the FCC Creek, LLC and Oyster Harbor LLC projects. This includes the Estancia and eastern phase of the Oyster Harbor development within the existing Fiddler's Creek development. The property is located at the southwestern corner of a larger agricultural area east of the CR951 and US 41 intersection. This preserve area is meant to be set aside and maintained as panther habitat. The preserve area is located immediately south of the Estancia subdivision in Sections 19 and 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East. These properties are located at the southern terminus of Auto Ranch Road and encompass Collier County folio numbers 00763920100, 00763920003, and 00774960007,totaling approximately 606.83 acres. There is limited access to the eastern portion of the preserve from Auto Ranch Road,however the majority of the preserve is relatively inaccessible due to the location of the surrounding forested areas and existing stormwater canals. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed off-site preserve area is composed of 142.89 acres of wet pasture, 369.83 acres of pine and hardwood/pine forest, 28.25 acres of cypress, and 50.7 acres of marsh and prairie. All of the habitats have been infested with varying degrees of exotic vegetation(25—90%),mainly Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolia), melaleuca(Melaleuca quinquenervia), and earleaf acacia(Acacia auriculiformis). Southern cattail (Typha donungensis) has established in the marsh areas. Existing agricultural operations pump excess water from the farm fields into this preserve area. The proposed development will eliminate this pumping and will establish a more natural sheet flow hydrology to the preserve via the Marsh Enhancement Buffer Spreader Swale ("Creek") that will be constructed around the entire development and which will buffer the development from the preserve. 3.0 EXOTIC REMOVAL ACTIVITIES Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia infestation is rampant throughout the preserve area and an extensive eradication program will be implemented to eliminate these noxious plants. This program will include hand clearing kill-in-place methods within the preserve. Because of limited access to the preserve as well as potential destruction of groundcover vegetation and likely rutting of the ground by machinery,no mechanical clearing is currently proposed. All exotic and nuisance vegetation will be killed in place either by cutting material down or by chemical applications to the trunks. In addition to the species listed above, all Category I and II exotics, as defined by the Florida Pest Plant Council,will be included in this eradication program. Initially,quarterly maintenance inspections and treatments will be necessary to eliminate the exotic species that have already gained a stronghold within the preserve. Once removal efforts Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 have been successful, annual maintenance treatments should be sufficient to control future exotic growth. The preserve will be exotic free immediately following a maintenance activity. At no time shall the density of exotic vegetation and nuisance plant species exceed 2%relative coverage in any vegetative strata or 4%of the relative coverage in all strata. Success Criteria Vegetation The vegetation restoration efforts shall be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum of 80%coverage of native vegetation, with less than 4% exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years. Ground cover diversity has been limited by the exotic infestation throughout the site. It is expected that species diversity will increase as the exotic vegetation is removed. Monitoring of the preserves will include species composition and diversity monitoring to document this increase. Once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free for a period of 3 years,the land will be offered to the State of Florida for inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the Park take over ownership of the preserve land, it would be added to the Park's land management plan, to be managed by the park in perpetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donation of the land to the park, a Conservation Easement to Collier County will be placed over the preserve acreage and the land will be managed by the Community Development District(CDD)which will be established for the Estancia community in perpetuity. 4.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE The goals and objectives of this monitoring plan will be to provide for ongoing progress and ultimate success of the preserved land in a series of scheduled monitoring reports. The reports will quantify and describe conditions within the preserve, comparing observations with the proposed standards and offering advice for corrective actions if needed. In areas of heavy vegetation, a visual inspection for plant invasion will be made and all exotic vegetation found will be flagged,mapped and reported for treatment. Meandering transects will be followed within the preserve for vegetative inventory and observation of wildlife during regular monitoring. Photo points will be established along with plot sampling stations to determine percent survival and percent coverage of planted and recruited plant species. Transect and plot stations locations will be determined at time zero, after the initial exotic eradication has occurred. The exotic eradication efforts will be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum of 80%coverage of native vegetation,with less than 4%exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years as well as meeting the other success criteria outlined above. The preserve will be maintained in this exotic-free state in perpetuity. Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Reports A Baseline Monitoring Report will describe the existing conditions of the preserve prior to exotic eradication. The Time Zero Monitoring Report will describe the aerial extent of exotic removal and other activities, i.e. revegetation, photographs from the referenced locations,qualitative observations of wildlife usage and other information such as climatic and hydrological conditions and health of the existing vegetation. The Tim Zero Report will be completed within 30 days of the completion of initial exotic removal work. Annual Monitoring reports shall document changes from the baseline conditions,the success of exotic eradications, and will identify ways to maintain or improve these conditions. Baseline, Time Zero and Annual Reports will include the following: • Quantification of any re-growth of exotic species and recommendations for remedial actions. • Quantification of restoration of cleared areas by native species including dominant species and%cover by species. • Percent coverage,open space and diversity as appropriate of restored vegetation. • Direct and indirect wildlife observations. • Photographs from a referenced location and panoramic photographs. A photo point station will be identified with PVC labeled stakes. • Current status of the exotic removal as well as regeneration of the native vegetation throughout the preserve area. 5.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT Conservation Easement As stated above, the intent of this management plan in the long term is to donate the land to the State. As such, no conservation easement will initially be placed on the land to facilitate this eventual transfer. In the event the State does not accept the land once the exotic eradication activities are deemed successful,then a conservation easement will be placed over the preserve within 60 days of the State's notification not to accept the property. The Conservation Easement will be to Collier County with third party enforcement rights granted to the USFWS. Funding An escrow account will be established that will provide a funding mechanism for the long term maintenance and management of the preserve. Placement of funds into the account will occur prior to the start of construction of the Estancia development project. This account will transfer to the Friends of Collier Seminole State Park when the property is given to the state or to the CDD if the State refuses to accept the property. The amount of funding has yet to be determined but will be sufficient to create a non-wasting reserve which will generate returns sufficient for the maintenance activities necessary to keep the preserve exotic free. Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Maintenance As stated above, once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free for a period of 3 years, the land will be offered to the State of Florida for inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the Park take over ownership of the preserve land, it would be added to the Park's land management plan, to be managed by the park in perpetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donation of the land to the park,the land will be managed in perpetuity by the Community Development District(CDD)which will be established for the Estancia community. 0,. III b.0.°......-300Y-Z:OCtW9I} 3LL33M6,0VO 'i".03-0i0-SYK."n I. N 1II;I y N 0 N �.mm c T m A Xl Z 1/J- �'yt1 I. v.k.4'; ',4,..''''.:1:-.."--:- .• -•--, -.1--=------;— ,4•-:-.P.'.: :' ,,,/' ' '—Ril XI ....,(1). ti •, d d • \ ptq� , c�' ,=, tu'D ki$ m S L \\\ "s M A h. r 4 — gig . t, :,. :...\'..; i").6-. 4-L.:,r.'• --•-• . LINN ,, ... ,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,.. .,„,,,,ti.,,,,,,....3.,..,,, ,,,, :ri.iiir.: . ,. . ., .., .,, ;49 . i,i0 J � r iii J� ' . I= "'!r tfi -,:is.: 11 y+r `t: y I :i xra 1' .. '�,-- SCE �, 1••. . +A ar; ,....'R • , l'. NYC tfh-eNNV " 4T a u i I t 1 ESTANCIA • A , -.4?.,•;1/4_ "1-t, 27 ./&*1?,.,I I ig t, : ' • •• 0 1,200 2,400 % ��I! s IFeet I_ ! 4----"'-'.."--''''' ► ICI "� 1 1i.t s. '` : t 74 fi , • "` PROPOSED PRESERVE BOUNDARY 4 5 ID DESCRIPTION ACRES 1 MARSH PRARIE 50.70 1 2 SCRUB 15.16 * ?' CYPRESS 28.25 ? l�}: O \---.4 07.27 MIXED PINE&HARDWOOD 369.83 r 1 5 PASTURE 142.83 ' • TOTAL 606.83 ' PROPOSED PRESERVE BOUNDARY DRAWN BY RNl REVISION SCALE.I1.•1.0W �ulMell,ain &Hall Associate;meConsulting ons Inc CREATEDO12-0 13pc 2 N/A 1.1.5,1,110,24C.1.....154 ,FILE.1..iiens ATH Maine Consuh ng FIDDLERS CREEK-ESTANCIA&OYSTER HARBOR oBNo- 05z NLA nr;ars111,(1smw 3JM E1hasge A`<.Sure Naples.Fl.N101-373'- FLUCCS MAP SHEET 01 N/A Email nuiyme,ee..coa.e,mm Phalle 12.1.I643UIm Frt Iz3.1M,T63- SECTION-IS&19 TOWNSIIIP-50S RANOG27E INSTR 6325433 OR 6187 PG 1331 RECORDED 11/2/2022 4:08 PM PAGES 20 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $171.50 (a) Prepared by: Mark J.Woodward, Esq. Woodward, Pires&Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 Return original or certified recorded document to: Fiddler's Creek Foundation, Inc. 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FloriM341 ' [A portion of Sectiioorit 19&29] Declaration of Conservation Covenant hird-Party Beneficiary Rights to the U.S.Army orps,.(*Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SI` THIS DECLARATION OF CONSERVATION COVENANT ("Conservation Covenant") is given this day of November,2022,by FCC PRESERVE, LLC,a Florida limited liability company("Grantor")whose mailing address is 8156 Fiddler's Creek"Parkway, Naples, FL 34114 to the Fiddler's Creek Foundation, Inc., a Florida corporation,whose mailing address is 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway,Naples, FL 34114("Grantee"), with third-party enforcement rights to the US. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") ("Third-Party Beneficiary").As used herein, the term"Grantor"shall include any and all heirs,successors,or assigns of the Grantor,and all subsequent owners of the"Conservation Covenant Area"(as hereinafter defined);the term"Grantee"shall include any successor or assignee of Grantee;and the term"Third-Party Beneficiary"shall include any spceessor or assignee of the Third-Party Beneficiary. W.IE'SSE,TH WHEREAS, the Grantor is the fee simple owner cif,, rtain lands situated in Collier County, Florida, and more specifically described and depicted on ExhibilyA ached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");and WHEREAS,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Perrfiit No.'SAJ-2015-00853-(SP-RMT) ("USACE Permit")authorizes certain activities in the waters of the United Staten which may affect the Florida Panther; and �� ;, ',, WHEREAS, the Grantor, in consideration of the authorization provided by the USACE Permit or other good and valuable consideration provided to Grantor, is agreeable to granting and securing to the Grantee a Declaration of Conservation Covenant over the Property described oh Exhibit"A"(hereinafter either the"Property"or the"Conservation Covenant Area")and implementing the.Off-site Preserve Management Plan for Estancia and Oyster Harbor,dated November 2016,attached as Exhibit"B's("Preserve Management Plan") in accordance with the April 4, 2017 correspondence from the USFWS, South Florida rida Ecological Services Office;and r WHEREAS,Grantor grants this Conservation Covenant, solely to off set or eV t adverse impacts to natural resources,fish and wildlife,and wetland functions;and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to implement the offsite Preserve Management Plan and preserve the Conservation Covenant Area in its natural condition,in an enhanced,restored,or created condition;and NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby voluntarily grants, creates, conveys, and establishes a Conservation Covenant for and in favor of the Grantee upon the Conservation Covenant Area which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Grantor,and shall remain in full force and effect forever. The scope,nature,and character of this Conservation Covenant shall be as follows: 1. Recitals.The recitals hereinabove set forth are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Conservation Covenant. Page 1 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1332 2. Purpose.It is the purpose of this Conservation Covenant to retain land or water areas in their existing,natural,vegetative,hydrologic,scenic,open,or wooded condition and to retain such areas as suitable habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. Those wetland and upland areas included in this Conservation Covenant which are to be preserved,enhanced, restored,or created pursuant to the Permit(or any modification thereto) and the Preserve Management Plan, shall be retained and maintained in the preserved, enhanced, restored, or created condition:`required by the Permit(or any modification thereto). To carry out this purpq,se,'the following rights are conveyed to Grantee by this Conservation Covenant: a. Toe ecupon the Conservation Covenant Area at reasonable times with any necessary equipment or vehiclesto inspect,determine compliance with the covenants and prohibitions contained in this Conservation Covenant, and to-enforce the rights herein granted in a manner that will not unreasonably interfere with the use andlquiet enjoyment of the Conservation Covenant Area by Grantor at the time of such entry;and .,_:.= _ b. To proceed at;faw or in equity to enforce the provision of this Conservation Covenant and the covenants set forth herein, to prevent the occurrence of any of the prohibited activities set forth herein,and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Covenant Area that may be damaged by any activity or use;ttis inconsistent with this Conservation Covenant. 3. Prohibited Uses. adept for activities that are permitted or required by the Permit(or any modification thereto) (which may include rstoration, creation, enhancement, maintenance, monitoring activities, or surface water management;.improvements) or other activities described herein or in the Preserve Management Plan, any activity orp Or trse1 of the Conservation Covenant Area inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Covenant is dr shibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in or on the Conservation Covenant Area (except as authorized or required by the Permit(or any modijiCatiofi ereof)or in the Preserve Management Plan): a. Construction or placing of buildin94"roads, signs, billboards or other advertising, utilities,or other structures on or above the ground; '\)-''' b. Dumping or placing of soil or other su nc ortnaterial as landfill,or dumping or placing of trash,waste,or unsightly or offensive materials; ` '` c. Removing,destroying or trimming trees, shrubs other vegetation,except: i. The removal of dead trees and shrubs or-leaning trees that could cause damage to property is authorized; ' .! ii. The destruction and removal of noxious,.nuisance or exotic invasive plant species as listed on the most recent Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's List of Invasiye Species is authorized; iii. Activities authorized by the Permit or described in;the Management Plan or otherwise approved in writing by the Grantee are authorized;and iv. Activities conducted in accordance with a wil ire mitigation plan developed with the Florida Forest Service that has been approved in writing by the Grantee Eire authorized. No later than thirty(30)days before commencing any activities to implement the approved wildfire mitigation plan, Grantor shall notify the Grantee in writing of its intent to commence such activities. All such activities may only be completed during the time period for which the Grantee approved the plan; d. Excavation, dredging, or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock, or other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface; e. Surface use except for purposes that permit the land or water area to remain in its natural, restored,enhanced,or created condition; f. Activities detrimental to drainage, flood control,water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation,or fish and wildlife habitat preservation including, but not limited to,ditching,diking, clearing, and fencing; Page 2 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1333 g. Acts or uses detrimental to such aforementioned retention of land or water areas;and h. Acts or uses which are detrimental to the preservation of the structural integrity or physical appearance,of sites or properties having historical,archaeological,or cultural significance. 4. ` Grantor's Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves all rights as owner of the Conservation Covenant Area,irfclucling the right to engage or to permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Conservation Covenant Area that are not prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent with the Permit (or any modificatiorkttzesptoVpreserve Management Plan, or the intent and purposes of this Conservation Covenant. 5. Rights of the USACE and/or USFWS. The USACE and USFWS, as third-party beneficiaries, shall have the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation Covenant, including: a. The right' o take-action topreserve and protect the environmental value of the Conservation Covenant Area; rJ b. The right to prevent"9njiactivity on or use of the Conservation Covenant Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Covenant, and to require the restoration of areas or features of the Conservation Covenant Area that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use; c. The right to enter upon and'espect the Conservation Covenant Area in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to determine ff Grantor or its successors and assigns are complying with the covenants and prohibitions contained in this Cedisery ion Covenant;and d. The right to enforce this Cons jot`Covenant by injunction or proceed at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant and the covenants set forth herein; to prevent the occurrence of any of the prohibited activities set forth herein,and the right to require Grantor, or its successors or assigns,to restore such areas or features pf"the Conservation Covenant Area that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use or unauthorized,activtties. • The Grantor, including their successors or assigns shill prc ide the USACE at least 60 days advance notice in writing before any action is taken to amend, alterefelease, or revoke this Conservation Covenant. The Grantee shall provide reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment or object to the release or amendment to the USACE. The Grantee shall consider any-Cbm#ients or objections from the USACE when making the final decision to release or amend this ConservatiCovenant. 6. No Dedication.No right of access by the general public to potion of the Conservation Covenant Area is conveyed by this Conservation Covenant. 7. Grantee's and Third-Party Beneficiary's Liability. Grantee', Grantee's successors or assigns and Third-Party Beneficiary shall not be responsible for any costs or liabilities related to the operation, upkeep, or maintenance of the Conservation Covenant Area. Grantee shall have the rights provided for in Section 17 below to draw upon the performance assurance provided t5y Grantor to pay any of the aforementioned cost or liabilities. 8. Enforcement.Enforcement of the terms,provisions,and restrictions of this Conservation Covenant shall be at the reasonable discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance on behalf of Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach hereof by Grantor,shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Grantee's rights hereunder. Grantee shall not be obligated to Grantor, or to any other person or entity,to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant. 9. Third-Party Beneficiary's Enforcement Rights. Either Third-Party Beneficiary of this Conservation Covenant shall have all the rights of the Grantee under this Conservation Covenant,including Page 3 of 5 oR 6187 PG 1334 third-party enforcement rights of the terms, provisions, and restrictions of this Conservation Covenant. Third-Party Beneficiary's enforcement of the terms, provisions,and restrictions shall be at the discretion of either Third-Party Beneficiary, and any forbearance on behalf of either Third-Party Beneficiary to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach hereof by Grantor, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Third-P rty Beneficiary's rights hereunder. Third-Party Beneficiary shall not be obligated to Grantor,or to a _ her person or entity,to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant. 10. '`_ xes.When perpetual maintenance is required by the Permit, Grantor shall pay before delinquency any and all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed by competent,authority on the Conservation Covenant Area and shall furnish the Grantee with satisfactory evidence of payment upon request. 11. Assignment. Grantee will hold this Conservation Covenant exclusively for conservation purposes. Grantee will not assign it; rights and obligations under this Conservation Covenant except to a Community Development District(CDD)to be established pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, over all or portions of the Conservation Covenant Area or another organization or entity qualified to hold such interests under the applicable 'state laws. Upon acceptance by Grantee of an assumption agreement provided by either a CDD or another drganization or entity qualified to hold such interests,Grantee shall be released of all obligations or liabilitiest forl:h herein. 12. Severability. If any provisio.i of this Conservation Covenant or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found to,be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation Covenant shall not be affected thereby,as long as the purpose of the Conservation Covenant is preserved. 13. Terms and Restrictions. Grantw $hall insert the terms and restrictions of this Conservation Covenant(or incorporate the terms,at d„r(s ictions by reference) in any subsequent deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself j�interest in the Conservation Covenant. .. 14. Written Notice.All notices, consents approvals or other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested,addressed to the appropriate party or successdr-in-interest. 15. Modifications. This Conservation Covenant to be amended, altered, released, or revoked only by written agreement between the partied" her to or their heirs, assigns, or successors-in-interest,which shall be filed in the public recordsrecordsinSoffier County, Florida. 16. Recordation. Grantor shall record this Conservationtove'pant in timely fashion in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida,and shall rerecord it at any time.Grantee may require to preserve its rights. Grantor shall pay all recording costs and taxes necessary to record--this Conservation Covenant in the public records. Grantor will hold Grantee harmless from any recordi,g co, s or taxes necessary to record this Conservation Covenant in the public records. 17. Performance Assurance. Grantor at Grantor's sole cost and ens hall obtain a bond or other performance assurance in a form reasonably acceptable to Grantee,in an amount sufficient to remediate the Conservation Covenant Area consistent with the obligations under the Permit or Preserve Management Plan, together with sufficient funds to pay for the required future maintenance as may be required by the Preserve Management Plan. 18. This Conservation Covenant runs with the Property. The covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of this Conservation Covenant shall run with the land and bind the Property (the Conservation Covenant Area) and shall inure to the benefit of and enforceable by Grantee for a term of thirty(30)years from the date this Conservation Covenant is recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, after which time these provisions shall automatically be extended for successive ten(10)years. Any time after the initial thirty(30)year period provided for in this Section, these provisions may be terminated or modified in whole or in part by the recording of a written instrument providing for the term or modification executed by Grantor, Grantee and Third-Party Beneficiaries,or either of their successors or assigns. Page 4 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1335 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto Grantee forever. The covenants, terms, conditions, restrictions,and purposes imposed with this Conservation Covenant shall be binding upon Grantor and shall continue as a servitude running with the Conservation Covenant Area. Granto,hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said Conservation Covenant Area in fee simple;that the Conservation Covenant is free and clear of all encumbrances that are inconsistent with the terms of this Conservation Covenant;all mortgages and liens on the Conservation Covenant Area, if any, have been subordinated to this Conservation Covenant;that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to convey this Conservation Covenant; and that it hereby fully warrants and defends record title to the Conservation Covenant Area ereby conveyed against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS W EREOF,FCC Preserve, LLC has hereunto set its authorized hand this sr day of November 2022. FCC Pr e, LLC -Ffori ' ited liability company J • .. By: j Name:Aub ey J. Ferr o Ill"' President/Manager and notidividually : ed sealed and devered in oury: • - j` \ By: (Signature) f (Signature) 4 / , �/ r O Name: � LI:0 vs s i fitafne: a•'l /a (Print) • ;. , (Print) STATE OF FLORIDA ', COUNTY OF COLLIER '`rt On this I f✓ day of November, 2022, before me theAridersigned notary public, personally • appeared by means ofphysical presence or ❑ online notarization,`tAubrey J. Ferrao, the person who subscribed to the foregoing instrument, as the President/Manager (title), of FCC Preserve, LLC, 0 (corporation), a Florida corporation, or X❑ Florida limited liability company (choose one) and acknowledged that he/she executed the same on behalf of said 0 corporation, or 1.E limited liability company(choose one)and that he/she was duly authorized to do so. a/She is personally known o or has produced a (state)driver's license as ilentiflcation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. 4 NOTAR PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA ' ``...- . (Sign re) ��iY'6�••. JOSEPH'LWIO PARISter.up.w.....„....0........... I P; 1��': Notary Public.State of Florida • �• o: Commission p HH 318808 �� L r s. 'Toro-,, My Comm.Expires Oct 3,2026 (Name) "' Bonded through National Notary Assn. My Commission Expires: / 0N 2.0 Page 5 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1336 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY/CONSERVATION COVENANT AREA <rj ,7't•r---, -:,....,.,.... ,..-\ ...:Z).> '';‘,>:?.i'', ,,,,,•:,/,1-`-\ 2 414,-'?':' N., _ ,' , C.;) ''', . /r) i.,,1„ OR 6187 PG 1337 9MC'8—V-30-9cZ-1Z\S7v937 28 H01331S\)3i12lnS\(OOW3W10.1) COW VIONVIS3 Od — 9SZ\lZOZ .C3i1Nl1S 103rodd\A3AddnS\:O y c O N fD N >, . Y (A o f - Q t 1'Oc LIJ U g /(Tl' C c q N c'1 ._2 W � Q h > N N 1dnQ 8 a teOk0 j�n,a �� 0 E. au; maj (,)(Ltt .0.,3 CO 00220 8 No ,0 ~ �000 t` W 0� � O ow " ojIlj� 0 2J pLCV� � j ¢O Z v CO oLL f� ZW W¢ iVmA1uO� t• Z O �� 0� N'oper ¢4Ww k 0 D I-- CC - ¢ W„ � b0 Ua0o� q �Z LU Wtu01 SNQ] *" Zn_ CO 0 1-� 0�OO W W 0�O2�W Z 0 ZQ �, Om ,2¢2¢ 0 U go. (nUO O c ZO U (ntutTj P2Z Cc ZO cY�WCC�32 w w Q ZU)} C32CDi2 ¢ ) .9 ( r00 C5 p CD z cn 62:5-JQ 3 W• ZtZ , '' . tni V7O� Ci Z Zen= W 2 Z o oo �¢ �J O W Q 0 J—0 O ¢=m— 0 .ri1u !— m 0r7� D 2 � � = LL u)t! 1- 0, - o;O " tiCDO W1i U O zW Z .;ti c'' 32 U N r'i3D4Da_0. Z J �' O Up U F HU ` GC . ^„ U LiJ p 0 U t- OOW Oil �O� = ^ �"l e,e OpO( 0aF-0 Wh~00Z'INN '000OD?1 w aa� c9 CO o m , � �- 2 QO ' ` U[7 N d• �L1S�C3 2�E`Q � 04..c, i2222W0 jo ��o o� $ o ¢O��' 3 (Oa W0W V 0 I-- QQQ1.- 'OG. S N Q0 �-6i 0 J03X 0tu'1NQ ^ uC500000U WN- - c ca c y N�ii,,-13 Ct ccoo 0�1- 01U W 2 QO O '.. ° rn h-,�0� ^ N0 Q WNQ ¢ .,p¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ � oQ2 c m D. W U O j 'CCU DO'S ~ �¢ -11 �Uti c ti W(u p0 � m ~ W D �hQtiti,=ti Zv��2 av1�04- RNoo)U WO^W0 O� 2cs''nW861 'C 4i0C, '�. ; m a (t ¢ U W nW�r\0 � � �3 W u • v)•,9Q V)?20W Wtas C302► p�WO. e a e hOj�m C") 'y p N00O01u hQ�O 240 QV O =' On ^ r� .¢OZp W Um W UZ -1cy0 aCO Nn1n^ ^ N� y o Wu_W 62 CD C.5 W W J 2 O � f\ M " w ti J~ ''1 = O Zin Cc� 0pz� W. � N �000� � v a lL�¢ 4j 41 ¢D 4 ¢ � veo4D ¢� "OO ¢ ^p � 2 - 1.. • SW OW Ojm yD �U111 � Z , • o Z QJV�a 2305 WQ zz 1- 1�i L,wdc)z z 8DZ �W� W ...., p o g W. 1n •,� Zao 0000tiN2o - C,�r=aiv g5� Q1w 00 0-1 o,OUV ^(n to cn cno"�01- :, ;,." � uQ��i 3 D. W1nQ�OC �I=�CC41 2'' 2"I `Dvi(3 0UZ �COOw " tycQ: �a p:0C on Lnn"(3 c)w, o,_ �OzU4Zi12c1W42i(3 " '' � � _ (� OxkJW v1 ¢ `CWOJD � iilz 0W Wp, ¢ O �� (n2tn�CDC Wn Cl.x•L1 �� t-1-~ 2ZVo; �"� W S32�g �N �: D(tW � OON� �3 - - O �j~ •, e [}04.OF-OO(5 tiW (1j N 2~ ¢Cccc0 co200 nj . " v. 1:: O^��^m til Wa ��t5 Vo10^100vZ¢ �1Wi1�� 2�0 ,2 'cf _ ,.,: 111 41 W 0 J 2 03 0 Eil n) 4� �O W C� c`A. in N � U o fY D ^a � o � � � O2 Q zoOQz� � ti �21`O �a ��Ov �1,¢ ¢ ? I m Nr� 0i r7 WUjUQO 0WWC9W W2OV a ¢.sL.0p., ., ,-040WI a ¢Wcn41pc (3cnWm WUh¢ �ao Uo 43c341W1-.cnD (3 w = nva� I o V v o V (n OR 6187 PG 1338 OMO.8—d-33-95Z-1Z\S7kv37 72 H•913)IS\.C3i12/fS\(OO.'V311.10d) COPY VIONV1S3 Od — 99Z\leOZ A3/1215* 103P02/d\.(3A11fS\ 9 (9 fq E pobp O N 2 co a to 10 W 11 N N `� I _ _ N N m W O / W • m o, / Q µw� I O U I'U " In O LL- co ll `,.�` U e .A3A el/7S N1ON. I \ �j M ^ obi v Pa, ,V cn aQ o to to co h 1° I W 1 W co-.1 W 4/ W W W W N 1;= ti Q 2 `� M n �` m 0 w� / 11R1111 cc ^ O V eO� L.N N za O Z p / tM. W 00 coL. p Z g2 2 In to ti to 2 N I aFe F =IL ❑ 8 1 I lal J J J J J W a z cn W4yQ I 1 .; ,. Ml o cnu� Z�"o U' � I `" m Z o -}'act W I Q 0 , cn U O CO re z W I oU) P� U � 1 I i , I z I t I w o I o w 8L 691Z i,t�¢O S o q — r a m !� N o 6 I o y O 8 O] a o 1 I / CO C E N s m[V I0 O W ` g 2 N .,2 I 3nrd,a oz--{ Q o I `� ,g o' •b cc W I Q f>' N o� I 0 Lzn p g5o co Za u0)E ZOII mZ0 oo VI I � o^ ' o IIx�o rma oW &� I m"`` I....IJI Q `.. r to e. r v:, ,�G�g vek FA C av t`m C/ C 8 •• and _l 1 ,kZ•Z9£'Z 3 ,6O,61.0 N 0 2 illw 4 co N N N N T `o L7 C o V m 1 OR 6187 PG 1339 • OMOW—V 30-9SZ—IZ\S7vO37 4' H.913)/S\.C3,12/(IS\(001N3N1.10.d) 0011 VI3NVI.S3 0.1 — 95Z\1Z0Z A3,21US 1,73rodd\.13Al2/nS\:o , 0 to 0 < a; cv 4 LiL.I0ti2� OW0c4t12— N _ ado .... JuJoct 3-r\-/2 cc) I- V)p 1� j a W cn 2 Q m W o 'o n 4.- 11{{}}j 0W8� t`'1`3 vi 2H Ei O 2 aq w m F . w QCD �(O j 2QQQQk • O U -J o O LL N ccoLi Ill__,Lo W;' 14_',K C.) 0 il 1 Nb) W 2Q—'2p c Q�Ce OOp�' Q 4��2� g (n c W Nm S W z LI �' �W � � o/- Li 4 ZQZQ�� o zo Z0� 0c.0 Z z"r>--0 E2 F 1---u 1n�p EY h 0 U 13 Lu T O () < =if_ 0 m ��2C5 �Q � Op �� 3 W �ti � p �L. i � z W 4,'oc3 Lu ci � ' z -.0-02 n ; Qp ,„W Z O Z �(D2,- 2,'00 N ,6 n,�05. 0 p w �� Y10 OO 1y wF. 2enc5 o=2ZQo1— -4), QQQQQQ.st._. . ti 0) qCD m h 20 c01 ti W� O a �z5 h co 8 uD I.ul 'c~n Ii O I/J 2,,k emu;.7 c.1 ,4 2,3 * l� Q �W g3^j { pJ' W414......` v 2cy of O O^c( C O 0 W^ N IN N 0)Is.1�z c0,-O j,Z�. c. c u s r0.1 .1 cc O 200 cV qoOu��N�� 41 �Cv (n^ � O 1nO�aNhN^^ � � � � Nh4 cc� o cO �tic` 2c�r o �VVQ2N, •tN� r ^ v � ��cn A . cor, T o�m� �oZo�oo� ,� hMeocoNn �= �� E t tit 0 o o^ W_o �^ t : a C) 2Ccu2� ti Cc W 2 ckCC000Etk , •kF, RiU Qo c) 000000000 MCc o O2o2 04. 24) 22cncnn222220 6 W W0W4-10V W N Opo : t �F 161 �Uc3 � 2ti qWUUUUUC NuO ,,0 C3(3 c)C ...W e a) , , l° Gp 'V WWWWW W o o Uj ;n O� 02mQO W UJZSW ahcco0 W Watio2z --,i �a0N�N0V otiizuiQZa Z > Et � O aO ti� O W � n �0 0 CO4w) 4Nrn�; O .ZkJvQZO0 � O Er �2tic4.1 Q.JO�li � OZWjIi ~�U O 4 tip, Umo°co wwti %"0lei) -9`,4CONcOoNrnOrO•eppprN)WO ¢ O Dvo W 2uvim> 0 30z)0QNQ20rncu3r,'_ m o6 wp0Q 03 , 05hoca° LltiNW( N WU 2 ^^ro "1ul"1NN''')W : ( r78 4 h— tiR j Wnncc0 ;—QW— QCc4.4 4_ 4_4, L,4_ C 4 2 ^. 1� 0=4,cop s)•)8 sc, c,�W,, 000000000(3r_ , : rn ~ n m n v 2(5a Q N W j U "^¢Z`Ey Q V 0 0 0 U U U U U 0 p Z 2 Ct 4)g N O Q6-i0OW 2�~QC (1'a0XCC-JtititiaaaaaaaaCtrn2 ti o a 1 (Y ��Who W2of 4.cng610o�s[ cncncncncncncnEncncnlo40i O c) z d Qc4Cl :E m� cn00o m4.4. 4`S0000000000Qom v w5 b 1 o . Op 1 1 OR 6187 PG 1340 OMQ'9-V-33-9SZ-1 Z\S7V037 Z8 HO13NS\A3,WfS\(CO11311103) COIN V/ONV'1S3 Od - 9GZ\I ME .4 3/111r1S 103rOsd\.13A811S\9 P2 9� a o ly N p�{� qc�y aV. �I —46. W ff L. N b� 021.5d*Ih 8f1) � I ��, 1 � �, eN N1 ' a) w N m w ❑ 6£ ZZ 17Z 3 „00,6L r 8 0 S u 8 g= m ^^ ❑ U o 0 ❑ ,. rn `f , CO .A3,121fS V1ON. 9/ 0 g ke ^ �.2 fa. I— I Z N W �3� z O z¢ 9� i ^`" U ryla i- g Pc VY03 0 I `' cN W >• Z O> I r N c o 0 W Q (. rZ LLJ 4 I " I m 3 0 z lL� }n p el Z or ro p W u) ,8L1691Z M S O N s d M 4 g 6.ce C S gg M F n "4 m 2 a�'S. Q „ O co, tn.� 8> ` N I I 0,m t�. 6.)S N it I a" u w il E a CC I ¢ N O • I 3vwd,00Z-.1 1 Z zt I a z v O io h n O h V cp N.- trii- 2 at N to N o, h W b M c b o-J� I '� La' v ri of t� b N W(V!1 I I 11 b b h h �b1 N N M I --mot} `° W L. ,�---�^' n V cl cl 5 to J lv W W to W W W W W W *r p a 8 2 N P. !i h N M O m Z0cr ' m h N OI ^ O, et h II w a z N ;l N ;>• ;* 7 ;7 MLij �Q�.y1 C/� `ram O_ m O O � J 0 R n b co N ^ P m T-i G a = I ? 2 2 2 cn h h Z 2 2 2 ,--I .co a d d to ago I q, ( J I W >-ma ( W w rn o N h v In b n I v }! O E K ' j J "1 J J J +! J �! J J I CtE - 02 `v M o42 Lri J - - - — — — wto < N N N N • �- P. !. U U m V 1 OR 6187 PG 1341 OM0'0-30-9S-8i\A3na,ns\(6Z NO/1035) 0vOY HONYN OlfV - 95\81OZ ,t3MUS 1.93r02/d`A3A21/IS\ J a g.. g 9 N 35 nva op�•42. I• Z;n�QZg,��,�¢ocWi� z LL o a OF N O ^Ia�iU2in Jp2a,2 J W �' -''a c,cr, �'�'o' wp °2 LU n. N -O Z - .tQ ylW & }� E3,1` 71 , Zm -.1Q'ec2 NOw °O,�m 2 Yt > w Qoo='a- wgD ,fb0000� on $owQ^o�¢rnn m w ❑ �S` ._- . - j • wOOOW 2 1p 4peP- O WwNC321. 4a I mp U ¢ = 8 - I i En)- W3c�r> V o°' v a�2, Ww _ °°2Z � p .00 2 two hZc5 o;eow rLa 04 LI• OWONe : ¢�bpp0 0.0 NO M nQ1= O� vO,ov,. t2 �N O -' 0 oEt ONo o0`° - otomvOw W2 Q 4 „, e 00600w e o4J Woop0 1- oyo� o " �oaa¢ ^ 2 o oRo �tto ti w O119) 1~i,N`12' z2 2oU,n:2 4ti� Z O ZQ p O OZ O¢ O "r�j=N� 2V1., ti 0 U 2 Nv� oNo¢0o�I¢��o o�'oW^�000 `g F �� O U)e 8 ,8Z w,UI6uW U ¢ V<:^a�co Utu 0 >. F H-1 doo 2ciy3o{�w7*o.5u o� W''' ,Z a U �0�Li u,2t,3 w o� o p W U' �Z �'N� �h �`(' oo^Q'o`4 ¢ESoih W S Q E ¢ o w¢ro„� (no Iri -.Id O 0 Z W Z1,p� p OWcC.t�W Ki cnUo Oy4,�, ,.I Q O J=V � J pW W_, I,.4p y OerWwoc�o4.22 U ~ !0Q' O ❑ 2V 0�oo U,,p� 4.0_o W gQNQ�I W'. �„ Z H O ?J } I� 24��bU-1I,�6E cm,I,' Eo0 IA Z J � 410.. c^v o n, co,,,o,,�e`�` p n� 2' kj S'Iul " .'`� •"',,. F z aUULI • 0 ye U2WIO~� En yw`p ypW,pO"hOW �" • .`a,. 0 a � mu�'iov0i �co�,6coni5o�ooMQ� c0,'"-- , o,,Nu, Q �QZ o N { ✓' co 0..20� W424 U. U 2 1. o0a �4�00 U. v s m v wo 22� wa o 20 1_ io �" 0�w� lb " N o NQ z•IQ {� Iy-,ONi ,,, k4'UV�� (0- 0V- , 00 �r0Ir,1-u M • •p..a o2WW2{�QWONh `o�°� o' {µ{µ,q11 �yi� h ,RozU W ` m . °ems', W (/) 0I. ZW"OOWNOI rC OW,.�o�W -.:�.. �O Q12i10 rn � p } O hWWph 20�aW NOJp �� _� ti Y 0 `o O� -10 h 3� b, Opn 3� O^ y "0.. O 2 yU3 e c a h� cnWNWNo �3 � ;0 � 4i W1� Yu i\�Qlnp 0 '`�R�a Cr Z,0 WpO�� ''2Z---y o 0.0�¢ �c�o ;,�W�2 o. � 2c�iti�x�000 �2Nzo g J� a cm o 34 6-01 32o4S2FiO JQ2U oco Nc csi t W ,�cMtne,yO10 2 o O NQ 2IoaF2eKOIi, 4p JW Wtil� U ".4i 1n,A'. a 2 Rez W's 1- o w� 0 oz,,sn a" N� �o�N tu m]]-- m�= S = e 2 DeVp U2 .}W ISO ti Ok 0Oo 4i0 ^C)J •O� j�0 2a0 �20 W z -14 • ro , 42 y t'¢W UVZz�U=2kao214 fVnj 0 0�,,�z0, wo Wg't ,. ..;� cov, C� Um OQcnO�aO�Wj0`.w2 W21, h re2: 2•`t W 240 oo �- ES ?� aoin�-- c)1.0 Z' 2p -9`-Woo W 2,�WQ4h Wy h Jo0p Q_. O O �F VIOZ O � Op„).� eF ZN N. p Z �3 �O U t i 0! U • vQow�^--tab• ocw,I�W� s� 0 �p8p ',c0p3z pU �U�OcrZ Q ' mo z. or- p La 0 �1o¢W w�QW4l.Z�n�]S�- d Z ._ ,,,,,li,� No „ioo,cce(ni Li S-3 `' m ❑ 2� aU§3oloI,�(C��o Li-)• ou N¢ �22 o rr� ' P sU 2yo,UW �hn0001i, 1ro,Oo2 ,o .�ev� u> ai N�I�� 2O N.:QyZ of `y m c'., I.I.. O J UN V I`0 �p �,O�OOVo,m 0 3 .D C c w z c2, 22 N C� m At � �00 2 0 ¢N ¢°C. h°¢ 0O f2 W W< N an F !�- fC�� 1zW- ft 4�p Wn410 iI�tiUcnl �Ucnmg.t,,- •- - o p 'S ` c . 11" coNIn230h¢O._"eo-I0i ONO4 U I- C,7 t In ca OR 6187 PG 1342 9MQ•O-30-99-81\..&, fnS\(6Z NOLLO3S) OVO8 HON*N OIOV - 9S\910Z i3/IN!)S 1031'ONd\13,2lnS\:J 2 Q O O o W N 2h. II , A. o 0 N 0 } W J 00i n 0 •- Z Y tey ' o w 1a1 �m t J W / - 0 o 0 ai o 1. CO / • ,£LYP7l 3. P. fD S V . ,...,;.1,'.(r.'N ---..‘\ / r z 3 3 .,c�n�ns V1ON. -. V N • „ W m v N N .p fn N IQ. b N '� ''1 0 1 H • F3 w O n h M n N Q. N' �^ A .. N co U z z 1n 1n Ill LJ i 3.3. N W _ 4" 2 N •N ~ Q M 03 03 N. _O 0 Z o vi m W m �o w m Z i Z d ;� ;i H W •�' a F =_ 0 2 88 •W - 0 5 . F-LL a�sns g U ,.., h o w x U z O M.11,11AS "� 42i 4i obi n t\ CI 6 0,Z W . • 2 ' -4 h h O^ In Z n, Z�� r� , y Q O Q �� t� .' 0 0 0 0 = W I 0 �� 8� ' e `i 0 o 0 O z Z- � d� qb Y O 00 y" s , ul F 0 N M o N U v N �' LLI SO IQ .. . , ,..3 w W co .• doi 4 O a)--- sr NOLLTS JO..1ntl 13111 JO 341111.01f" ._., `\ p cK U b ♦ • N o U 'U k 11 g 0 W N � N 1n� � �� 1 d W riNs N. � W � � ::.,. 2 N a 0. A m ,,,,,,r_ ,o :_ o o ,, e a fs m co j `.‘' rn `,, �- A`T it Z' v .•' - C C as o z __ • b vz • o 0W V G� 1.o o� — 65 o• H CD � & NII Woz •^'' a h ,6B'9PLZ M „til,Ll.O N • -- r ,-I W o) n p W <OW r el CCS' F. o N i V m c m W ` �n 1 O .. 5 0 3 ��—�—� K V V c 1 1 V . OR 6187 PG 1343 EXHIBIT B OFFSITE PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ESTANCIA AND OYSTER HARBOR November 2016 jr.2) 41‘,/ ,,:\ 4872-2607-3660 v.2 OR 6187 PG 1344 OFF-SITE PRESERVE ANAGEMENT PLAN ESTANCIAAND OYSTER HARBOR ) , - NOVVMBE‘ ;i120 1 6 Prepared by: • ..,")" 414111. TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES,FL 34104 OR 6187 PG 1345 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the proposed management plan for the off-site preserve areas associated with the FCC Creek,LLC and Oyster Harbor LLC projects. This includes the E)tacia and eastern phase of the Oyster Harbor development within the existing Fiddler's Creeklo ment. The property is located at the southwestern corner of a larger agricultural area`ei st-ofthe CR951 and US 41 intersection. This preserve area is meant to be set aside and maintained anther habitat. The preserve area is locata ped immediately south of the Estancia subdivision in Sections 19 and 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East. These properties are located at the southern terminus of Auto Ranch Road and encompa Collier County folio numbers 00763920100,00763920003, and 00774960007,totaling ap �imately 606.83 acres. There is limited access to the eastern portion of the preserve from Auto Ranch Road,however the majority of the preserve is relatively inaccessible due to the location ofeCe surrounding forested areas and existing stormwater canals ; 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ! '. ,f The proposed off-site preserve area is cpmposefil of 142.89 acres of wet pasture, 369.83 acres of pine and hardwood/pine forest,28.25 acre a cypress, and 50.7 acres of marsh and prairie. All of the habitats have been infested with varying,kkgrees of exotic vegetation(25—90%),mainly Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolia),md(aleu '(Melaleuca quinquenervia),and earleaf acacia(Acacia auriculiformis). Southern cattailp/za domingensis)has established in the marsh areas. 7 ,,// ,, Existing agricultural operations pump excess water front tike,farm fields into this preserve area. The proposed development will eliminate this pumping and will establish a more natural sheet flow hydrology to the preserve via the Marsh EnhancementiBuffr Spreader Swale("Creek") that will be constructed around the entire development and wwefi will buffer the development from the preserve. :: 3.0 EXOTIC REMOVAL ACTIVITIES .-` Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia infestation is rampant throughout, eselrve area and an extensive eradication program will be implemented to eliminate these nouidus plants. This program will include hand clearing kill-in-place methods within the preserve. ause of limited access to the preserve as well as potential destruction of groundcover vegetation and likely rutting of the ground by machinery,no mechanical clearing is currently proposed. All exotic and nuisance vegetation will be killed in place either by cutting material down or by chemical applications to the trunks. In addition to the species listed above, all Category I and II exotics, as defined by the Florida Pest Plant Council,will be included in this eradication program. Initially,quarterly maintenance inspections and treatments will be necessary to eliminate the exotic species that have already gained a stronghold within the preserve. Once removal efforts OR 6187 PG 1346 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 have been successful, annual maintenance treatments should be sufficient to control future exotic growth. The preserve will be exotic free immediately following a maintenance activity. At no time shall the density of exotic vegetation and nuisance plant species exceed 20%relative coverage in any vegetative strata or 25%of the relative coverage in all strata. Success f rria Vegetation The vegetation restorat on f„efforts shall be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum a of 80% coverage of native vegetation,with less than 20%exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years. Ground cover diversity has be,eft limited by the exotic infestation throughout the site. It is expected that species diversity/will increase as the exotic vegetation is removed. Monitoring of the preserves will include speciesfonipiosition and diversity monitoring to document this increase. Once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free(less than 20%)for a period of 3 years, the land will be offered to the State oflprida QQr inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the Park take over ownership of thepreserve land,it would be added to the Park's land management plan,to be managed by the pa in.,perpetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donation of the land to the park,a Corls`ervat'dn Easement to Collier County will be placed over the preserve acreage and the land w lfbe.in .raged by the Community Development District(CDD)which will be established for the E';tanci'a/9ommunity in perpetuity. • 4.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE e` r The goals and objectives of this monitoring plan will be#o p1vi'e for ongoing progress and ultimate success of the preserved land in a series of schedulednitoring reports. The reports will quantify and describe conditions within the preserve,comparing observations with the proposed standards and offering advice for corrective actions if niedec. In areas of heavy vegetation, a visual inspection for plant invasion wilt be made and all exotic vegetation found will be flagged,mapped and reported for treatment. ;Macidering transects will be followed within the preserve for vegetative inventory and observationp wiljllife during regular monitoring. Photo points will be established along with plot sampling's Ions to determine percent survival and percent coverage of planted and recruited plant species. Transect and plot stations locations will be determined at time zero,after the initial exotic eradication has occurred. The exotic eradication efforts will be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum of 80%coverage of native vegetation,with less than 20%exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years as well as meeting the other success criteria outlined above. The preserve will be maintained in this exotic-maintained state in perpetuity. OR 6187 PG 1347 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Reports A Baseline Monitoring Report will describe the existing conditions of the preserve prior to exotic eradication. The Time Zero Monitoring Report will describe the aerial extent of exotic removal and other activ tie ,i.e.revegetation,photographs from the referenced locations,qualitative observations of w ife usage and other information such as climatic and hydrological conditions and ealrtlr�of he existing vegetation. The Time Zero Report will be completed within 30 days of the completi n of initial exotic removal work. Annual Monitoring reports shall document changes m the baseline conditions,the success of exotic eradications, and will identify ways to maintirformprove these conditions. Baseline,Time Zero and Ann al..Reports will include the following: • Quantification of any le-growth of exotic species and recommendations for remedial actions. • Quantification of restorati�n`of geared areas by native species including dominant species and%cover by species. ``.a / • Percent coverage,open space and'diyersity as appropriate of restored vegetation. • Direct and indirect wildlife obsev(aton • Photographs from a referenced locaion and panoramic photographs. A photo point station will be identified with PVC"lablea stakes. • Current status of the exotic removal as wel,a regeneration of the native vegetation throughout the preserve area. ,,, ¶ 5.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT 7 Conservation Easement ' As stated above,the intent of this management plan in the long ten-into donate the land to the State. As such,no conservation easement will initially be placed on the land to facilitate this eventual transfer. In the event the State does not accept the land once the exotic eradication activities are deemed successful,then a conservation easement will be placdover the preserve within 60 days of the State's notification not to accept the property. Tha6oen$ervation Easement will be to Collier County with third party enforcement rights granted to the USJWS. Funding An escrow account will be established that will provide a funding mechanism for the long term maintenance and management of the preserve. Placement of funds into the account will occur prior to the start of construction of the Estancia development project. This account will transfer to the Friends of Collier Seminole State Park when the property is given to the state or to the CDD if the State refuses to accept the property. The amount of funding has yet to be determined but will be sufficient to create a non-wasting reserve which will generate returns sufficient for the maintenance activities necessary to keep the preserve exotic free. OR 6187 PG 1348 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Maintenance As stated above,once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free for a period of 3 years, the land will be o, ered to the State of Florida for inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the I, e„over ownership of the preserve land, it would be added to the Park's land management pi*t .6/1:. managed by the park in perpetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donatio'ry O.the land to the park,the land will be managed in perpetuity by the Community Development DiStrict( DID)which will be established for the Estancia community. ',.." ., • •-...... , i....,,A ''''M .'-:•.,:'"0".> --. ` ,....1. ',. '-- , - c•-;: OR 6187 PG 1349 4 , T k; "4.1.v N s. r a' 1 1 �,,^�i E 1.11 t y OYSTER y �c�i Y.' '' \://s. Irk- SITE �.,i ( 000 2000 400, t li I .1 is imimmmmillmill• t SCALE 9N>Vl9LES a Jrri US ill I,f i r j a ANCIA ,� 1 S TE I f ll` ti� 1 t — .I 14.73ac� I •. N7. 0 �.. i I ~I „J t j 4if ;.I it f I 1-=- 1 OC JAY x t r . 1 6.20 ac m( K e . 16 48 ac -�i {� ` 7.20 ac 1 i "s'� i is �� y r\ �• . • Art /• _ .\ n- ( S .... 137.90 ac Ir 138 29 ac - 149.61 ac POTENTIAL PRESERVES ��\ 182.03 ac �\� 1-INTERNAL PRESERVES 37.41 ac --I. -. !.�;;:�;, 2-FALLOW TRIANGLE 7.20 ac 3-SECTIONS 19&29 FORESTED 458.22 ac EG7 4-SECTION 29 PASTURE 149.61 ac DESIGNED ® REVISION � -•�� Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. FIDDLERS CREEK-ESTANCIA&OYSTER HARBOR �em um SHEET T L� 01 Marine&Environmental Consulting NIA SCALE 3584 Exchange Ave.Suite B.Naples,FL 34104-3732 PRESERVE EXHIBIT JOB NO. 1305.2 N/A Email:tuoa@lurrellassociates.com Phone:(239)643-0166 Fax.(239)643-6632 SECTION-is&1gTOWNSHIP-Nos RANGE-27p *** OR 6187 PG 1350 *** • ,� / ti W M i .. ig .N` h P.0 � � ry m If zw` f qp' .if• ii) �, C.✓�- v �: v zZ, F o cNi - /✓ 1` y e 7 ,.., �j It n-CNI I i \ 1 -. . ,,' •-,a — at tF �a„ 494 &--'-f-=f-?0 ' Ji >_ j w W • --- fx to` O s `.I j O -1 mac:'':'' z U } m - ' W O ... ........ co akii lli gi C? W O a $ 1 v cn o pp P Y4'�' 71J __ '-'I cC Z O-a g g N 0 '` �� O L.J § (J d d 0 a 6 <8 ce o �4 ` rzi‘;IN V I x M 2 Hill 1 _ _. INSTR 6325434 OR 6187 PG 1351 RECORDED 11/2/2022 4:08 PM PAGES 16 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $137.50 (.3' ) Prepared by: Mark J.Woodward, Esq. Woodward, Pires&Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 Return original or certified recorded document to: Fiddler's Creek Fou dation, Inc. 8156 Fiddler's C I?arkway Naples, Florid ,841 1 [A portion of only Se6tion 29] N Declaration of Conservation Covenant �,.r%1`hird-Party Beneficiary Rights to the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tT THIS DECLARATION OF CONSERVATION COVENANT ("Conservation Covenant") is given this day of November,2022,by F1CC PRESERVE,LLC,a Florida limited liability company("Grantor")whose mailing address is 8156 Fiddler's Creek-Parkway, Naples, FL 34114 to the Fiddler's Creek Foundation,Inc., a Florida corporation,whose mailing address is 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway,Naples, FL 34114("Grantee"), with third-party enforcement rights to the L($ Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") ("Third-Party Beneficiary"). As used herein, the term "Grantor" shall include any and all heirs,successors,or assigns of the Grantor,and all subsequent owners of the"Conservation Covenant Area (as hereinafter defined);the term"Graln <sh'II include any successor or assignee of Grantee;and the term"Third-Party Beneficiary"shall include any's, sspr or assignee of the Third-Party Beneficiary. WIT)&ESSETH WHEREAS,the Grantor is the fee simple er dfcertain lands situated in Collier County, Florida, and more specifically described and depicted on Exhibit,' ached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");and ,� 7. WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No:SAJ-2015-00853-(SP-RMT) ("USACE Permit")authorizes certain activities in the waters of the United State which may affect the Florida Panther; and WHEREAS, the Grantor, in consideration of the authori'" ion provided by the USACE Permit or other good and valuable consideration provided to Grantor, is agreeable to granting and securing to the Grantee a Declaration of Conservation Covenant over the Property described on Exhibit"A"(hereinafter either the"Property"or"Conservation Covenant Area")and implementing the Off-_site Preserve Management Plan for Estancia and Oyster Harbor,dated November 2016,attached as Exhibit"B"("Preserve Management Plan")in accordance with the April 4,2017 correspondence from the USFWS,South Flonda cological Services Office (the"Biological Opinion"); and r° WHEREAS,Grantor grants this Conservation Covenant, solely to off set or prey, t adverse impacts to natural resources,fish and wildlife,and wetland functions;and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to implement the offsite Preserve Management Plan and preserve the Conservation Covenant Area in its natural condition,in an enhanced,restored,or created condition;and WHEREAS, Subject to the approval by USACE and USFWS of the request to modify the Biological Opinion,the Property use may be modified in the future to provide for additional housing which would entail the release of the Conservation Covenant provided herein and the acquisition of Panther Habitat Units to offset the release of such covenant once approved by the USFWS; NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby voluntarily grants, creates, conveys, and establishes a Conservation Covenant for and in favor of the Grantee upon the Conservation Covenant Area which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Grantor,and shall remain in full force and effect forever. Page 1 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1352 The scope, nature, and character of this Conservation Covenant shall be as follows: 1. Recitals.The recitals hereinabove set forth are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Conservation Covenant. r 2. ,.Purpose.It is the purpose of this Conservation Covenant to retain land or water areas in their existing,natural,vegetative,hydrologic,scenic,open,or wooded condition and to retain such areas as suitable habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. Those wetland and upland areas included in this Conservation Covenant which are to be pres2rved,1enhanced, restored,or created pursuant to the Permit(or any modification thereto) and the Preserve Management Plan, shall be retained and maintained in the preserved,enhanced, restored, or created condition required ,y)he Permit(or any modification thereto). To carry out this purpose,the following rights are conveyed to Grantee by this Conservation Covenant: a. To enterupo• he Conservation Covenant Area at reasonable times with any necessary equipment or vehicles to inspect etermine compliance with the covenants and prohibitions contained in this Conservation Covenant, and to'`enforce the rights herein granted in a manner that will not unreasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoytfient Of the Conservation Covenant Area by Grantor at the time of such entry;and 4 b. To proceed at law ar�irrequity to enforce the provision of this Conservation Covenant and the covenants set forth herein, to prevent`ihe occurrence of any of the prohibited activities set forth herein,and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Covenant Area that may be damaged by any activity or use that is inconsistent with this Conservation Covenant. 3. Prohibited Uses. Except for activit hat are permitted or required by the Permit(or any modification thereto) (which may include restoration,creation, enhancement, maintenance, monitoring activities, or surface water management improvemerifs) or other activities described herein or in the Preserve Management Plan, any activity on or use ofj�he,Conservation Covenant Area inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Covenant is prohiblfeds Ulfitout limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in or on„the Conservation Covenant Area (except as authorized or required by the Permit(or any modification tfiereOf)oar in the Preserve Management Plan): ,d.' .t a. Construction or placing of buildings, roads,;,aighs, billboards or other advertising, utilities, or other structures on or above the ground; FF b. Dumping or placing of soil or other substance or material as landfill,or dumping or placing of trash,waste,or unsightly or offensive materials; r' i c. Removing,destroying or trimming trees,shrubs,or other etation,except: 4 i. The removal of dead trees and shrubs or lea frees that could cause damage to property is authorized; K ii. The destruction and removal of noxious, nursanf ce Seicotic invasive plant species as listed on the most recent Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's List of Invasive Species is authorized; iii. Activities authorized by the Permit or described in the jVlanagement Plan or otherwise approved in writing by the Grantee are authorized; and ! iv. Activities conducted in accordance with a wildfire mitigation plan developed with the Florida Forest Service that has been approved in writing by the Grantee are authorized. No later than thirty(30)days before commencing any activities to implement the approved wildfire mitigation plan, Grantor shall notify the Grantee in writing of its intent to commence such activities. All such activities may only be completed during the time period for which the Grantee approved the plan; d. Excavation, dredging, or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock, or other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface; Page 2 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1353 e. Surface use except for purposes that permit the land or water area to remain in its natural, restored,enhanced,or created condition; f. Activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or ish and wildlife habitat preservation including,but not limited to,ditching,diking,clearing, and fencing; 2 Acts or uses detrimental to such aforementioned retention of land or water areas;and h. . Ats or uses which are detrimental to the preservation of the structural integrity or physical appearance of-sittees properties having historical,archaeological,or cultural significance. 4. Grantor's Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves all rights as owner of the Conservation Covenant Area, including the rightito engage or to permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Conservation Covenant Area'that,are not prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent with the Permit (or any modification thereto), Preserve Management Plan, or the intent and purposes of this Conservation Covenant. r 5. Rights of the USAGE and/or USFWS. The USACE and USFWS, as third-party beneficiaries, shall have the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation Covenant, including: , ` a. The right to take actiorf toyxeserve and protect the environmental value of the Conservation Covenant Area; b. The right to prevent any activifyon",�''use of the Conservation Covenant Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation C enant, and to require the restoration of areas or features of the Conservation Covenant Area that rridy,0 ilarrlaged by any inconsistent activity or use; c. The right to enter upon and inspect th oriservation Covenant Area in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to determine if Grantor" r'its successors and assigns are complying with the covenants and prohibitions contained in this Conservations Ctovertnt; and . `. �;,'','. ,i d. The right to enforce this Conservation Covenant Vy injunction or proceed at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant..and the covenants set forth herein; to prevent the occurrence of any of the prohibited activities set forth herein,and the right to require Grantor, or its successors or assigns,to restore such areas or features of the Conservation Covenant Area that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use or unauthorized activities J The Grantor, including their successors or assigns, shall provide thCS" E and USFWS at least 60 days advance notice in writing before any action is taken to amend, alter, release, or revoke this Conservation Covenant. The Grantee shall provide reasonable notice and an opi ortrity to comment or object to the release or amendment to the USACE and USFWS.The Grantee shall consider any comments or objections from the USACE and USFWS when making the final decision to release or amend this Conservation Covenant. 6. No Dedication.No right of access by the general public to any portion of the Conservation Covenant Area is conveyed by this Conservation Covenant. 7. Grantee's and Third-Party Beneficiary's Liability. Grantee, Grantee's successors or assigns and Third-Party Beneficiary shall not be responsible for any costs or liabilities related to the operation, upkeep, or maintenance of the Conservation Covenant Area. Grantee shall have the rights provided for in Section 17 below to draw upon the performance assurance provided by Grantor to pay any of the aforementioned cost or liabilities. 8. Enforcement. Enforcement of the terms, provisions,and restrictions of this Conservation Page 3 of 5 oR 6187 PG 1354 Covenant shall be at the reasonable discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance on behalf of Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach hereof by Grantor,shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Grantee's rights hereunder. Grantee shall not be obligated to Grantor, or to any other person or entity,to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant. 9. t rdParty Beneficiary's Enforcement Rights. Either Third-Party Beneficiary of this Conservation ovenant shall have all the rights of the Grantee under this Conservation Covenant,including third-party enforceine„nt, i hts of the terms, provisions, and restrictions of this Conservation Covenant. Third-Party Beneficiky's' forcement of the terms, provisions,and restrictions shall be at the discretion of either Third-Party Berref ary,and any forbearance on behalf of either Third-Party Beneficiary to exercise its rights hereunder in a event of any breach hereof by Grantor, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of Third-Party Beneficiary's rights hereunder. Third-Party Beneficiary shall not be obligated to Grantor,or to any other person or entity,to enforce the provisions of this Conservation Covenant. 10. Taxes. Wlerti:prpetual maintenance is required by the Permit, Grantor shall pay before delinquency any and all taxes,/assessments, fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed by competent authority on Conservation Covenant Area and shall furnish the Grantee with satisfactory evidence of payment up, n request. 11. Assignment. Grantees w)ll fold this Conservation Covenant exclusively for conservation purposes. Grantee will not assign its rights ando-obligations under this Conservation Covenant except to a Community Development District(CDD)tp be established pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, over all or portions of the Conservation CovenanrArea)r another organization or entity qualified to hold such interests under the applicable state laws. Up¢n acceptance by Grantee of an assumption agreement provided by either a CDD or another organization o tIty qualified to hold such interests,Grantee shall be released of all obligations or liabilities set forth herein 12. Severability. If any provision of th go�pprise ation Covenant or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found to be invalid, the't rnai der of the provisions of this Conservation Covenant shall not be affected thereby,as long as the pure. of the Conservation Covenant is preserved. 13. Terms and Restrictions. Grantor shall 4n> t(the terms and restrictions of this Conservation Covenant(or incorporate the terms and restrictions by reference)in any subsequent deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in, he Conservation Covenant. 14. Written Notice.All notices, consents, approvals or other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if sent by United ?tates'icertified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party or successor-in-interest. ,1 - 15. Modifications. This Conservation Covenant may be a enele,,J� altered, released, or revoked only by written agreement between the parties hereto or .tt5eir\heirs, assigns, or successors-in-interest,which shall be filed in the public records in Collier Count ,Flo a. 16. Recordation. Grantor shall record this Conservation Covenant in ti ely fashion in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida,and shall rerecord it at any time Grantee mayregtire to preserve its rights. Grantor shall pay all recording costs and taxes necessary to record this Conservation Covenant in the public records. Grantor will hold Grantee harmless from any recording costs or taxes necessary to record this Conservation Covenant in the public records. 17. Performance Assurance. Grantor at Grantor's sole cost and expense shall obtain a bond or other performance assurance in a form reasonably acceptable to Grantee,in an amount sufficient to remediate the Conservation Covenant Area consistent with the obligations under the Permit or Preserve Management Plan, together with sufficient funds to pay for the required future maintenance as may be required by the Preserve Management Plan. 18. This Conservation Covenant runs with the Property. The covenants, conditions, Page 4 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1355 restrictions and other provisions of this Conservation Covenant shall run with the land and bind the Property (the Conservation Covenant Area) and shall inure to the benefit of and enforceable by Grantee for a term of thirty(30)years from the date this Conservation Covenant is recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, after which time these provisions shall automatically be extended for successive ten(10)years. Any time after the initial thirty(30)year period provided for in this Section, these provisions may be terminated or modified in whole Or in part by the recording of a written instrument providing for the term or modification executed by G"iantor,,.,,�-_rantee and Third-Party Beneficiaries,or either of their successors or assigns. TO HAVEANDTO HOLD unto Grantee forever. The covenants,terms, conditions, restrictions,and purposes imposed with .Conservation Covenant shall be binding upon Grantor and shall continue as a servitude running with-the C'o servation Covenant Area. --r Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said Conservation Covenant Area in fee simple;that the Conservation Covenant is free and clear of all encumbrances that are inconsistent with the terms of this Conservation,C`ovenant;all mortgages and liens on the Conservation Covenant Area, if any, have been subordinated to tpis Conservation Covenant;that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to convey this Conservation Covenant and that it hereby fully warrants and defends record title to the Conservation Covenant Area hereby,conve,y ed against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FC Preioerve, LLC has hereunto set its authorized hand this (''day of November 022. , FCC P rve, L �- l�C, Flori a ' ited liability ,ebmy, By. V Name:A brey J. Ferr o Title: President/Manager and not individually ,: ii"'?,;. :,' r;, \ Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence as witnesseit: Y By: C • ( ignature) '',\ ( ignature) Name: J0k l/rsi Name J4't( �/Ykk-a (Print) .,,;. ` (Print) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER r � .``4 On this I S,day of November, 2022, before me, the unders ne-d. notary public, personally appeared by means ofphysical presence or ❑ online notarization, AubrevFerrao, the person who subscribed to the foregoing instrument, as the President/Manager (title), of FCC Preserve, LLC, ❑ (corporation), a Florida corporation, or X❑ Florida limited liability con1partv.J(choose one) and acknowledged that he/she executed the same on behalf of said , o 'r►it liabilit company(choose one)and that he/she was duly authorized to do o. e e is personally known to or has produced a (state)driver's licens . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA (Signat r , A I •�'jr"iey`,.., JOSEPH LIVIO PARISI it% / ' ' `f' Notary PubUc State of Fbrlda J� Gt r/s/ z" Commission M HH 318808(Name) , `•'For n- My Comm.Expires Oct 3,2026 My Commission Expires. /0 73114 2.6. I Bonded through National Notary Assn. Page 5 of 5 OR 6187 PG 1356 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY/CONSERVATION COVENANT AREA , ,.. 7-, %.1 • . • r.) •:', - ,,,\ ,,, ,,,,-A r) 0 z rn r Oo V PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 0 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS w FOLLOWS: `^ V COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID SECTION 29, SOUTH 00'44'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 242.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; 0 THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST UNE. SOUTH 00'44'45' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,384.49 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 9000'00" WEST, NOTES: . ::., "`^.-..� W A DISTANCE OF 335.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75'12'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON figE ATE PLANE U 627.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'00'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 166.00 FEET; COORDINATE STSI1_M ESTABUSHED BY THE NATIONAL GEODETIC I THENCE SOUTH 90'00'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 628.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH SURVEY FOR FLORIDA EAST ZONE,`,1983'`DATUM WITH 2011 41 7512'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 812.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'00'00" WEST, ADJUSTMENT OBTAINED UTIUZING RTK GP5 OBSERVATIONS ON THE co A DISTANCE OF 104.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'47'29" WEST, A DISTANCE OF FOOT NETWORK AND REFER TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 29, 635.93 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE WESTERLY TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA i 107.00 EEEI ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 310.00 AS BONG S 00'44'45"E. cc FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'46'34", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 79'54'12' ' ry y WEST, A DISTANCE OF 106.47 FEET); THENCE NORTH 70'00'55" WEST, A 2. DIMENSIONS SHOWN'HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET AND DISTANCE OF 1,544.53 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE DECIMAyLS,THEREOF.'' N NORTHWI_SII.RLY 376.84 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 310.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69'38'58", (CHORD BEARING 3 iy ,AND DESCRIPTION IS VALID WITHOUT THE o ORMINAL\SIGNATURE AND SEAL OR THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE AND I~ NORTH 35'11'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 354.06 FEET); THENCE NORTH DIGITAL SEAL OF A LICENSED FLORIDA SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. NO U 00'21'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 160.80 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE .,ADORIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION ARE in NORTH UNE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH UNE SOUTH PERMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE 89'26'01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.02 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH `y 'SIGNING PARTY. 0 UNE SOUTH 00'21'57" EAST, A DISTANCE Of 178.36 FEET TO A POINT OM,A it CURVE TO THE LEFT;THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 194.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF, 2 SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE'OF'",,;' v 69'36'56", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 35'11'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF '182.74 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 70'00'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,54453 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE EASTERLY 55.23 FEET ALONG THE NOTcoMP�EE o ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET,A.CENTRAL-ANGLE OF SWEETS 1-2 OF r 19'46'34", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 79'54'12" EAST1.A DISTANCE OF 54.95 DRAWN BY: AH I FEET); THENCE SOUTH 89'47'29" EAST,A DISTANCE•,OF 1,548.90 FEET; THENCE DL3 NORTH 00'12'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 605.00 FEETs,TH'E10E SOUTH 89'47'29' CHECKED BY: h EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,422.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. JOB CODE: FC2BPD v CONTAINING 57.94 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, scALF: NIA N _ DATE 10/182022 }, ,...— FILE: 18-56-CE-0 0: ' 'NOT A SURVEY` SHEET: 1 of 2 y SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION 1, O.Grady Minor and Asaociatcs,P.A. W IEI GradyMinor 3800 Via Del Rey DECLARATION OF CONSERVATION COVENANTS #a£rn llysignedny a Bonita Springs.Florida 34134 AREA"D" 'Donald L.Sdnteney 4, 11L GSM . Date:2022.1011 Civil Engineers " Land Surveyors " Planners . Landscape Architects LYING IN --=- 13:1a33-04'0" Cart.urAUN.ED 0005151 Cert.ofAuU.LB 0005151 Business LC 26000206 SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 27 EAST rowan.sounraor A P.C,i il Bonita Springs:239.947.1144 a ww.GradyMinor.coin Fort Myers:239.890.4380 COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA IL LCR'5 16337 FOR77E RR/ G 0 73 01 Hr co AUTO RANCH RD v (OR FG z488)I L�L PG R 149a ANAL- NE C661, AR Lp ) 1- NORTH LINE OF SECTION 29 �� w _ __ ___ ___—___ ___—___ to V) J � m J I w z S 89'47'29- E 1422.66' F U C. (CR 2728,PC 1435) w w AREA'C" `FOB I S8947290 " ;. t435 �- wC7 N 894T29"W � �- �l k 835.13' - PREA'b" z •F 0 e IS N 7e5T122s•W1 c :: o m 5 z N 7-6:1\ \ ,,s 90'00'00"W 2 I I (OR vza PG 14s) `, ,-•'. 62aso' 0 0 250' S00' 1000' il N 751?'2s• 827 W LU in SCALE: 1" = 500' -N- -50' L2 OQ THIS PLAN MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR i; 2 REDUCED FROM INTENDED DISPLAY SCALE 11 FOR REPRODUCTION REASONS LINE TABLE 2 UNEi BEARING DISTANCE 2 CURVE TABLE 11 5 044'45'E 242.40' 0•\ CURSE(! RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH 12 'S 9000'00•W 335.36' Q ,"-' L3 N O'00'00•W 18600' Cl 310.00' 107.00' 19'46'34" N 7954'12"W 106.47' I LEGEND . C2 310.00' 375.84' 69'38'58• N 3511'26•W 354.06' L4 N croo'00•w 104.1T ,0 POC POINT'OF CO6A4DICO4ENr Cl 160.00' 19450' 59139'58' 5 3511'26'E 182.74' P08 POIM OF BEGIMNNG .._ Ls N 021'57"W 180.80' m C4 160.00' 55.23' 1946'34• S 79'54'12'E 54.95' OR RECORDS RECO Bog( `,'. f �. L6 S 8426'01•E 150.02' N PG PAGE(S) , • •''l L7 5 0'21'57•E 178.36' *NOT COMPLETE WIINOUT % SHEETS 1-2 OF 2• Ln Iiii SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY: Ali0.Grady Minor end Associates.P.A. W CHECKED BY: DLS L 113 GradyMinor 3800 Yla Del Roy DECLARATION OF CONSERVATION COVENANTS JOB CODE: FC29P0 cc Bonita Springs.Florida 34134 AREA"D" D 2 80 SCALE: 11.600'f Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects LYING IN ¢ DATE: 10/18/2022 Cart„of Auth.Ell 0005151 Cert.of Pad.LB 0005151 Business LC 26000268 N- SECTION 29,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 27 EAST O FILE: 18 56-0E-0 vl Bonita Springs:239.947.1144 www.GradyMInor.com Fort Myers:239.690.4380 COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA Z SHEET: 2 of 2 CD OR 6187 pm 1359 EXHIBIT OFFSITE PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ESTANC|A AND OYSTER HARBOR Novamber2O16 - OR 6187 PG 1360 OFF-SITE PRESERVE ,.. i .,.. - - ANAGEMENT PLAN , , \ ESTAN A( ND OYSTER HARBOR :. , ,.:- ,,,,‘,. . .., .,), Nov -2016 k .-' C't ' Prepared by: )*444 TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES,FL 34104 OR 6187 PG 1361 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the proposed management plan for the off-site preserve areas ass ciated with the FCC Creek,LLC and Oyster Harbor LLC projects. This includes the Es a cta and eastern phase of the Oyster Harbor development within the existing Fiddler's Creek��,,svelo ment. The property is located at the southwestern corner of a larger agricultural area'east-of he CR951 and US 41 intersection. This preserve area is meant to be set aside and maintainede aspanther habitat. The preserve area is located immediately south of the Estancia subdivision in Sections 19 and 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East. These properties are located at the southern terminus of Auto Ranch Road and encompass Collier County folio numbers 00763920100, 00763920003, and 00774960007,totaling approximately 606.83 acres. There is limited access to the eastern portion of the preserve from Auto Ranch Road,however the majority of the preserve is relatively inaccessible due to the location of,tle sprrounding forested areas and existing stormwater canals. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS i- ,, The proposed off-site preserve area is C9,mposeid of 142.89 acres of wet pasture, 369.83 acres of pine and hardwood/pine forest,28.25 acre Of cypress, and 50.7 acres of marsh and prairie. All of the habitats have been infested with varngfil egsees of exotic vegetation(25—90%),mainly Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolia),m aleu, (Melaleuca quinquenervia),and earleaf acacia(Acacia auriculiformis). Southern cattaiJTyplta;domingensis)has established in the marsh areas. .." )'fi-. Existing agricultural operations pump excess water florp the`farm fields into this preserve area. The proposed development will eliminate this pumping and'will establish a more natural sheet flow hydrology to the preserve via the Marsh Enhancer ntliuffg r Spreader Swale("Creek") that will be constructed around the entire development and whi,efi will buffer the development from the preserve. 3.0 EXOTIC REMOVAL ACTIVITIES i. `, r Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia infestation is rampant throughout.th 1reserve area and an extensive eradication program will be implemented to eliminate these no ibis lants. This program will include hand clearing kill-in-place methods within the preserve: /cause of limited access to the preserve as well as potential destruction of groundcover vegetation and likely rutting of the ground by machinery,no mechanical clearing is currently propeged. All exotic and nuisance vegetation will be killed in place either by cutting material down or by chemical applications to the trunks. In addition to the species listed above,all Category I and II exotics, as defined by the Florida Pest Plant Council,will be included in this eradication program. Initially,quarterly maintenance inspections and treatments will be necessary to eliminate the exotic species that have already gained a stronghold within the preserve. Once removal efforts OR 6187 PG 1362 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 have been successful,annual maintenance treatments should be sufficient to control future exotic growth. The preserve will be exotic free immediately following a maintenance activity. At no time shall the density of exotic vegetation and nuisance plant species exceed 20%relative coverage in any vegetative strata or 25%of the relative coverage in all strata. SuccI C,ieria Vegetation.. ) ,. The vegetation restoration titforts shall be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum of 80%coverage of nati'v'e`vgetation,with less than 20%exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years. Ground cover diversity has be9ri limited by the exotic infestation throughout the site. It is expected that species diversi0 will increase as the exotic vegetation is removed. Monitoring of the preserves will include species orniosition and diversity monitoring to document this increase. Once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free(less than 20%)for a period of 3 years, the land will be offered to the State of '1 rida for inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the Park take over ownership of thepr serve land,it would be added to the Park's land management plan, to be managed by the park in pe.Oetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donation of the land to the park, a Conseervan Easement to Collier County will be placed over the preserve acreage and the land wI'bemanaged by the Community Development District(CDD)which will be established for the Ettapcia.community in perpetuity. 4.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE The goals and objectives of this monitoring plan will belo pf vt e for ongoing progress and ultimate success of the preserved land in a series of scheduled onitoring reports. The reports will quantify and describe conditions within the preserve, comparing observations with the proposed standards and offering advice for corrective actions if n6de4. In areas of heavy vegetation,a visual inspection for plant invasion wi11be made and all exotic vegetation found will be flagged,mapped and reported for treatment. Mndering transects will be followed within the preserve for vegetative inventory and observation i°wi dlife during regular monitoring. Photo points will be established along with plot sampling'st` tions to determine percent survival and percent coverage of planted and recruited plant species. Transect and plot stations locations will be determined at time zero, after the initial exoti eradication has occurred. The exotic eradication efforts will be deemed successful when the area contains a minimum of 80%coverage of native vegetation,with less than 20%exotic and nuisance vegetation for a period of 3 years as well as meeting the other success criteria outlined above. The preserve will be maintained in this exotic-maintained state in perpetuity. OR 6187 PG 1363 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Reports A Baseline Monitoring Report will describe the existing conditions of the preserve prior to exotic eradication. The Time Zero Monitoring Report will describe the aerial extent of exotic removal and other activities,i.e.revegetation,photographs from the referenced locations, qualitative observations of wildlife usage and other information such as climatic and hydrological conditions and lfeatlrafthe existing vegetation. The Time Zero Report will be completed within 30 days of the completi of initial exotic removal work. Annual Monitoring reports shall document changes`f " the baseline conditions,the success of exotic eradications, and will identify ways to maintairforimprove these conditions. Baseline,Time Zero and Annua ' eports will include the following: • Quantification of any e-growth of exotic species and recommendations for remedial actions. r 's • Quantification of restoration)) cleared areas by native species including dominant species and%cover by species:`;• Percent coverage,open space ard'diyersity as appropriate of restored vegetation. • Direct and indirect wildlife obse tionp. • Photographs from a referenced loca on and panoramic photographs. A photo point station will be identified with PVC''labb le ed stakes. • Current status of the exotic removal as well j. regeneration of the native vegetation throughout the preserve area. .ram` ) '` 2, 5.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT , ' .;1 f ie Conservation Easement As stated above,the intent of this management plan in the long term is.to donate the land to the State. As such,no conservation easement will initially be placed(oa tI4 land to facilitate this eventual transfer. In the event the State does not accept the land onee,the exotic eradication activities are deemed successful,then a conservation easement will be plat d.over the preserve within 60 days of the State's notification not to accept the property. `Thetopservation Easement will be to Collier County with third party enforcement rights granted to the US, WS. 1_ Funding An escrow account will be established that will provide a funding mechanism for the long term maintenance and management of the preserve. Placement of funds into the account will occur prior to the start of construction of the Estancia development project. This account will transfer to the Friends of Collier Seminole State Park when the property is given to the state or to the CDD if the State refuses to accept the property. The amount of funding has yet to be determined but will be sufficient to create a non-wasting reserve which will generate returns sufficient for the maintenance activities necessary to keep the preserve exotic free. OR 6187 PG 1364 Estancia and Oyster Harbor Off-site Preserve Management Plan November 2016 Maintenance As stated above,once the preserve area has been maintained exotic free for a period of 3 years, the land will be offered to the State of Florida for inclusion in the Collier Seminole State Park. Should the Pary t2kes over ownership of the preserve land, it would be added to the Park's land management'plan, 6'be managed by the park in perpetuity. In the event that the State does not accept donationfofh e:land to the park,the land will be managed in perpetuity by the Community Development Disttt j DD)which will be established for the Estancia community. i I' 1 Y`(, OR 6187 PG 1365 I LH: - 1s OYSTER ..t v j HARBOR , ' 4 SITE P.i i �, 0 r000 2000 4001 • ' • - &ACE 9N 7M.CTS ,1; SITE •. , • 1 a . I • „ ilk - —� I r• 1473ac - ;. ,. I I 1:— ..1_ 20ac ,, t1; ;L' 1 ......,,::: �. t' e;eA CT- N h ti! _..i:. 1 111 I ,: ,L 1 i :. 7.20 ac- I1 I Il 14 ' .t� 11 137.90 ac 1'38.29 ac % � 149.61 ac �"/ POTENTIAL PRESERVES �... j//.//.//-:.. .. �.,,,� 182.03 ac — ;,\� 1-INTERNAL PRESERVES 37.41 ac F'::•':i 2-FALLOW TRIANGLE 7.20 ac /�3-SECTIONS 19&29 FORESTED 458.22 ac J 4-SECTION 29 PASTURE 149.61 ac _1 Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. DESIGNED © REVISION ®0 � ••� � FIDDLERS CREEK•ESTANCIA&OYSTER HARBOR �� N/A I/ Marine&Environmental Consulting IMM N/A =EOM� 3584 Exchange Ave.Suite B.Naples,FL34104-3732 PRESERVE EXHIBIT ®13052 N/A Email:hma@Nrtel9-xssociates.eom Phone:(239)643-0166 Fax:(239)643-6632 SECTION-18819TOWNSHIP-50S RANGE-27E Best Available Image + + + l+r " Iv a. aa� 1 1 - I 1 1 I A I41i h 4 1 i _ !.. rn 1 f loll V 1 1 d 1 I AI 1 �_ 1I � 1)i N 1-", klLK7.l..r6.l.s -I. 1 '1 1V a I. 7,1v4 �, 7r,1',t r��-•-•.,,-d-',•-.4: f y lrl Il �qA f ,,r�l:I,1'I1Ilr ,i1� F, ,r1 Fit; LERS CREEK'-ESTANCIA �i .1..', 1It1 I iy�� n f Tii'�, I. fll I'la' t W 6��,._ 1; ;r1li11 I I',, 0 1,200 2,aoo Icn 1I I I II a �_ 1 Feet : \ �..w. . e . ,4 (\t:(. (') ' ''' \ • i .-_--.--',- \ i ` ., ;1.-i .d!i, I-�11, i•9 A ..,...Aif vd 1 L111...IL f ,i-1 Q- eig iriPtilif, U .ci. "'.r1 N PROPOSED PRESERVE BOUNDARY 4 W CD ID DESCRIPTION ACRES VI 1 MARSH PRARIE 50.70 rF 2 SCRUB 15,16 D 3 CYPRESS 28.25 12111O 4 >y 4 MIXED PINE&HARDWOOD 369.83 1 5 PASTURE 142.89 PI TOTAL t 606.83 Cr J tO PROPOSED PRESERVE BOUNDARY H su DRAWN BY RMI REVISION SCALE I I'-lleo' YL IUEEel,Hall&Assodate�Inc CREATED: 12-01-16 NIA }7LE PATH' CD Mame&Envronmenhd Consulting FIDDLERS CREEK-ESTANCIA&OYSTER HARBOR JOB so I30s 2 N/A ,,, 27Fl�r�m 1 Iiga&d,nge Ave SHBB.Naples,FL 3 41043 73 2 FLUCCS MAP SHEET el N/A Erns]tweitmllassuanks.com 14x:(239)643-0165 Fa I239)643.6612 SECTION-I8&19 TOWNSHIP-50S RANGE-27E EN OF u.s. T SERV ICE United States Department of the Interior us '� u A r l O FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE s i 41 q� A9 Florida Ecological Services Field Office January 31, 2024 Project Code 2022-0067532 Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Dear Mr. Hall, We received your cover letter and request to modify the Biological Assessment for the Fiddler's Creek Oyster Harbor East and Estancia project dated May 2, 2023. Your request is related to a 2017 Biological Opinion issued in conjunction with Endangered Species Act consultation on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)permit allowing development of a residential/golf course community at Estancia/Oyster Harbor within the existing Fiddler's Creek development in Naples,Florida. During our analysis of the effects of the Corps' action to issue the permit at issue, you proposed to preserve 606.8 acres of off-site lands as partial compensation for impacts to Florida panther habitat, which we accepted, and which became a term and condition of the 2017 Biological Opinion. You now request that we modify that term to release 57 acres from the preserved area. We are unable to process the modification for the following reasons: Modifying the terms and conditions of the 2017 Biological Opinion to release the requested 57 acres is not consistent with our responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Most importantly, while the request presents the change as"Minor Project Modification,"the 57 acres proposed to be removed from the conservation covenant and used for development are of high ecological value to several species including Florida panthers, Florida bonneted bats, and American crocodiles. This acreage also protects the watershed of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. The value to Florida panthers alone is especially significant, as indicated by panther telemetry data showing the area is used by panthers and provides an important travel corridor(Attachment 1). Because the 57 acres requested to be released are situated near the center of the full 606.8 acres designated for protection, the habitat fragmentation effect is larger than just 57 acres. Developing 57 acres in the center of the protected area severely compromises the entire area as a corridor and habitat for panthers. One of the most significant threats to Florida panthers is habitat loss and fragmentation(Murrow et al. 2012). As forested lands become increasingly patchy, their value to panthers' declines (Maehr and Cox 1995,Meegan and Maehr 2002). As such,preserving the continuity of panther habitat is integral to panther conservation and recovery. When we reviewed the original project and conducted our Jeopardy analysis for panthers, protection of the full 606.8 acres was a factor leading to the non-Jeopardy determination. For this reason,protection of the full 606.8 acres became a term and condition in the 2017 Biological Opinion and was deemed necessary to partially minimize the impacts of the action. 7915 BAYMEADOWS WAY,#200 1601 BALBOA AVENUE 777 37"ST SUITE D-101 JACKSONVILLE,FL 32256 PANAMA CITY,FL 32405 VERO BEACH,FL 32960 (352)-I48-9151 (352)448-9151 (352)448-9151 Page 2 Additionally,the area proposed for release from the conservation covenant falls within the range of the American crocodile, and there are known nesting sites in the vicinity. Crocodiles in this area successfully reproduced in 2020. This is the first known location of crocodile reproduction on the west coast of Florida (Bertone et al. 2023) and represents a potential for range expansion for this species. Development within this area may hinder the recovery of the American crocodile. Finally, the Corps' permit was the Federal action subject to section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act;however, that permit has now expired. There is no ongoing discretion for the purposes of reinitiating consultation as articulated in 50 C.F.R. 402.16(a). Therefore, modifying the project and the Biological Assessment in the context of the original Corps permit is not possible. Furthermore,as stated above,preservation of the full 606.8 acres was a non- discretionary term and condition in the 2017 Biological Opinion to minimize impacts to Florida panther habitat as a result of the Project. Removing 57 acres from the center of one of the preserved parcels is likely to significantly undermine the conservation value of the whole for the Florida panther. For the above reasons we are unable to process the modification you have requested. Thank you for your cooperation and effort in protecting federally listed species and fish and wildlife resources. If you have any questions regarding this project,please contact the Service by sending an email to FW4FLESRegs@fws.gov. Sincerely, ROBERT Digitally signed by ROBERT CAREY CAREY Date:2024.03.07 11:20:12-O5'00' Robert L. Carey Manager, Division of Environmental Review Florida Ecological Services Office, Gainesville Enclosures cc: electronic w/enclosures Turrell Hall &Associates,Naples, Florida(Timothy Hall) Service, Vero Beach, Florida(Larry Williams) Page 3 Literature Cited Bertone, S., A. Godahewa, S. Balaguera-Reina,V. Briggs-Gonzalez, and F. Mazzotti. 2023. First successful nest for the vulnerable American crocodile Crocodylus acutus population on the west coast of Florida, USA. Oryx 57(3):389-391. https://doi.org/10.1017/50030605322001119 Maehr, D.S., and J.A. Cox. 1995. Landscape features and panthers in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:1008-1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00286.x-il Meegan, R.P and D.S. Maehr. 2002. Landscape conservation and regional planning for the Florida panther. Southeastern Naturalist 1(3):217-232. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528- 7092(2002)001[0217:LCARPFP.O.00;2 Murrow, J.L., C.A. Thatcher, F.T. Manen, and J.D. Clark. 2012. A data-based conservation planning tool for Florida panthers. Environmental Modeling&Assessment 18:159-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-012-9336-0 FIDDLERS CREEK _...... _ , _ . . . .._ , . _ . ,.. ., - , 4 1 \ ,e' ifit,. e, ' . • _ - N ._ .16r)Rookery a - . . - / Marco .......-'“Ili/ ''' J'4,. as -•-...-4. 411T- I 1 I , r 0 A 4,. 4, "sic 4— - P ist 08 )1,.. l' ... •i 083 . 414,.• .."'The(P:07Club at ..j_. 0 ' Fiddlers creek ' • 4 fa')i ) IA 0 -- 0 '4,, 0 0 00 ° ° ... . • . . .. . Cb 00 0 ' •14. .. .'''-'..0 o°)•-0 0cg o 00 0•--•I?•;1,-•....09,•''','V,.7I) ---' ig ul.i•z.t ea:la1‘b1m% ,t 4- ,0Cot2 z 00 0 C 0 08° 0 - Cb0 8 0 00 0 O , 0o 0 .js ' , . , ..., 0 0 , LI a7. iesii"...t4, .2_,E...._ , 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or - . o -0 1 ..,.„ .-0, • 8 ot30c.) up Be) % 0 00 0d2:0 8 LEGEND .t ..' , 000 0"- • ,-, •;.-, Op' cb 0 0 o • • s_,...'• • •410/. .o (-1 -, 0 0 0 Panther Number L_ • I:0 ., - 0 . - • ' 49 oo • FP030 ' 0 .•• - NO ' k- .. ''. .• . ._ o Po '''. •Q.,'-. •0 ° C9*°ibe „ , -"'"•• ' x. ' -•-• cp. C2)00 0' 00 0.4011 61 FP044 0 ' • 14r1V- ',. • FP146 -" ^ - - C... '. ° 0 4, ' .. . 'q0 =040(28)is qi o • FP147 no, .• ' . . o 0 , , 0 _0 ,., 1• , ,,..,,,,. . , - -. . • • FP158 - -- 0 FP181 S• ,s -, •a. , . • .. se` • FP193 e .-..,,-..., - .1• _,, • FP238 i • " • ..- - or- 0 • f '.. , . - - . ' .:L•e" .; ' le ' Preserve Boundary -`F-,-- a.' ' ' . . ' !'ti'..-- li. • -"--t' ' • •-' -l''' 1 Cl.,ok .:- ,ir ..,- ,,,...' r'71 Proposed Area for Removal ',:', ..-.., :'- • IA - ir -'• .: .r. - ,'. - . -..., ,t. ,,,40-_-" ],...,-:,,, .- • t.:-/".••••1 e, --- - * ' ,..-- ",7-4-.---..-- -' ) , %-('''' -. t ' t ' e , ;'--t't- -1. , . _ - Primary Panther Zone 'eg . . .-' - le 4‘ . , _, :„....„ .. -. . . ., 2 i i - .4'".,'''''-. :•-;•S . 4t:' -., *. ' - - : 1 .. l',.... ..., ,,• I , '• •' ..,1---' .i*.. • ".'s .. I Secondary Panther Zone -;...0- , *-- ". '01'- `:t-, 7.....-.. -.14".....:=..' ....e - , s . .._ . _ 7 ,• • - s ,, 1....„ ., . - ..„,.., ._ 0 0 25 0 5 1 1 5 2 Miles