Resolution 2008-218
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - --2.l8
17D
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN EARTH MINING OPERATION
IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH MOBILE HOME
OVERLA Y (A-MHO) ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO
BE KNOWN AS HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED OFF IMMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTIONS 9, 10, IS,
16,21, AND 22, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing
regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the
granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a conditional use
for an earth mining operation in the Rural Agricultural with Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)
Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0 I.A.I.c.I. of the Collier County Land Development
Code on the property hereinafter described, to be known as Hogan Island Quarry, and the Collier
County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory
provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said
regulations and in accordance with Subsection I 0.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Page lof2
17D
The petition filed by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RW A Consulting, Inc., representing
Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter descrihed in Exhibit
"B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, be and the same is hereby approved
for a Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District
for an earth-mining operation for a project to be known as the Hogan Island Quarry, in
accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C"), subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "D," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
"Su.I,!
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this J,J. day of
,2008.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER UNTY, LOR IDA
.
~~o~G~
Aftestt1 t6~1l~V~Y CLERK
sf'lNtu~e ',y(\f:,~'i
,. .
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRM
. .
Approved :v; If? term
and legal sufficiency:
O1l(J~A , ~ - on . /1t j j "f..4J: -j)t{1.D.~~
Marjori tudent-Stirling l
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Findings of Fact
Legal Description
Conceptual Plan
Conditions of Approval
Item #
11-"1
Page 2 of 2
Agenda tJLl~-,I~
[,law _~'-O
D,lte, J Y:) I,'D
Reed ~lv
^ / ~&-&
~Ierk
CU-2007-AR-l 0805/MMSS (5/23/08)
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
170
CU-2006-AR-10805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.0 I.A.l.c.1 of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes / No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of tire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes / No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or ~ffect mitigated by <text> t1ripu/o1J W
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes /No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE: (, - )' - 08
CIIAIRMAN ~ tiJJrc'o>
EXHIBIT A
17D
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-10805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.0 1.A.l.c.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because 0 f:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
VNo
Yes
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of tire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
V
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or L Affect mitigated by <text>
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes ,,/ No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE:
"-5'- 0 Y
MEMBER:
1: /~itT
,
17D
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.01.A.l.c.1 ofthe Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes'; No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress /
Yes I No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
~ No affect or ~ffect mitigated by <text> ~/M
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within distiict '
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, withiJtip
. ,
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>. I
DATE: tJ;4t MEMBER: I
/
I
lations, (copy attached)
17D
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
I. Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.I of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because 0 f:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes V No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes~ No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
--J,f No affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text>
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
YesL No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE: L I "'-
I
( 0 ~
,
'--.
MEMBER: (
17D
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.01.A.l.c.I ofthe Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes / No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes / No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects: N.:>/:>" 1 LIG NT (c,t..;t."',,) -
No affect or /Affectmitigatedby<text> &,f'Sr f(1.."""'lI'~S <<-'1I1rTln>-
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes / No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE: &-')" -o~
MEMBER:
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
17D
CU-2006-AR-10805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.I of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes~ No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yesk No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
~No affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text>
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes I(. No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipul~, (copy
::::d": ;;z-wed fo"ppw~ <':MB6
170
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
I. Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.I of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because 0 f:
A.
Consistency with the Land 7pment Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes U No
B.
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
c.
Adequate ingress & egress //
Yes / No
Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects: /
/
/ No affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text>
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes /' No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE:
6'- 5~ ~ oF'
--r?
MEMBER: L-~'2~/7r
I
17D
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
I. Section 2.03.0 1.A.I.c.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because 0 f:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes~ No_
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes~ No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
~ No affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text>
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes L No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with s pulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE: at~€ '5 aDD
MEMBER:
(!,t(OIJ ")q.lWr:I:L.
\
\
\1,
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
17D
CU-2006-AR-I0805
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.03.01.A.l.c.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will
not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because 0 f:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes I No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes vi No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
_ No affect or /Affect mitigated by <text> LvrrH JrlfiftJ..-lfJ7tJJJJ
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes j
No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval <text>.
DATE: U~I02
I I
MEMBER: Mi-nF1'("" '---!0..,ld ~
170
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY LOCATION
5ection(s)/TownshipfRonge 9. 10.15. 16.21. & 22 / 47 / 28
Lot: Block:
Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property 1.0.#: 00114600008: 00114320100:
00114560009:00114360005:00114040105.00114320003.00114080000&00114080107
Metes & Bounds Description:
Refer to survey. included with this submittal
SIZE OF PROPERTY: varies ft. X varies ft. = Total Sq. Ft.
967.65
ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Located east. north. and
south oeOil Well Grade Road. in Rural Collier County, approximatelv one mile north
ofImmokalee Road in Sections 9. 10. 15. 16.21. & 22. Township 47 South. Ranl!e 28
East. Collier County. Florida.
42.150.643.45 Acres
Exhibit "B"
~
I
II I I
I I'll l
! Ii II 1111
m"'!Ifi!@"~ 1
lJJ ll~i ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ i lit
: "
q i:
!I ! 1I1~
II I I, !; I
!lul
j ~- "
! 11- ~ :11 7l
" ~
~~ II
,"
~ i llci
~ II .
" ~I ~8 II e
~ 81 ..
I i . ; . ~~ ,:
!! ~ i '" , , ~ ~
~ [Ii 1 , ,,~ I.
w S 00 8
z " ~ i I II il
::J !! ~....,,;':/"" ~
, ~:;;...-Y I~ I
~ G ",""
~~~ ~ ~........:;..--/' ~!.. l nnl~~1
--.: y/ I!iil'
--.:--.: ~/,y QII
__::;,..- 9l~ \\ gin Ii
" , ~ I
"
"
"
" I I
"
"
"
"
"
"
~
\
~
Il
, ~
I ~ ~~
d
! ~
,15
~ ~
'"
"
ad
~-
~I
~'
'R'
,~ii
"
i
I '
-'
ill
JI
~I
~
bii
r.1.
l!1I
II!~
.
~
Jf
~d6f
:<~~
~.~
~;;..
~~;
....8~
nil
II ; l
~I
!
~
~iHi~
~
l!
~. .
.
"I u
!i;. .
~I .
I 1:1' .....
...
",' .Q
wI ...
!lj .Cl
" ~
"" ~
~I
.
1
I
I
i
!
, I
I
,
,
,
-----
"'"""""'"
-....
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Hogan Island Quarry
CD -2006-AR-I0805
17n
Planninl!
1. There shall be no asphaltic batch plant use.
2. The Conditional Use to allow construction materials mining shall be limited to that which is
depicted on the conceptual site plan, identified as the "Hogan Island Quarry Conceptual
Conditional Use Plan" dated June 2006, a 9 page plan, prepared by RW A Consulting, Inc.
3. Excavation shall be limited to the 3 or fewer proposed lakes (consisting of 7 mining cells
comprising 700 acres) for limestone and sand mining totaling no more than 740 acres of
excavated area (post construction) as permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP).
4. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must
be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations. The
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor changes in
the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this
conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all applicable
development standards.
5. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application,
and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal,
including Chapter 10.02.03, Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval, of the Collier
County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended.
Environmental Services
I. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
Policy 5.6.3.f. of the Future land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. If agency
permits have not provided for wetland mitigation consistent with this Policy, Collier County
will require mitigation consistent with this Policy.
2. During the review of the site development plan, the wetland line approved by the Rorida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be delineated on the site plan.
3. Restoration planting plan and conservation easement approval for on-site and off-site preserves
shall be required prior to approval of the excavation permit or development order prior.
Recording of the conservation easement shall be required within 90 days of first development
order approval.
4. The applicant shall obtain and prepare excavation permit construction drawings consistent with,
written Technical Assistance from US Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission prior to issuance of the excavation permit.
CU-2006-AR-I0805
7frmjJp-
ATTACHMENT D
17n
5. Littoral shelves for wading birds shall be constructed around areas designated "OM-I" and
"OM-2 in addition to those shown on the site plan.
6. Each well within the excavation area shall be plugged pursuant to state regulations below the
excavation level prior to excavation in the immediate area.
7. There shall be no dewatering for excavation purposes.
8. Excavation depths shall not exceed 40 feet or the uppermost level of the confining layer,
whichever is less.
9. No explosive charges which contain diesel fuel shall be used including explosive products
containing benzene.
10. Blasting activities shall occur between lOam and 3pm, Monday through Friday. Blasting shall
be limited to one blast per day, or an average not to exceed three blasts per week. Blasting
after 3pm (but no later than 5pm) shall be permitted only if blasting during regular hours is
prevented or interrupted by adverse weather conditions such as electrical or thunderstorms.
11. The dust control plan attached as Appendix 1 hereto shall be implemented during the term of
the mining operations.
12. The easternmost boundary of the eastern excavation cell shall have a 350 foot setback from the
adjacent Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), and the easternmost boundary of the northeastern
cell shall have a 145 foot setback from the adjacent HSA.
13. The applicant shal] provide ]5 acres of littoral shelf with littoral plantings.
14. The applicant shall be subject to all commitments and/or conditions made on pages 27 through
31 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (dated March 20, 2008) and submitted as part
of this Conditional Use Application attached hereto as Appendix 2. Should the conditions or
stipulations set forth in the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) or other required permits
from State or federal jurisdictional agencies differ from pages 27 through 31 of the EIS, the
permit conditions shall take precedence.
TransDortation
I. The applicant shall provide a $ 1.00 payment, or other appropriate amount to be determined by
a future amendment to the Land Development Code or Code of Laws and Ordinances as the
case may be, for every loaded vehicle which exits the site. The payments shall be made
quarterly to Collier County.
2. The applicant shall be fully responsible for designing, permitting, and constructing both left
and right turn lanes at the project entrance on lmmokalee Road and a west bound acceleration
lane on lmmokalee Road per FOOT standards. An east bound acceleration lane or an
acceptable alternate improvement shall be identified and approved in coordination with
Transportation Planning Staff during the first year of operation of the quarry. The
improvement shall be identified prior to the submittal of the first annual monitoring report.
CU.2006-AR.I080S ATTACHMENT D
Construction of the improvement shall be completed prior to approval of the second annual
monitoring report.
17D
3. The applicant shall provide traffic monitoring reports every six months or alternatively may
install 2 permanent count stations per County standards when requested to do so by the County.
4. The County will perform annual random intersection analyses at Everglades Boulevard and
Immokalee Road in the first three years of operation and, if at such time the site generates trips
during the 3-year study period that exceed 40 left turning movements from Immokalee Road
onto Everglades Boulevard, then the applicant shall design, permit, and construct a westbound
to southbound left turn lane on Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard when requested to do
so by the County.
5. The County and applicant agree that any road plans (i.e., turn lanes, acceleration lanes and so
forth) shown in the Conditional Use application are conceptual. Final construction plans shall
be submitted through the right-of-way permit process and shall be subject to full review.
6. The applicant agrees to pay a fair share cost of a wildlife crossing on Immokalee Road in a
location to be determined most appropriate to benefit the Florida Panther and other species after
consultation with appropriate state and federal jurisdictional agencies. The fair share cost shall
be a percentage of the total cost of a wildlife crossing, not to exceed $20,000, based upon the
project's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) estimated total trips as compared to the County
approved service volume of the future 4 or 6-lane condition for Immokalee Road. Payment
shall be made within 90 days of request by Collier County Transportation Services Division,
but not later than the expiration of the Conditional Use application or approval, as the case may
be.
CU-2006-AR-I080S
A TIACHMENT D
17D
HOGAN ISLAND DUST CONTROL PLAN
Rinker Materials
The pnrpose of this plan is to control the fngitive dust emissions for the Hogan
Island Quarry.
In order to control the fugitive dust the following measures have been implemented.
1. A tire wash system will be installed to wash dust from the wheels and underbody
of all haul trucks exiting the facility. This system directs water under pressure at
the wheels and the underside of each vehicle as it passes through.
In the event the tire wash system is inoperahIe, frequency for cleaning the
pavement in and around the scales and exit will be increased.
2. Haul roads will be watered once every two hours by means of a 777B Caterpillar
Water Truck (12,000 gallons) with water cannon.
In the event of this truck being inoperable, haul roads will be watered by the
Mack Water Truck every 2 hours. If the 777B is determined to be down for an
extended period of time then an additional water truck will be rented.
3. The yard, pavement in and around the scales and the quarry entranced will be
swept with a Massey Ferguson tractor with a broom attachment and sprayed
with a Mack Water Truck (2,000 gallons) with sprayer nozzles and hose.
4. The acceleration lane will be swept with the tractor with a broom attachment
and sprayed with the water truck. This will be on an as needed basis.
5. Precision Cleaning will continue to be used in the evening after shipping hours
for the sweeping of the road. The following areas will be swept by Precision
Cleaning: 50 yards east of the quarry entrance, the acceleration lane, and 50
yards west of the acceleration lane.
If the above measures are not sufficient to control the fugitive dust, then the
frequency of items 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be increased to bring the dust in control.
APPt:0 j) 1)(
17D
HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY:
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREPARED FOR:
Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc.
1501 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
and
Barron Collier Companies 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
.,."."
1441 Maclay Commerce Drive
Suite 1 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
In Association with RWA, Inc.
NOVEMBER, 2006
Revised: April, 2007
Revised: January, 2008
March, 2008
>->~~
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
APP'='"lUlh. ~ L
17D'1
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (rev. 3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION.................... ....... ... ..... ... .......... .... ..... ... .... ... ... ...... .......... ... ..... .... ... .... ... ........3
B. MAPPING AND SUPPORT GRAPHiCS...................................................................................................5
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & GMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION..................................................10
D. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION ...............................................................................................21
E. WETLANDS. .......................... ....... ............. ...... ......... ............ ...................... .............. ........ ........... ........... ..24
F. SURFACE & GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................32
G. LISTED SPECiES.......... ........................... ....... .......... ..... .... ...................................... ....... ..................... .....35
H. OTHER.... ............ ........ .... ...................... ...... ........ ................ ........ ... ............... ....... ........... ..... ........ ............37
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Tables
Appendix B: Hogan Island Quarry: Existing Vegetation Associations (FLUCFCS) & Listed Species Survey
Appendix B1: Hogan Island Quarry, Audubon's Crested Caracara Survey Report
Appendix C: Attachments
Attachment 1. Water Quality Loading Analysis
Attachment 2. Hogan Island Quarry: Protection (Management) Plan lor American Alligators, Listed
Wading Birds, and Florida Sandhill Cranes
Attachment 3. Environmental Assessment Report for Hogan Island Property (on CD)
Attachment 3A. Drilled Oil Well Locations
Attachment 4. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Hogan Island Quarry (on CD)
Attachment 5. Letter lrom the Division of Historicai Resources Regarding Florida Master Site File
Search Performed for the Hogan Island Quarry Project
Attachment 6. Letter from the Slate Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Project's Impacts to
Cultural Resources
Attachment 7. County Sufficiency Review Comments & Responses
Attachment 8. FCW Letters
Appendix D: Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Location Map
Exhibit 2. Existing FLUCFCS & Wetlands
Exhibit 3. Existing Native Vegetation & Wetlands
Exhibit 4. Existing Topography & Drainage Patterns
Exhibit 5. Soils
Exhibit 6. Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 7. Native Vegetation & Wetland Impacts and Preserves
Exhibit 8. 1973 Aerial Photograph for Project Area
Exhibit 9. Of I-site Mitigation Areas: Existing & Proposed Conditions
Exhibit 10. Future Stewardship Sending Area & RLSA Overlays
Exhibit 11. RLSA Overlays in Project Area
Exhibit 12. Future Land Use
Exhibit 13. Listed Species Records
Exhibit 14. Listed Species Observed
Page 2 of 38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
i. Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his/her education and job related environmental
experience.
Primary Author of original document and first revision--
Clay Carithers; Senior Project Manager and Environmental Specialist with WilsonMiller, Inc.;
M.S. (Agronomy): 19 years of professional environmental consulting experience, 2.5 years experience as
Environmental Review Supervisor for Leon County; experience includes preparing numerous Environmental
Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, and similar environmental evaluations in accordance with
various federal, state, and local requirements as well as preparing and processing an array of applications
for various types of permits and authorizations (ex. water management district permits, DEP permits,
USACE permits, FWC incidental take permits, FWS take permits and biological opinions, DR Is, local
government permits/approvals).
Contributing Author of second and third revision--
Timothy Hall; Vice President and Senior Biologist with Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.;
B.S.F.R.C. (Wildlife Ecology), Post Baccalaureate Studies (Wetland Ecology); 20 years of professional
environmental experience. Previous work has included plant and animal species identification, habitat
assessments, wetland delineations, wildlife surveys, and wetland restoration. Over 10 years experience with
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for Collier County as well as Environmental Assessments,
Biological Assessments, and similar environmental evaluations in coordination with local, state, federal, and
international agencies.
Additional Contributors --
Emilio Robau, P.E.: Executive Vice President and Private Sector Director with RWA, Inc.
B.S. (Civil Engineering); Licensed professional engineer; 22 years experience in land planning and
stormwater management design; experience include preparation of an extensive array of design plans and
applications for various project permits and development approvals.
Allison Brickley, E.!.; Engineer in Training with RWA, Inc.
B.S. (Civil Engineering); 2 years experience in civil engineering projects including stormwater management
design, water quality analyses, etc.
Bob Mulhere, A.!.C.P.: Vice President and Director of Planning with RWA, Inc.
M.S. (Public Administration), B.A. (Political Science): 18 years of professional planning experience in
southwest Florida: background includes serving as the Planning Director for Collier County.
ii. Owner(s)/agent(s) name, address, phone number & e-mail address.
Applicant is:
Aaent for the Applicant:
Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc.
100 Lem Carnes Rd.
Davenport, FL 33837
contact: Mr. Matt Mauncy
phone: (863) 422-1171 x233
Fax: (863) 422-8610
Mr. Robert Mulhere, AICP
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, #200
Naples, FL 34109
phone: (239) 597-0575
e-mail: rjm@consult-rwa.com
Page 3 of38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
ProperlY Owner (contact) is:
Co-Acent is:
Mr. Tom Jones
Barron Collier Companies
2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, FL 34105
phone: (239) 262-2600
e-mail: tjones@barroncollier.com
Mr. George Varnadoe
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson LLP
821 Fifth Avenue South
Naples, FL 34102
phone: (239) 261-9300
e-mail: glvarnadoe@napleslaw.com
ConsultantlAcent for Applicant (EIS Contact) is:
Mr. Tim Hall
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
phone: (239) 643-0166
e-mail: thall@turrell-associates.com
Page 4 of 38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
.
i. General location map.
A general location map is provided as Exhibit 1. The proposed quarry (mine) project itself is referred to as
the Hogan Island Quarry and will encompass approximately 967.65 acres situated in portions of Sections 9,
10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. The Hogan Island
Quarry is located southwest of Immokalee and its southern boundary is about % mile north of the
intersection of Immokalee Road and Oil Well Grade Road.
Part of the Hogan Island Quarry project will include conducting mitigation activities on lands adjacent to the
quarry site. Two off-site mitigation areas, designated as off-site mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2, are
currently proposed. These two areas together encompass approximately 32.5 acres and are situated
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed quarry. This EIS frequently refers to lands within the
Hogan Island Quarry property boundary as the "Quarry property" or "Quarry site" while lands within the
boundaries of the two off-site mitigation areas are referred to as the "OM Areas" or "off-site mitigation
areas". Taken together, the lands contained within the Hogan Island Quarry property boundary and those
contained within the boundaries of the off-site mitigation areas are typically referred to herein as the "project
lands".
ii. Native habitats and their boundaries shall be identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending
at least two hundred (200) feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is
required to go on to adjacent properties. Habitat identification will be consistent with the Florida
Department of Transportation Florida land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FlUCFCS)
and shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet
when available from the County. Other scale aerials may be used where appropriate for the size of
the project, provided the photograph and overlays are legible at the scale provided. A legend for
each of the FlUCFCS categories found on-site shall be included on the aerial.
Existing FlUCFCS categories mapped on and adjacent to the project lands are illustrated in Exhibits 2 and
3. Areas classifying as "native vegetation" are shown on Exhibit 3.
iii. Topographic map, and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within
each of the FlUCFCS categories found on-site shall be provided.
Exhibit 4 illustrates existing topography and general surface water drainage patterns.
The majority of the Quarry property consists of actively managed row crop fields, some of which continue
beyond the property boundary. These crop fields have been graded to drain into internal field ditches and/or
into perimeter rim ditches surrounding groups of fields. The larger groups of crop fields are bordered by
large perimeter containment berms. Because of these perimeter berms, no runoff naturally drains from the
crop fields to non-field areas. The field rim ditches are located on the field side of the perimeter berms.
The water table (water levels) within the crop fields is strictly managed and controlled. Throwout pumps at
various locations (see Exhibit 4) are one of the primary means of regulating field water levels.
Some of these pumps discharge into the internal ditches and rim ditches. Several discharge into non-field
upland and wetland areas off-site. One primary discharge location of note is an off-site agricultural water
retention area (the area mapped as wetland WO-6 in Exhibits 2 and 4). This large water retention area is
surrounded by a perimeter containment berm, but can discharge into off-site wetlands and uplands to the
northwest once the water level in the retention area is sufficiently high. The on-site throwout pumps can be
used to transfer water from one field to another, to de-water the fields (lower the water table), and to flood
the fields for nematode control. Some throwout pump locations are essentially permanent while other
throwout pumps can be moved. Irrigation wells present are also utilized to pump water into the crop fields
Page 5 of38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20. 2008
for irrigation purposes.
The far southern end of the Quarry property is mainly comprised of pastures used for cattle grazing and hay
production. These pastures continue off-site. The limited runoff that occurs in these pastures is generally
toward the east/southeast. Some of the drainage is captured by small swales and ditches that divert flow to
the south. Some of the drainage from these pastures can flow off-site into a large wetland area, wetland
WO-24) that generally drains to the south.
iv. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for Florida Department of Transportation Florida land
Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations.
Based on the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) "Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida"
(NRCS, 1998) there are 7 different soil types (soil map units) present on the project lands. Exhibit 5
provides a soils map for the project area as derived from the NRCS mapping. The following sub-sections
provide a brief description of each soil map unit identified on the project lands. Information is provided about
the soil's landscape position (i.e. its typical location in the landscape on a county-wide basis), the soil's
profile (i.e. textural composition and thickness or depth range of the layers or horizons commonly present in
the soil), and the soil's drainage and hydrologic characteristics.
Under the category of drainagelhydrologic characteristics, certain terms are employed that may warrant
explanation. When the seasonal high water table is addressed, the type of water table is identified as being
either "apparent" or "perched". An apparent water table is a thick zone of free water in the soil
(i.e. vertical movement of the water table is essentially unconfined). A perched water table is water standing
above an unsaturated zone. In such cases there is semi.confining layer present that impedes water
percolation through the layer. There can be a water table above this layer followed by an unsaturated zone
below the layer and a second water table below this zone. The hydrologic soil group is also identified for
each soil. There are 4 groups that are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils are grouped
according to the rate of infiltration of water when the soils are thoroughly wet and are subject to precipitation
from long-duration storms. The four groups range from A (soils with a high infiltration rate, low runoff
potential, and a high rate of water transmission) to D (soils having a slow infiltration rate and very slow rate
of water transmission).
The soils occurring on project lands are as follows:
Basinaer fine sand (MaD Unit #17)
landscape position - Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways.
Soil profile - All soil horizons present to a depth of 80 inches or more are comprised of fine sand. A weak
spodic horizon occurs beginning at depths ranging from 12 to 38 inches.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Poorly drained. Permeability is rapid. The seasonal high water table
(apparent) is within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months. Shallow standing water is present for
about 7 days following peak rainfall events during the wet season. Hydrologic group is BID. This soil is
classified as a hydric soil by the NRCS.
Boca fine sand (MaD Unit #21)
Landscape position - Flatwoods.
Soil profile - Surface and subsurface layers to a depth of about 26 inches consist of fine sand. Below this to
a depth of about 30 inches is fine sandy loam or sandy clay loam followed by limestone bedrock. The
solum thickness ranges from 24 to 40 inches.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Poorly drained. Permeability is moderate. The seasonal high water
table (apparent) is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months. Hydrologic group is BID.
Chobee. Winder. and Gator soils. deDressional (MaD Unit #22)
Landscape position - Depressions and marshes.
Page 6 of 38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry E1S
Revised March 20, 2008
Soil profile for Ghobee soil - Surface layer to a depth of 4 to 18 inches consists of fine sandy loam.
Subsurface layers to a depth of about 47 inches consist of sandy clay loam or fine sandy ioam. The
subsoil below these layers to a depth of 80 inches is comprised of fine sandy loam, loamy fine sand,
loamy sand, or sandy loam.
Soil profile for Winder soil - The surface layer to a depth of 3 to 6 inches is fine sand. The subsoil layers to
a depth of 7 to 15 inches consist of fine sand or sand. Soil below this to a depth of about 18 inches is
fine sandy loam or sandy clay loam. In the depth range of about 18 to 50 inches, subsoil layers consist
of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy clay loam. Below this to a depth of 80 inches is fine sandy
loam or sandy clay loam. Limestone bedrock typically is found at depth greater than 60 inches.
Soil profile for Gator soil - The surface and subsurface layers to a depth of 16 to 51 inches consist of muck.
The subsoil horizons to a depth of 80 inches or more consist of fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or sandy
clay loam.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Very poorly drained. Permeability is slow or very slow. Seasonal high
water table (apparent) is up to 2 feet above the surface for 6 months or more typically. Hydrologic
group is D. This map unit is classified as a hydric soil by the NRGS.
HoloDaw and Okeelanta soils. deDressional (MaD Unit #23)
Landscape position - Depressions and marshes.
Soil profile for Holopaw soils - Surface and subsurface horizons to a depth of about 57 inches consist of
fine sand or sand. The subsoil below these layers to a depth of about 62 inches consists of sandy
loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy clay loam. Some pedons have a limestone substratum at depths
ranging from 50 to 80 inches. Others lack a limestone substratum.
Soil profile for Okeelanta soils - The surface and subsurface layers to a depth of about 20 inches consist of
muck. Subsoil layers below the muck continue to a depth of 80 inches and consist of fine sand or
loamy fine sand. The thickness of the organic material (surface and subsurface layers of muck) can
range from 16 to 50 inches.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Okeelanta soils are poorly drained while Holopaw soils are very
poorly drained. Permeability for Okeelanta soils is slow to very slow. Permeability for Holopaw soils is
moderate to moderately slow. The seasonal high water table (apparent) can range from 2 feet above
the surface to 1 foot below the surface. Typically, these soils are ponded for 6 months or more during
the wet season. Hydrologic group is D. This map unit is classified as a hydric soil by the NRGS.
Immokalee fine sand (MaD Unit #7)
Landscape position - Flatwoods.
Soil profiie - The entire soil profile is fine sand and has a spodic horizon at a depth of 35 to about 55
inches. The solum thickness ranges from 40 to 80 inches or more.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Poorly drained. Permeability is moderate. The seasonal high water
table (apparent) is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months. Hydrologic group is BID.
Oldsmar fine sand (MaD Unit #16)
Landscape position - Flatwoods.
Soil profile - Surface layer to a depth of 3 to 8 inches consists of fine sand. Subsurface layer to depth of
about 4 to 50 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Subsurface layers below this to a depth of 30 to 65
inches consist of sand or fine sand. Below these layers the subsoil Is fine sandy loam, sandy clay
loam, or sandy loam. Limestone bedrock begins at a depth of 60 to 72 inches but may not begin within
80 inches of the surface in some pedons.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Poorly drained. Permeability is slow or very slow. The seasonal high
water table (apparent) is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months. Hydrologic group is BID.
Pineda and Riviera fine sands (MaD Unit #28)
Landscape position - Sioughs and poorly defined drainageways.
Soil profile for Pineda soils - Surface layer to a depth of 4 inches consists of fine sand. Subsurface layers to
Page 7 of 38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
depth of about 20 to 40 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Subsoil below this to a depth of 40 to 80
inches is fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or sandy loam. Limestone bedrock is encountered at a
depth of 40 to 70 inches commonly but can be below 80 inches.
Soil profile for Riviera fine sands soils - Surface layer to a depth of 6 inches is fine sand. Subsurface layers
to a depth of about 32 inches consist of sand or fine sand. Subsoil below this to a depth of 40 to 70
inches is fine sandy loam or sandy clay loam. Limestone bedrock commonly occurs at depths ranging
from 40 to 70 inches but can begin below 80 inches.
DrainagelHydrologic characteristics - Pineda soils are poorly drained and Rivera soils are poorly or very
poorly drained. Permeability for both soils is slow or very slow. The seasonal high water table
(apparent) is typically within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months. Following peak rainfall events
during the wet season, shallow standing water can be present for about 1 week. Hydrologic group for
Pineda soils is BID while the hydrologic group for Riviera soils is CID. This map unit is classified as a
hydric soil by the NRCS.
v. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow pallerns, outfall and off-site drainage.
The conceptual site plan for the project is provided as Exhibit 6. This plan also illustrates proposed control
structures, outfalls, lakes, and basic flow patterns on-site and off-site. It should be noted that Exhibit 6
shows the final (completed) design proposal. The project will be excavated in a series of cells with interim
internal drainage and flow designs that will allow for more efficient excavation and material handling within
the property boundaries. This will not alter the offsite drainage, outfall, or flow patterns. The series of cells
will eventually be joined together into the one large lake shown.
vi. Development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public
facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area.
Exhibit 6 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the Hogan Island Quarry project. No construction of public
facilities is proposed as part of the project. The property will be accessed from Immokalee Road (CR 846)
using the existing Oil Well Grade Road as the access route from Immokalee Road to the Quarry property.
The proposed project includes constructing new turn lanes (west-bound right turn lane and east-bound left
turn lane) on Immokalee Road at the Oil Well Grade Road intersection.
The Hogan Island Quarry project will essentially be developed as a single-phase project. Generally
speaking, the quarry operations office, asphalt batch plant, aggregate processing plant and facilities, and
the tailings pond will be constructed first. Excavation of mining pit cells will then commence with the
excavation pits (future cells following completion of excavation in a given cell) expanding over time. The
perimeter storm water containment berms associated with the excavation areas will be constructed prior to
excavation of each cell. As excavation activities near completion, interim roads and staging areas will be
dug out and the cells will be joined into the single lake presented as Exhibit 6. The proposed off-site
mitigation activities will be initiated shortly after obtaining all necessary permits for the project.
vii. Site plan showing preserves on-site, and how they align with preserves on adjoining and
neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed and existing development, roads,
and areas for stormwater retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as
public owned conservation lands, conservation acquisition areas, major flowways and potential
wildlife corridors.
Exhibit 6 illustrates the conceptual site plan including the 12.77-acre Preserve (native vegetation preserve)
proposed on the Quarry property and the two adjacent off-site mitigation areas proposed (identified as off-
site mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2). The relationship between the on-site Preserve, off-site mitigation
areas, and adjacent off-site natural habitats can be seen in Exhibits 2, 7, and 9. The location of project
lands in relationship to RLSA Overlays, a future Stewardship Sending Area, and conservation lands (such
as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, CREW lands) can be seen in Exhibits 10 and 11. Exhibit 12 shows the
Page 8 of 38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
property in relationship to the County's Future Land Use Map.
The subject property is located on what may be viewed as a large upland peninsula projecting north from
Immokalee Road. North, northwest, northeast, and east of the project site lies a large expanse of relatively
natural wetlands generally referred to as Corkscrew Swamp. The eastern portion of this swamp extending
south from nearby Lake Trafford forms the headwaters of the Camp Keais Strand which continues
southward from Immokalee Road (see Exhibit 11). Roughly one mile west of the Quarry property is a
smaller northlsouth wetland area known as Poggie Strand. Large areas surrounding the project lands are
designated as Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) in the RLSA Overlays. These general areas form significant wildlife corridors,
particularly the FSAlHSA areas extending from the west side of Lake Trafford southward through the Camp
Keais Strand.
There are no existing developments and no known developments are proposed in the immediate project
vicinity.
viii. For properties in the RLSA or RFMU districts, a site plan showing the location of the site, and land
use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan.
The project lands are all designated AgriculturallRural they are compietely contained within the boundaries
of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) district. As can be seen in Exhibit 11, extensive areas
classified as FSA, HSA, and WRA overlays are found in the general project vicinity. The Quarry property is
predominantly classified as "open land" per the RLSA. An HSA overlay extends slightiy into the far eastern
portion of the Quarry property (see Exhibits 10 and 11). This HSA overlay occupies approximately 2.70
acres of the Quarry property and will be completely preserved and protected in the proposed on-site
Preserve. This topic is addressed in Section D.ii. The majority of proposed off-site mitigation area OM-1 is
covered by an HSA overlay although a narrow strip along the eastern side falls within a WRA overlay. The
eastern portion (approximately 3.7 acres) of proposed off-site mitigation area OM-2 is also covered by an
HSA overiay. All the lands within the boundaries of off-site mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2 will be
protected and enhanced, as discussed in Section E.iv.
Page 9 of 38
17D
Hogan Island QuaD)' EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
i. Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water management
issues.
Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc. (Rinker) proposes to develop a new limestone and sand quarry along with
related facilities on the 968-acre Hogan Island Quarry property, as illustrated in the conceptual site plan
(see Exhibit 6).
The area to be mined is shown on Exhibit 6 as the "maximum excavation area". Mining will involve
excavating overburden and the underlying limestone deposits using typical equipment such as draglines,
drill rigs, excavators, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. The total depth of excavation will generally range
from 35 to 45 feet below the existing grade. The project's excavation activities will comply with applicable
portions of the County's Excavation Regulations (i.e. Chapter 22, Article IV. Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Collier County, Florida - aka the County Code). A system of haul roads will be built within the mining area
around and among the various cells (pits), from crushed limestone obtained on-site. These roads will extend
to the processing facilities proposed at the southern end of the property where the excavated materials will
be stockpiled and processed on-site.
The quarry (mine) pit cells will be excavated "in the wet" rather than dewatering an entire individual pit. This
topic is further discussed in Section F.i. Some blasting will be necessary as part of the mining operation.
Such blasting will occur roughly 3 times per week initially to open a given cell and then be reduced to about
twice per week. The blasting is conducted 6 to 8 feet below ground, will be conducted only in daylight hours
(about lOAM to 3 PM, possibly later if there are storm delays), and will comply with the County's blasting
ordinance (i.e. Chapter 55 of the County Code). There will typically be two cells being excavated
simultaneously and the actual excavation process may be conducted 24 hours per day. Modifications to this
work schedule may result from discussions with FFWCC and FWS. Shorter hours of operation may be
necessary along the eastern boundary to minimize potential impacts to large ranging mammals such as
panthers and black bears. This will be finalized pending further discussions with agency personnel as part
of the state and federal permitting for this project. It is estimated that roughly 60 acres will be mined per
year, although it will take a couple of years following the initiation of operations to reach this level of
production.
The far south end of the Quarry property will contain various facilities and a tailings pond. An aggregate
processing plant (crushers, conveyors, etc.) will be built in the area indicated on Exhibit 6 as "product
stockpile location". This area will encompass the plant for processing the excavated materials and
stockpiles of the raw and processed product (limestone aggregate, sand). The aggregate processing plant
will operate roughly 12 to 16 hours per day. The "officelasphalt plant location" area indicated on Exhibit 6
will contain a small office building, small maintenance shoplstorage facilities, parking areas, aboveground
fuel and oil storage tanks with proper containments, and an asphalt batch plant. The asphalt batch plant will
obtain its necessary aggregate materials directly from the on.site aggregate processing plant. The asphalt
batch plant will operate primarily during daylight hours, however it may also operate at night on occasions
when necessary to meet purchaser demands (such as for roadway projects being built at night).
The aggregate processing plant will use water obtained from the quarry pit lakes and tailings pond to wash
the mined materials to remove undesirable fines (silts and clays). At the start of operations, a well may be
needed to supply some water to the plant but this consumptive use will cease once the quarry pits are
capable yielding a sufficient volume of water. A general industrial wastewater permit will be obtained from
FDEP to allow the sediment-laden process water to be discharged into the tailings pond. Water in this pond
will be recirculated to the aggregate plant as necessary. Two wells tapping the surficial aquifer will be built
to supply the limited amount of water necessary to meet sanitary needs.
Water for drinking purposes will be supplied via bottled water. A septic system will be built to handle
sewage generated.
As part of the project, a stormwater containment berm will be constructed around the outer perimeter of
Page 100f38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
"developed" portions of the project (see Exhibit 6). The crest of this earthen berm, stabilized with grass, will
be built to an elevation such that the berm will contain all storm events up to and including the 25-year
event. Thus, all runoff from the mining area and the southern facilities area will be contained on-site and will
either percolate through the soil or flow to the quarry pit lakes or tailings pond. Stormwater will discharge off-
site via outfall control structures in the quarry pit lakes only after the lake waters (storm water) have received
appropriate treatment and attenuation (i.e. treatment and attenuation that satisfies water quality and water
quantity design standards specified in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of SFWMD's Basis of Review).
Even though the mining area is illustrated as a single large lake in Exhibit 6, this area will actually be
constructed as a series of working cells that will later be connected into one large lake as the mining
activities are completed. Prior to starting excavation of a given excavation cell; the perimeter stormwater
containment berm will be constructed or expanded to encompass the new mining area. Mining will progress
over time with new cells started as each preceding one is completed. It is presently estimated that there will
ultimately be 1 large lake created at the completion of mining and that this lake may be transected by one or
two causeways. The lake will occupy a total of about 600 to 700 acres; however these are preliminary
estimates only. Final completion of mining activities is estimated to occur roughly 15 years after project
construction is initiated.
It is important to understand that the existing row crop farming activities will continue during much of the
total lifespan of the Quarry project. Crop fields will be retained in areas not being mined and will be
gradually eliminated as the mining progresses across the property. The fields and agricultural drainage and
irrigation ditches associated with these fields will be modified as necessary in advance of the mining to allow
farming to continue in non-mined areas.
The overall mining area will be reclaimed in accordance with reclamation requirements set forth in Chapter
62C-36, Florida Administrative Code (limestone reclamation requirements). Mine closure and reclamation
will include removal of the asphalt batch plant and aggregate processing plant. Reclamation of the overall
Quarry property will be completed following completion of all the mining operations. This will be done in
accordance with criteria set forth in the state's applicable mine reclamation standards (i.e. Chap. 62C-
36.008, FAC).
The Quarry property now mainly consists of actively managed row crop fields and, to a lesser degree, cattle
pastures. A few areas that may be classified as "native vegetation" remain in isolated patches. Some of
these areas will be impacted by project development. However, the proposed project also includes
establishment of a 12.77-acre on-site Preserve area (see Exhibit 6) where 44% of the existing native
vegetation will be preserved, protected, and enhanced. Besides protecting native upland vegetation, the on-
site preserve will also conserve and protect the only Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) overlay that extends
into the Quarry property. This preserve will be established at the beginning of the Quarry project.
Five isolated and degraded wetlands, totaling 10.95 acres, also currently remain on the Quarry property.
The mining operation will eliminate these wetlands but the functional values lost as a result will be fully
compensated through a proposed off-site mitigation program that is part of the project. Two off.site
mitigation areas, shown as OM-1 and OM-2 in Exhibit 6, will be preserved and protected as part of the
mitigation program. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation activities coupled with enhancement of
existing uplands will take place in the off-site mitigation areas. The two proposed mitigation areas total
32.47 acres and will contain a total of approximately 27.77 of wetlands following completion of mitigation
efforts. The increase in the wetlands' functional values realized by the mitigation program will more than
offset the wetland functional values currently provided by the on-site wetlands to be impacted. The
mitigation areas will be contiguous with the proposed on-site preserve. These three preservation features
will also directly adjoin an extensive natural area that includes lands identified as Flowway Stewardship
Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) in the RLSA
Overlay, and are part of the Corkscrew Swamp and Camp Keais Strand system. The off-site mitigation
areas themselves also contain lands designated as HSAs.
Alligators currently reside within andlor utilize some of the larger agricultural ditches and one wetland on the
Quarry property. Various listed wading birds visit the site to forage within the ditches and certain wetlands
Page 11 of38
17D
Hogan Island Quany EIS
Revised March 20, 200~
on the Quarry property as well as one of the off-site mitigation area wetlands. Florida sandhill cranes also
occasionally forage in the Quarry property's pastures and crop fields. These listed species will be protected
during project construction (see Attachment 2 in Appendix C). The off-site mitigation program will greatly
enhance the habitat value of wetlands in the mitigation area, providing new areas in which listed wading
birds can forage and possibly establishing an area suitable for crane nesting. The extensive lakes created
through the mining process will establish far more aquatic habitat for use by listed wading birds and
alligators than presently exists on the Quarry property.
The large mining pit lake, when compieted, will provide much greater water storage on the Quarry property
than exists currently and thus will be a source of groundwater recharge for the general region. The water
table in the lakes will reflect the existing regional water table and so will not adversely affect natural
hydro periods or peak water table elevations in off-site wetlands. To the contrary, more water will be
available to the wetlands through the surficial aquifer recharge effects of the lakes. The on-site storm water
management system proposed is designed so that some storm water from the pit lake will discharge into
certain off-site wetlands following appropriate water quaiity treatment and attenuation. These water inputs
are anticipated to significantly improve the current hydroperiod of wetlands iocated in the off-site mitigation
areas and may benefit other off-site wetlands as well. The overall water balance for the project site should
be improved since groundwater withdrawals for crop field irrigation will be phased out as the mining
operation progresses.
Currently, agricultural practices on the Quarry property include the use of throwout pumps to discharge
water from the crop fields into off-site uplands and wetlands. This discharge seriously disrupts and
adversely impacts the natural hydroperiod of affected wetlands and also lowers the water quality in the
wetlands receiving water from the pumping. As mining progresses, the on-site farming activities inciuding
the use of throwout pumps will be eliminated. Discontinuation of pumping will further benefit water quality
and hydroperiods in off-site wetlands. Surface water nutrient loadings generated by the existing farming
operations are substantial. The proposed project will decrease nutrient loadings significantly. The proposed
project stormwater management system will capture and treat on-site stormwater runoff in accordance with
SFWMD/FDEP stormwater treatment and attenuation design criteria. The stormwater treatment capacity of
the quarry pit lake network will be so great that it is anticipated the nutrient concentrations in waters
discharging from the lakes via proposed stormwater outfalls will be practically nil.
ii. Explain how the project is consistent with each of the Objectives and Policies in the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, where applicable.
The following subsections address the proposed project's consistency with various goals, objectives, and
policies found in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the County's Growth Management Plan.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Policy 1.3.2 --.... The RLSA also contains policies to direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs,
HSAs, and WRAs in order to protect wetlands, upland habitats, and listed species within the RLSA.
The project lands are located entirely within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay. All the
proposed development activities will occur in areas designated as "open lands" in the RLSA and thus will
not impact any areas identified as Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or
Water Retention Area (WRA) overlays. One HSA overlay extends into the Quarry property, occupying
approximately 2.7 acres in the eastern portion of the site. This HSA will be preserved within the project's on-
site preserve area. The project's off-site mitigation program includes preservation and enhancement
(restoration) of off-site lands primariiy classified as HSAs.
GOAL 2: The County shall protect its surface and estuarine water resources.
The proposed project will not impact any estuarine areas. Existing degraded wetiands and agriculturai
Page]20f38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry E1S
Revised March 20, 2008
drainage ditches on the Quarry property will be eliminated by project development activities. The wetland
impacts will be satisfactorily mitigated through the project's proposed off-site mitigation program. The large
lakes created by the mining process will establish far more surface water areas and desirable aquatic
habitats than currently exist on the Quarry property. The lakes will also serve to provide surface water
storage that can help recharge the surficial aquifer in the general area.
Objective 2.2 --All canals, rivers, and f10wways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable
Federal, State, or local water quality standards.
Runoff from the project lands does not presently discharge directly into any estuaries, nor will any
discharges from the proposed project's storm water management system discharge directly into an estuary.
Surface water flows in the wetland systems constituting the Camp Keais Strand adjacent to the project do,
however, eventually discharge into coastal estuarine systems several miles from the project site.
The project's stormwater management system is designed to comply with all applicable design standards
and requirements set forth in SFWMD's Basis of Review (BOR), including but not limited to those
addressing water quality criteria (BOR Section 5.0), water quantity criteria (BOR Section 6.0), and water
management design and construction criteria (BOR Section 7.0). Adherence to these criteria will help
ensure discharges from the stormwater management system to off-site lands meets applicable state and
federal surface water quality standards. All runoff from developed areas will be contained on-site through
use a perimeter stormwater containment berm. This runoff will flow into the project's lakes for proper
attenuation and treatment. During the construction and mining process, appropriate best management
practices will be employed to control and reduce soil erosion, sediment transport, and turbidity.
Policy 2.2.2 --Stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not
degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of
fresh water to the estuarine system.
As discussed above, the project's storm water management system has been designed such that discharges
from the system to off-site lands, including wetlands, will not degrade water quality. Current agricultural
practices on the Quarry property include the use of throwout pumps, some of which discharge water from
the row crop fields into off-site wetlands. The proposed project will eliminate this discharge, significantly
improving water quality in the presently affected wetlands.
The project's stormwater design will comply with requirements set forth in BOR Sections 4.2.2.4, 5.2, 6.11,
and 6.12. The control elevation established will not adversely impact the hydroperiod of off-site wetlands.
The large lakes will properly attenuate peak flows during storm events. The system design attempts to
enhance and significantly improve the hydroperiod of certain wetlands, particularly those in the project's two
off-site mitigation areas. Outfalls from the quarry pit lake system to these wetlands will help provide much
needed water with discharge inputs occurring following peak rainfall events during the wet season. The
natural hydroperiod of several off-site wetlands is severely disrupted by the water inputs generated by the
existing on-site throwout pumps. Elimination of this practice will also benefit off-site wetland hydroperiods.
Policy 2.2.3 --Chemical spraying for aquatic weed control should be conducted with extreme
caution. The use of appropriate biological and mechanical controls in both the canal system and
stormwater detention ponds is encouraged. Manufacturers and EPA guidelines for chemical use in
aquatic habitat will be followed.
The applicant will attempt to use appropriate biological and mechanical control methods to eradicate and
suppress the spread of aquatic weeds in the project's lakes. It is likely chemical spraying will still be
necessary to adequately control aquatic weeds in some instances. Any such spraying will be conducted by
or under the direct supervision of a duly licensed pesticide applicator in accordance with EPA guidelines
and the chemical manufacturer's labeling instructions.
GOAL 3: The County shall protect the County's ground water resources to ensure the highest water
quality practicable.
Page 13 of 38
170
Hogan Island Quany EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
Due to the proposed method of excavation (wet mining). groundwater resources will not be affected by this
project. The project site is not located in an area where quarry excavation activities might pose the threat of
potential saltwater intrusion. Most of the Quarry property is currently used to produce small vegetable crops
and as such requires irrigation. The supplemental irrigation is supplied by groundwater resources via wells.
The proposed project will not require consumption of as great a volume of water as that demanded by the
existing crop fields, therefore utilization of groundwater resources will be reduced. For example, the current
permitted agricultural water use allocation for the Quarry property is approximately 722 million gallons per
year (MGY), which is utilized to irrigate the crop fields. While the total consumptive use allocation for Quarry
operations will be greater than this amount, SFWMD estimates that less than 5% of the permitted
withdrawal represents actual consumption because more than 95% of the water is returned to the aquifer
via return flow to the Quarry pit lakes or through infiltration. The projected net water usage for the Quarry
project is 195 MGY or roughly 27% of the current agricultural water usage. The current agricultural practices
also result in significant loadings of nutrients and certain pesticides. These loadings will be substantially
reduced by the proposed project, thereby improving water quality in the surficial aquifer.
GOAL 4: The County shall conserve, protect and appropriately manage the County's fresh water
resources.
The proposed project will have no net negative effect on the County's fresh water resources. Indications are
that the overall water budget for the Quarry property will be improved by development of the project, largely
through the elimination of agricultural ground water usage. The extensive lakes created through the mining
operation will provide much greater storage of fresh water than exists today.
Although a limited extent of existing wetlands will be impacted by project development, there will be no net
loss of wetland functions as a result of the proposed off-site mitigation program. The project lakes will more
than compensate for the loss of the existing water storage volume provided in the wetlands to be impacted.
GOAL 5: The County shall protect, conserve and appropriately use its mineral and soil resources.
The proposed project constitutes a direct and appropriate use of the County's soil and mineral (limestone)
resources. The mining operation will generate fill and aggregate materials which are in short supply in the
region. The mining operation as well as the proposed asphalt batch plant will help supply the raw materials
necessary to satisfy the County's ever increasing infrastructure demands.
Objective 5.1 --Allow the extraction or use of mineral resources in the County provided such
activities comply with applicable industry and government standards regarding health, safety, and
environmental protection.
The project involves the extraction and use of mineral resources. All project activities and operations will
comply with applicable industry and government standardslrequirements pertaining to health, safety, and
environmental protection. Rinker places great importance on maintaining a safe work environment and
demands that its contractors follow this philosophy, including adherence to applicable OSHA requirements.
The project design will help ensure the environment is protected to the greatest degree practicable. Details
of the measures necessary to adequately protect the environment will be further refined and developed
during the permitting stage of the project.
Policy 5.1.3 -Mineral extraction operations shall comply with standards and criteria as provided in
the County's Excavation and Blasting Ordinances.
The proposed mining operations will comply with applicable standards and criteria set forth in the cited
ordinances. The applicant will apply for and obtain the necessary County permits required by these
ordinances.
Objective 5.2 --Continue to reclaim the total disturbed area of extraction sites in order to ensure
adequate assessment and mitigation of site specific and cumulative impacts resulting from mineral
extraction activities.
Page 14 of 38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
The proposed quarry will be reclaimed in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 62C-36, Florida
Administrative Code (FAC). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires a mine
reclamation plan to be submitted to FDEP for their review and approval prior to the initiation of mining
activities. FDEP will review the proposed reclamation plan concurrently with their review of the project's
Environmental Resource Permit application. Mine reclamation will be conducted in accordance with specific
requirements FDEP places on the reclamation plan.
GOAL 6: The County shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use its native vegetative
communities and wildlife habitat.
Virtually all of the Quarry property has been converted to agricultural uses. The few areas that bear any
resemblance to former natural communities have also been significantly disturbed and degraded.
Development of the proposed project will impact isolated areas that can be classified as "native vegetation"
but will also preserve one remaining area of native vegetation that links to off-site natural habitats. This
preserve area will be enhanced via eradication of invasive exotics and supplemental planting of native
species, thereby improving its wildlife habitat value.
Various animal species frequent the Quarry property today, mainly to forage in ditches, fields, and some on-
site wetlands. Project development will eliminate most of the man-made habitats and most of the few
remaining natural habitats currently utilized by these species. However, the future lakes created by the
project will provide new habitats for many of the species. The off-site mitigation program proposed will
substantially improve the habitat values of wetlands and uplands present in the two mitigation areas.
Policy 6.1.3 --For the County's RLSA Overlay...native vegetation shall be preserved pursuant to the
RLSA policies found in the Future Land Use Element.
The proposed project preserves existing native vegetation on the Quarry property in accordance with the
minimum standards specified in Policy 5.5.2.a.iii of the RLSA Overlay portion of the FLUE. This policy
requires at least 40% of the existing native vegetation to be retained. The proposed on-site preserve will
protect and preserve 44% (11.90 acres) of the existing native vegetation areas currently present on the
Quarry property. An additional 0.87 acres within this preserve currently do not classify as native vegetation.
These areas will be enhancedlrestored (via eradication of exotics and limited planting of native species)
such that they will also classify as native vegetation following completion of the proposed
enhancementlrestoration activities.
Policy 6.1.4 --Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new developments.
Prohibited exotic vegetation will be eradicated from Quarry property areas to be developed in accordance
with LDC Section 3.05.08. Specifics of the eradicationlremoval program and exotic vegetation maintenance
plan will be addressed at the time of Site Development Plan approval for the project. Both Category 1 and 2
invasive exotics identified in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's (EPPC) "List of Invasive Species" will be
eradicated and controlled in the proposed on-site preserve and in the two OM Areas, in general accordance
with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.g.ii.
Policy 6.1.7 (4) --Storm water management systems within the RLSA Overlay shall be designed
pursuant to the RLSA policies found in the Future Land Use Element.
The project's stormwater management system has been designed to comply with applicable RLSA policies.
Following completion of a particular quarry pit lake, shorelines will likely be planted with a variety of native
littoral zone species in accordance with the applicable design specifications set forth in the reclamation
requirements specified in Chapter 62C-36, F AC. Specifics of the treatment of pit lake shorelines will be
determined during the Environmental Resource Permit application process since FDEP will review the mine
plan/reclamation plan concurrently with the project's ERP application.
Page 15 of38
Hog" !""d Q",rry EI! 7 0
Revised March 20, 2008
Policy 6.1.8 --An Environmental Impact Statement is required...
This document constitutes the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project.
Objective 6.2 -- The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of
wetlands.... AND Policy 6.2.8 --For the County's RLSA Overlay...wetlands shall be preserved
pursuant to the RLSA Overlay policies found in the Future Land Use Element.
These issues are discussed in the sections below dealing with RLSA Overlay policies 5.6 and 5.6.3.a, b, e,
and f. Although the proposed project will impact the degraded wetlands on the Quarry property, these
impacts will be fully mitigated such that there is no net loss of wetland functions. The project's stormwater
management system will not adversely affect natural seasonal high water elevations or natural hydroperiods
of off-site wetlands. Certain off-site wetlands near the project are adversely affected by agricultural water
inputs. The proposed project will eliminate this problem.
Policy 6.2.1 --...wetlands identified by the 1994-95 SFWMD land use and land cover inventory are
mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas shall be verified by a jurisdictional field
delineation, subject to Policy 6.2.2 of this element, at the time of project permitting to determine the
exact location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries.
The limits (boundaries) of existing wetlands present on the project lands were delineated in the field by
qualified Wilson Miller ecologists using the appropriate wetland delineation methodologies (see EIS Section
E.i). Following completion of this jurisdictional field delineation, the wetland flag locations used to delineate
the wetland boundaries were survey-located by SurvTech Solutions, Inc. As delineated, there are 5 isolated
wetlands present on the Quarry property. These wetlands encompass a total of 10.95 acres. One wetland is
present within the boundaries of off-site mitigation area OM-1. This wetland continues beyond the mitigation
area limits. The portion within these limits encompasses 20.19 acres. One isolated wetland is completed
contained within the boundaries of off-site mitigation area OM-2. This wetland encompasses 6.04 acres.
FDEP will be the agency responsible for processing the Quarry project's ERP application. FDEP will "verify"
the wetland limits delineated by WilsonMiller during the ERP review process. Any minor revisions to the
wetland limits required by FDEP will be reflected in materials submitted to the County as part of this
project's SDP approval application. It is not anticipated that any substantive changes to the wetland limits
depicted in the EIS exhibits will be necessary.
GOAL 7: The County shall protect and conserve its fisheries and wildlife.
There are no areas on or immediately adjacent to the project lands that can be classified as fisheries, hence
no fisheries will be affected by the proposed project.
As previously discussed, the existing Quarry property contains limited habitat for wildlife. The large
freshwater lakes that will be created through the mining process will provide habitat for an array of species
including fish, wading birds, alligators, turtles, amphibians, certain raptors, and macroinvertebrates. The
quality of upland and wetland habitats currently present in the proposed onsite preserve and in the project's
two off-site mitigation areas will be substantially improved as part of the project, thereby improving their
value to wildlife. The single HSA on the property will be preserved and enhanced as will be HSAs found in
the OM Areas. The proposed project is not located within the Conservation Designation on the Future Land
Use Map, the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, the Natural Resources Protection Area, or
designated Sending Lands. Measures to protect listed species that have been documented on the Quarry
property have been included in this EIS.
Page 16 of 38
Hog'" IsI""d Quan,ls? D
Revised March 20, 2008
.
!
Objective 7.1 --The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and
their habitats. AND Policy 7.1.1(5) --Incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species
and their habitats .... (listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall also be protected)
through establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) within the RLSA Overlay.
The above objective and policy indicates that incompatible land uses in the RLSA Overlay are automatically
directed away from listed animal and plant species through the establishment and protection of HSAs. All
the proposed development activities will occur in areas that are designated as "other lands" in the RLSA
Overiay. The single HSA covering a small fraction of the site will be preserved and enhanced within the
project's on-site preserve and HSAs in the OM Areas will be preserved and enhanced. Indications are that
no listed animal species actually reside or nest on the Quarry property other than alligators.
Policy 7.1.3 --For the County's Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay, as designated on the
FLUM, listed species shall be protected pursuant to RLSA policies found in the Future Land Use
Element.
This EIS includes a plan for protecting listed species during project constructionlmining activities (see
Appendix C). This plan addresses the few listed species (wading birds, alligators, sandhill cranes)
documented on the project site as well as some additional listed wading birds that may utilize the property
for nesting, andlor foraging. No HSAs will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Instead, the
project preserves, protects, and improves certain HSAs.
Policy 7.1.4 --All development shall comply with applicable federal and state permining
requirements regarding listed species protection.
Development of the proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from FDEP and
a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Coordination with the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Service (FWC) concerning state listed species will occur during the ERP
permitting process while coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning federal listed
species will occur during the USACE permitting process. The applicant will comply with the specific listed
species protection and habitat management requirements required by the ERP and USACE permits,
including any FWS take permit requirements if applicable.
GOAL 11: The County shall provide for the protection, preservation, and sensitive re-use of historic
resources.
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey of the project
lands. Their survey found no archaeological or historical sites or artifacts on the project lands and ACI
concluded that the proposed project would not impact any significant cultural resources. The State Historic
Preservation Officer reviewed ACI's survey report, approved this report, and agreed with ACl's
determination that the Quarry project have no effect on significant cultural resources.
If, during the course of site development and mining activities, an archaeological or historical artifact, or
other indicator is discovered, developmenVmining activities at that specific site shall be immediately stopped
and the appropriate agency notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable
the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
(VII) D. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA o VERLA Y
Policy 5.3. 1 --To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and
to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and
WRAs on the Overlay Map....Site clearing and alteration shall be limited to 20% of the property and
nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 50% of such area.
Project development will not impact any FSAs, HSAs, or WRAs. The single HSA overlay extending onto the
Page 17 of38
17D
Hogan Island Quany EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
Quarry property will be preserved, protected, and enhanced within the proposed on-site preserve. Lands
designated as HSAs and a small area designated as WRA fall within the boundaries of the proposed off-site
mitigation areas. These areas will be significantly enhanced by the mitigation activities proposed.
Policy 5.5.1 - A wildlife survey shall be required....
A thorough survey for listed plant and animal species as well as for other wildlife was conducted on the
project lands by WilsonMiller. This survey is discussed in Appendix B. The only listed species observed by
WilsonMiller on the project lands were certain wading birds (little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron,
wood stork), alligators, and Florida sandhill cranes. A specific-purpose survey for crested caracaras and
their nests was later performed by Passarella & Associates (see Appendix B1). The only listed species
observed on the Quarry property during this survey were wood storks, sandhill cranes, and white ibis.
Policy 5.5.2 - Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval.
Appendix C contains protection (management) plans for the listed species observed on project lands by
WilsonMiller as well as for some other listed wading birds that may occasionally forage on these lands.
Should the FWS determine that management plans are needed for other listed species such as Florida
panther or crested caracara, such plans will be developed during the USACE permitting process and
provided to the County during the SDP approval process for the project.
Policy 5.5.2.a.;;;. --When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence...a
minimum of 40% of native vegetation shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for
agricultural purposes.
The proposed on-site preserve will protect and retain 44% of the total acreage of native vegetation
communities currently on the Quarry property. Only 27.33 acres of the Quarry property can presently be
classified as native vegetation. The 12.77-acre on-site preserve will preserve 11.90 acres of this existing
native vegetation The on-site preserve also encompasses smaller areas that do not currently classify as
native vegetation. Through the eradication of invasive exotic species and the supplemental planting of
native species in these areas, they will also be restored to native vegetation communities. The existing
native vegetation areas will also be enhanced through the eradication of invasive exotics. Additional areas
of native vegetation will be both preserved and restored in the project's off-site mitigation areas.
Policy 5.5.2.g. --For projects located in Priority 1 or Priority II Panther Habi1at areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred
(e.g. pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks) by the Florida panther by directing intensive land
uses to currently disturbed areas.
The proposed project is located on lands classified as both Primary Zone and Secondary Zone panther
habitat conservation areas. There are really no undisturbed native habitats remaining on the Quarry
property and the habitats present have low panther habitat value according to the FWS. For example, the
panther habitat conservation areas that will impacted by the Quarry project have an average Panther
Habitat Suitability Value score of 4.0 whereas the highest potential suitability value is 10.0. No panthers
have ever been documented on project lands although a few have been documented in native habitats near
the site. Project development will not impact any "preferred" panther habitats and will occur in currently
disturbed areas.
A specific management plan for Florida panthers has not been included in this EIS as this would be
premature. It is likely FWS will require a Section 7 consultation for the project during the USACE permitting
process: primarily to address mitigation of the project's impacts to Primary and Secondary Zone lands. Any
necessary panther "management" activities will be determined during the consultation process. Should FWS
require specific management activities in addition to mitigation of habitat impacts, a management plan will
be generated in accordance with FWS's requirements and will be provided to the County at the time of Site
Development Plan review and approval for the project.
Page 18 of 38
170 \1
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
Policy 5.5.2.h -- The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater
than 10 acres.
Should the County determine that a "monitoring program" is needed for a particular listed species, the
applicant's agents will work with County staff to develop an appropriate program and the program will be
submitted during the project's SDP approval process. In the interim, the applicant requests the County
provide examples of acceptable monitoring programs to help guide program preparation.
In the case of the Quarry project, it does not seem that a monitoring program, as this term is commonly
employed, will be necessary as regards the proposed listed species protectionlmanagemenVprotection plan.
The management plan does not include activities such as preservinglrestoringlcreating habitats to support
listed species, managing habitats specifically for purposes of supporting listed species, or relocating listed
species. The currently proposed management plan is simply a mechanism for helping protect listed species
during project construction. Hence, any required "monitoring program" may really be more of a reporting
program whereby results ot the various protection activities are reported to the County on a regular basis
(perhaps annually) during the constructionldevelopment stages of the project.
Policy 5.6 -....County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands
by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. AND POlicy 5.6.3.a --FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs, as provided
in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations.... Other wetlands
within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the
wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of
SFWMD. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space, and site preservation
requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation
on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the
following criteria....
The proposed project will impact a total of 10.95 acres of isolated, degraded wetlands on the Quarry
property. None of the 5 affected wetlands are located in an FSA, HSA, or WRA and the project is not
located within the ACSC. The boundaries of the proposed project originally encompassed more wetlands
that would have been impacted, but these boundaries have since been adjusted to reduce impacts to the
acreage now proposed.
None of the wetlands to be impacted has a UMAM score of 0.7 or greater. Their current UMAM functional
scores range from 0.23 to 0.37. None of these wetlands serve as corridors for listed species movement and
they are not part of larger wetland flowways (all are isolated). The affected wetlands are not really utilized by
any listed wading birds to a significant degree and certainly do not represent critical habitats for any listed
species. The proposed storm water management system for the project is designed in accordance with
Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11, and 6.12 of SFWMD's BaR, and thus will not create water table drawdowns in off-
site wetlands or otherwise degrade the natural hydroperiod of off-site wetlands. Pursuant to Policy 5.6.3.a.iii,
the proposed project utilizes preservation of upland vegetative communities (those retained in the on-site
preserve) to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of the RLSA Overlay since
the wetland functional assessment score for all the on-site wetlands to be impacted is less than 0.65.
Preservation of fhe on-site wetlands would not result in preserves that could be linked to off'site natural
habitats and wildlife corridors without restoring large areas that are presently crop fields. The proposed on-
site preserve does, however, does directly connect to off-site natural habitats, HSAs, FSAs, WRAs, and
important wildlife corridors.
Policy 5.6.3.b. - ... Applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands.....
A UMAM assessment for the wetlands to be impacted and for the wetlands in the off-site mitigation areas is
included in this EIS.
Page 19 of38
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
1. 70
Policy 5.6.3.e. --The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements....
There will be no wetlands preserved on the Quarry property. The proposed project will provide appropriate
buffers between the on-site limits of development features and off-site wetlands. These buffers or setbacks
are at least 50 feet wide (distance from limits of constructionldevelopment to wetland limits) which exceeds
County and state requirements.
Policy 5.6.3.f. ---Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
An off-site mitigation program is proposed to compensate for the project's wetland impacts. The mitigation
program will take place in the areas designated as off-site mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2 that total 32.47
acres, 26.23 acres of which are existing wetlands. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation activities
as well as upland enhancement activities in the OM Areas will expand the extent of existing wetlands to
27.77 acres and will substantially improve the wetland functional values. The UMAM assessment performed
for the project indicates the increase in wetland functions resulting from the off-site mitigation program will
exceed the wetland functions lost through the project's wetland impacts. Hence, the project will result in no
net loss of wetland functions. Instead, there will be a net gain in wetland functions derived from mitigation.
The construction and reclamation of the project's quarry pit lakes will also create more aquatic habitat than
exists on the Quarry property today. Although not part of the proposed mitigation program, this aspect of the
project will further help compensate for the limited project wetland impacts.
Page 20 of 38
.17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
.
i. Identify the acreage and community type of all upland and wetland habitats found on the project
site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Provide
a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on-site by vegetation type (species)
vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant,
common and occasional).
The existing habitat types (FLUCFCS map units/categories) are shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 and are
described in Appendix B. Table 1 lists each of the existing maior FLUCFCS categories and their extent as
mapped on the Quarry property while Appendix B contains a table listing .illLthe unique FLUCFCS map units
present on the Quarry property and their extent. Section E.iv addresses the existing habitats present in the
project's proposed off-site mitigation areas.
Of the total 967.65 acres contained within the Quarry property boundary, 94% classify as uplands
(912.09 ac.), 5% classify as other surface waters (44.61 ac.; drainage ditches), and 1% classify as wetlands
(10.95 ac.). The majority of the property (81%) consists of actively farmed row crop fields. Other agricultural
areas and features constitute most of the remaining area (pasture and woodland pasture areas = 9%;
agricultural drainage ditches = 5%; farm roads and trails = 2%; previously cleared agricultural lands and
facilities areas = 2%).
ii. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in Goal 6
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, and
Chapters 3 and 10 of the Land Development Code. Provide an exhibit illustrating such. Include
calculations identifying the acreage for preservation and impact, per FLUCFCS category.
There are currently a total of 27.33 acres of habitats (i.e. vegetation associations or FLUCFCS categories)
on the Quarry property that may be classified as native vegetation. These areas, occupying less than 3% of
the total property, are illustrated in Exhibit 3. Table 2 lists each of the existing native vegetation FLUCFCS
mapping units and the extent of each habitat type.
The proposed project will impact a total of 15.43 acres or 56% of the existing native vegetation areas on the
Quarry property. Native vegetation areas that will be impacted are shown in Exhibit 7 while Table 3 provides
a listing of each native vegetation FLUCFCS types that will be impacted and the total extent of the proposed
impacts to each of these categories.
The project includes establishment of a single on-site preserve (the "Preserve" or "native vegetation
preserve") adjacent to the eastern Quarry property boundary. This preserve will encompass a total of
12.77 acres and is proposed as the location where existing on-site native vegetation will be preserved. The
Preserve is shown in Exhibits 6, 7, and 9. Exhibit 6 also illustrates the existing native vegetation habitats
(FLUCFCS mapping units) that will be preserved on the Quarry property within the native vegetation
preserve. Table 4 lists the existing habitat types, for both native and non-native vegetation, contained within
the boundaries of the proposed Preserve along with the total extent of each preserved habitat (FLUCFCS)
type.
Native vegetation preservation requirements applicable to the Quarry property are addressed in Policy 6.1.3
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the County's Growth Management Plan
(GMP) and in Policy 5.5.2.a.iii of Section 0, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay or RLSA, of the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. These requirements are echoed in Section 4.08.05.J.2 of the
County's Land Development Code (LDC), which indicates that if listed species are observed on the project
site then a minimum of 40% of the native vegetation on site must be retained. The proposed on-site
Preserve will preserve and protect a total of 11.90 acres of the existing vegetation present on the Quarry
property. This equates to preservation of 44% of the total existing native vegetation on-site.
The on-site Preserve will be protected by placing it in an appropriate conservation easement pursuant to
LDC 3.05.07.H.1.d (i.e. in a conservation easement dedicated to the County). The on site and off-site
Page 21 of38
-17 D
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
preserves will be protected by placing them in an appropriate conservation easement dedicated to Collier
County. The Conservation Easement for on-site and off-site preserves will be submitted for review and
approved by County Staff prior to Excavation Permit issuance. Both Category 1 and 2 invasive exotics
identified in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's (EPPC) "List of Invasive Species" will be eradicated and
controlied throughout the Preserve, in accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.l.g.ii. Foliowing completion of the
initial exotic eradication efforts, native upland trees, shrubs, and ground cover species wili be planted as
necessary within the Preserve areas that do not presentiy constitute native vegetation habitats to restore
these areas, totaling 0.87 acres, to a native forests. Large "gaps" left in the existing native vegetation areas
as a result of the exotic eradication process wili also be planted with appropriate native upland species.
Supplemental plantings wili be conducted in general accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.l.f. Through the
restoration of current non-native vegetation areas, the entire 12.77-acre Preserve will be comprised of
native vegetation associations. The post-restorationlenhancement communities are anticipated to be a
mixture of FLUCFCS 411 (pine flatwoods - palmetto understory) and FLUCFCS 416 (pine f1atwoods -
graminoid understory).
As mapped in the GMP, portions of RLSA Overlays designated as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) and
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) extend onto the Quarry property. The limits and boundaries of such
overlays depicted in the GMP were generated on a regional planning-level basis and thus were subject to
various inaccuracies termed "scrivener's errors". Most of the projections of HSA overlay areas and the
single projection of WRA overlay area into the Quarry property constitute such scrivener's errors. For
example, many poiygons shown as HSAs are long narrow strips following the property line that encompass
on-site areas that are active row crop fields and field drainage ditches.
The intent of the HSA delineation was to follow the outer boundaries of the crop fields, excluding the fields
themselves and instead encompassing only natural habitats located outside of and adjacent to these fields.
By adjusting the original RLSA overlays to correct these scrivener's errors, it was determined that no WRAs
fall within the Quarry property boundary and that a single zone of HSA overlay extends onto the property.
The single HSA overlay on the Quarry property encompasses approximately 2.70 acres near the eastern
property boundary as can be seen in Exhibits 10 and 11. The proposed on-site Preserve protects this entire
HSA zone, which is situated in the northeast portion of the future Preserve.
As discussed in Section E.iv., the on-site Preserve wili directly abut the two proposed off-site mitigation
areas thereby forming a much larger contiguous preservation area. The Preserve will directly connect to
extensive areas of natural habitats and wildlife corridors that lie east of the Preserve. It will also tie into
lands slated to become a future Stewardship Sending Area as iliustrated in Exhibit 10. This SSA and
extensive areas adjoining the proposed SSA include hundreds of acres classified as Flowway Stewardship
Areas (FSAs), HSAs, and WRAs. The Preserve further consists of areas classified as Primary Zone and
Secondary Zone panther habitat conservation lands and enhancement of current conditions within the
Preserve will improve its panther habitat value.
iii. For sites already cleared and in agricultural use, provide documentation that the parcells) are in
compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element of the Growth Management Plan and Chapters 3 and 10 of the land
Development Code. For sites cleared prior to January 2003, provide documentation that the
parcells) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the Growth
Management Plan and land Development Code.
CCME Policy 6.1.5 addresses agricultural exemption from native vegetation preservation requirements set
forth in CCME Policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2. CCME Policy 6.1.1 is only applicable to lands in the Urban
Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, AgriculturallRural Mixed Use
District, Rural-Industrial District, and Rural-Settlement Area District. CCME Policy 6.1.2 is only applicable to
lands in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
The proposed project is located entirely within the RLSA Overlay. Because of this, CCME Policy 6.1.5 is not
Page 22 of 38
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
17D
applicable to the proposed project, as further confirmed within the policy itself which states that agricultural
clearing within the RLSA is allowed and is guided by the RLSA Policies found in the FLUE.
As discussed in the preceding section, the project satisfies the applicable native vegetation preservation
requirements set forth in the FLUE.
A review of historic aerial photographs for the region indicated that in 1953 the project lands had not been
significantly disturbed from their natural state, although some areas may have been partially cleared to
improve cattle grazing. By 1962, a substantial portion of the project lands had been converted to row crop
fields and areas of improved pastures. By 1973, agricultural clearing and development had progressed to
essentially the conditions that are currently present as can be seen in Exhibit 8. Sometime between 1973
and 1983, the row crop field area previously occupying most of off-site mitigation area OM-1 appears to
have been abandoned and was beginning to undergo succession.
iv. Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identified for the site
during previous development order approvals? If so, identify the location and acreage of these
preserves, and provide an explanation if they are different from what is proposed.
It is our understanding that there have been no previous development orders approved for all or portions of
the project lands. No development orders that might set forth preservation requirements applicable to the
project lands appear to have been issued.
v. For properties with Special Treatment "ST" overlays, show the ST overlay on the development plan
and provided an explanation as to why these areas are being impacted or preserved.
Not applicable. There are no Special Treatment overlays on the project lands or in the immediate vicinity of
these lands.
Page 23 of 38
1?n
Hogan Island Quany EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
i. Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to Policy 6.2.1 and
6.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan)
according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Include a
description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on-site by vegetation type (species),
vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant,
common and occasional). Wetland determinations are required to be verified by the South Florida
Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, prior to submission
to the County.
Qualified WilsonMiller environmental staff inspected the project lands for the purpose of delineating
wetlands and other surface waters. The wetland delineation methodologies and criteria set forth by the state
(in Chapter 62-340, FAC, Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters) and the US
Army Corps of Engineers (in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual) were followed in
determining whether an area classified as a wetland or other surface water and in delineating the limits
(boundaries) of potential jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters.
WilsonMiller ecologists flagged the boundaries of areas determined to classify as wetlands. There were very
few cases where it appeared wetland lines established based on the state methodology would differ from
those established based on the federal (USACE) methodology. Where this did occur, the feature boundary
was flagged based on the landward-most extent of the two methods - in other words, the methodology that
produced the greatest extent of wetlands was used to flag the wetland line (the "safe uplands line"
approach). The wetland boundaries flagged (marked) by staff ecologists were subsequently survey-located.
The majority of the boundaries of potential wetland areas on lands immediately adjacent to the Quarry
property and OM Areas were estimated through limited field observations and interpretation of aerial photos
and other pertinent information such as soils maps, SFWMD land use maps, etc.
Exhibits 2 and 3 depict wetlands present on the project lands and immediately adjacent areas. Within the
Quarry property there are 5 wetlands that encompass a total of 10.95 acres or about 1 % of the Quarry
property. These "on-site" wetlands are identified as wetlands W-1 through W-5. One large wetland, wetland
WO-1, is present within the boundaries of off-site mitigation area OM-1 while another smaller wetland,
wetland WO-2, is present within the boundaries of off-site mitigation area OM-2. These two off-site wetland
areas encompass a total of 26.23 acres. All wetlands situated outside the Quarry property boundary are
referred to as "off-site" wetlands and are identified with codes beginning with "WO" whereas the on-site
wetland are identified with codes beginning with "W".
Table 5 provides a listing of the various existing FLUCFCS types mapped in the on-site wetlands as
depicted in Exhibits 2 and 3. Table 6 provides similar information for the wetlands present in the OM Areas.
Refer to Appendix B for a description of the various FLUCFCS categories. The following paragraphs provide
a general description of each of the five on-site wetlands and of the wetlands contained within the limits of
the OM Areas. All of the wetlands situated on the Quarry property are completely isolated as is wetland
WO-2 located in off-site mitigation area OM-2.
Wetland W-1 (2.07 acres; on Quarry property)
This wetland is surrounded by an agricultural drainage ditch and portions of the outer edge of the wetland
itself were excavated in the past and merge with the drainage ditch. Based on a review of historic aerial
photos and field observations, it appears the northeast corner of the wetland was once an upland. This
upland area acquired wetland characteristics due to surrounding agricultural grading (construction of
ditches, berms, row crop fields) which altered the area's hydrology. Wetland W-1 is primarily a willow marsh
dominated by coastal willows (willows) and lesser numbers of primrose willows. Brazilian pepper has
invaded portions of the wetland. Active agricultural manipulation of water levels in the adjacent row crop
fields and drainage ditches currently dictates the wetland's hydroperiod.
Relatively deep standing water can be present for significant periods when the area water table is allowed
to remain high.
Page 24 of 38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
Wetland W-2 (0.82 acres; on Quarry property)
Based on field observations and a review of historic aerial photographs, it is evident that this wetland is
entirely man-made and once was part of a larger upland area. It appears a depression of varying
topography was created in the past, possibly as borrow area for obtaining fill. This excavation lowered the
prior grade sufficiently to establish a hydrologic regime capable of supporting wetland plant species which
subsequently colonized the area.
This disturbed wetland is now dominated by a mixture of habitat types including shallow herbaceous marsh
(freshwater marsh), primrose willow marsh, herbaceous wet prairie, and Brazilian pepper. Exotic plant
species including cogon grass, torpedo grass, and Brazilian pepper have invaded a large portion of the
wetland and are the dominant cover in the freshwater marsh zones. The "wet prairie" zone is frequently
mown and contains domestic grasses. Portions of the other marsh zones are also occasionally mown.
Lower elevations in the wetland are inundated by shallow standing water during the peak of the wet season
whereas higher elevations are not inundated. The wetland's hydroperiod is largely determined by
manipulation of water levels in the nearby row crop fields and drainage ditches, although it also receives a
minimal amount of runoff from adjacent land.
Wetland W-3 (0.57 acres; on Quarry property)
This wetland is also entirely man-made. It was created from historic upland areas when the large berms that
surround the wetland were constructed along with the agricultural drainage ditches and row crop fields
beyond these berms. The closed depression formed during the process became a wetland that is now
completely dominated by dense Brazilian pepper. This small wetland's hydro period is completely dictated by
the active manipulation of water levels in the adjacent drainage ditches and row crop fields.
Wetland W-4 (5.11 acres; on Quarry property)
This wetland was previously cleared and grades were altered in portions of the wetland. It is immediately
bordered by previously cleared land followed by major agricultural drainage ditches and berms. The central
portion of the wetland contains a former willow marsh that now consists of a mixture of Brazilian pepper and
willows. The fringes of the wetland consist of a freshwater marsh and islands of Brazilian pepper. The open
herbaceous marsh zones are dominated by paragrass, an exotic species. Manipulation of water levels in the
nearby row crop fields and ditches heavily influence the wetland's hydroperiod. Relatively shallow standing
water can be present in the central depression for significant periods while the other wetland areas are more
infrequently inundated.
Wetland W-5 (2.38 acres; on Quarry property)
This wetland is completely surrounded by agricultural berms and drainage ditches. Indications are that the
central portion of the wetland, an area dominated by primrose willows, was historically a wetland but that the
surrounding portions were once uplands. Today, these outer portions of the wetland consist of areas of
dense Brazilian pepper, a small island of saw palmetto, and a scrub/shrub community dominated by an
admixture of shrubby species such as primrose willows and wax myrtle. The entire wetland can be
inundated for significant periods when the water table in the surrounding fields is allowed to remain high.
Similar to wetland W-1, this wetland's hydroperiod is controlled by the management of water levels in the
adjacent row crop fields and ditches.
Wetland WO-1 (20.19 acres within off-site mitigation area OM-1)
This expansive wetland extends well beyond the limits mapped in Exhibits 2 and 3. Wetlands identified on
these drawings as WO-17, 18, 19, and 20 are all merely projections from the off-site continuation of wetland
WO-1 (i.e. all are part of one contiguous wetland system). With the exception of the western willow marsh
area (depression mapped FLUCFCS 618 E1 and 6419 E2), the majority of that portion of wetland WO-1
contained within the limits of off-site mitigation area OM-1 appears to have formerly been native uplands.
This hypothesis is based on review of historic aerial photos, soils maps, and field observations. At one time,
Page 25 of 38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
most of the present day wetland excluding the willow marsh area was actively farmed and was an extension
of the existing row crop fields bordering the north and west sides of OM-1 as can be seen in Exhibit 8. The
row crop field formerly covering much of wetland WO-1 was active in 1973 but was abandoned sometime
between 1973 and 1980. Much of the perimeter berm and rim ditch of this field still remains within WO-1
(see areas mapped FLUCFCS 513, the remnant ditch, and FLUCFCS 743 E3, the remnant berm).
Large portions of wetland WO-1 situated between the remnant berm and the existing row crop fields may
not actually classify as a wetland. Water from the adjacent fields and ditches is pumped into this area via
two large throwout pumps. Indications are that this artificial water input may be the only reason wetland
characteristics (indicators) are present in this zone. The agricultural pumping would need to be discontinued
and water table levels monitored for a significant period to determine if much of WO-1 within OM-1 really
has adequate wetland hydrology under natural conditions. Since agricultural operations cannot be
discontinued presently, the suspect areas were mapped as wetlands anyway given the signs of inundation
and the plant species present combined with the lack of normal water table data.
Within OM-1, portions of wetland WO-1 outside the remnant agricultural berm were also previously cleared
and a segment is presently maintained as an access trail. Most of the area that was formerly a row crop
field is dominated by large, dense Brazilian pepper. Scattered native trees, palms, and shrubs are present
beyond this area and a few native trees have established themselves even in the former field zone.
Brazilian pepper has infested much of the outer fringe while exotics such as torpedograss and West Indian
marsh grass are present in the cleared trail area. At the far south tip of OM-1, there is another small berm
that partially blocks flow into and out of the freshwater marsh area immediately south of the berm beyond
the limits of OM-1. This berm, covered by Brazilian pepper, is mapped as a small polygon of FLUCFCS
6192 D on the southern border of OM-1 (see Exhibits 2 and 3).
Wetland WO-2 (6.04 acres within off-site mitigation area OM-2)
All of wetland WO-2 is contained within the limits of off-site mitigation area OM-2. The wetland is bordered
on the west by an area containing pine flatwoods and woodland pasture, on the north by a sliver of remnant
pine flatwoods followed by row crop fields, on the south by row crop fields, and on the east by native forests
that continue far to the east. The wetland itself is iargely an herbaceous marsh but also includes small areas
dominated by primrose willow and Brazilian pepper. Some of the open marsh areas are heavily infested with
exotics that include torpedo grass and alligator weed along with scattered Brazilian pepper. A northlsouth
band mapped as FLUCFCS 6192 D bisects the wetland (see Exhibits 2 and 3). This mapped area, covered
by Brazilian pepper, contains two drainage ditches that merge together along with small upland berms along
the outer ditch edges. A large throwout pump extending from the row crop fields north of the wetland
previously discharged water into the ditch and the wetland, but this pump was abandoned at some time in
the past. This location is still apparently used, however, to discharge water from the fields using moveable
throwout pumps. A second throwout pump extends into the wetland from the row crop fields south of the
wetland. This pump appears to be used occasionally to discharge water from the fields into the wetland.
Historic sheetflow into the wetland was long ago blocked by construction of the surrounding fields, berms,
and ditches. Limited runoff from small upland areas bordering the wetland still reaches the wetland, but its
hydroperiod is affected by the way water levels in the nearby crop fields and ditches are manipulated. The
agricultural pumping into the wetland disrupts and significantly alters the "normal" hydroperiod. The ditches
and berms bisecting the wetland also interfere with flow within the wetland. The marsh areas can be
inundated by shallow standing water for significant periods during the peak of the wet season.
ii. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological
indicators. Indicate how the project design improveslaffects predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide
a narrative addressing the anticipated control elevation(s) for the site.
Ecologists estimated the existing seasonal high water table (SHWT) elevation in each of the wetlands on
the Quarry property and in each of the wetlands in the OM Areas. The existing SHWT was estimated based
on various physical and biological indicators such as water stains, drift lines, tussocks, adventitious rooting,
Page 26 of 38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 200R
buttressed tree trunks, lichen lines, etc. An elevation marker was established in the wetlands and the
elevation of each marker was later determined using standard survey methods. Table 7 provides the
estimated SHWT elevations determined, which ranged from 20.1 feet to 21.8 feet NA VD 88.
Former historic SHWT elevations were essentially impossible to gage in the wetlands present on project
lands. The hydroperiods in these wetlands has been altered by tarming activities for so long that signs of
the historic high water levels have vanished or are so faint andlor variable that they could not be estimated
with sufficient certainty. In other off-site wetlands at a greater distance from the project lands, there were
some faint signs that the regional historic SHWT found in wetlands may have been about 0.5 feet higher
than current SHWT levels.
One must remember that the existing SHWT elevations determined for wetlands on the Quarry property do
not necessarily reflect a "natural" hydroperiod. The water levels in these wetlands are governed by how the
area water table is regulated in the surrounding agricultural fields. Water levels in the wetlands within the
OM Areas are also affected by how the water table is managed in the nearby fields. In off-site wetland WO-
2 and significant portions of off-site wetland WO-1 typical high water levels are skewed by discharges of
water (pumping) from the adjacent fields into the wetland.
To better evaluate what the "normal" wetland SHWT might be and assess the regional SHWT, staff also
estimated the existing SHWT elevation in other off-site wetlands. These wetland areas and their estimated
SHWT elevations in feet NAVD were: WO-1, area in southeast tip, = 20.1: WO-6 = 20.9 (influenced by
pumping into area): WO-8 = 20.8 (probably most natural): WO-12 = 20.6 (potential for some influence by
pumping): WO-14 = 20.0 or slightly higher. The average SHWT elevation for the 5 wetlands on the Quarry
property was 21.2 feet NAVD while the average SHWT elevation for all 13 wetlands where the SHWT was
estimated was 20.8 feet NAVD. The SHWT elevations in wetlands where the seasonal high water levels
were deemed to be least influenced by the agricultural operations ranged from about 20.0 to about 20.8 feet
NAVD.
Based on these data, the control elevation for the Quarry project's on-site stormwater management system
was designed to be 21.0 feet NAVD 88. This elevation was considered to mimic the area's SHWT in a
manner quite similar to current conditions, to reflect current SHWT elevations allowed to occur in the Quarry
property's row crop fields (based on various on-site indicators in addition to the wetland estimates), and to
be sufficiently high that it certainly would not result in any lowering of the average high water levels that
naturally occur in nearby off-site wetlands. It is emphasized, however, that the currently anticipated control
elevation of 21 .0' may be adjusted somewhat during the final design process andlor during the ERP
permitting process. For example, further engineering design of the Quarry's stormwater management
system, including running more detailed stormwater models, may indicate that it is desirable to lower the
control elevation slightly in a portion of the Quarry property to allow more discharge into the wetlands found
in the OM Areas if this is needed to help enhance the wetlands' hydroperiods.
The proposed control elevation for the project lakes will be such that the on-site stormwater management
system will not adversely impact natural hydroperiods in off-site wetlands. Final design of the on-site lakes
and control structures will comply with the lake-wetland separation standards set forth in Section 6.12 of
SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit Basis of Review (BOR). This will ensure that the hydraulic
gradient between on-site lakes and off-site wetlands will not lower the natural seasonal high water
elevations that occur in the off-site wetlands. The project's stormwater management system design will also
comply with the requirements of Section 4.2.2.4 of SFWMD's BOR. This will ensure that the quantity of
water that outfalls (discharges) into any off-site wetlands will not over-inundate the wetlands.
Construction of the proposed quarry excavation pits and subsequent lakes will gradually phase out the
agricultural throwout pumps. Many of these pumps discharge large quantities of water from on-site row crop
fields into several off-site wetlands, adversely affecting the natural wetland hydroperiod and degrading
water quality. Stormwater outfalls from the proposed quarry pit lakes have been designed and located to
appropriately discharge water into certain off-site wetlands. Following significant rainfall events during the
wet season, water levels in the quarry pit lakes will stage above the control elevation and flow into wetlands
WO-1, WO-2, WO-6, and WO-24 (see Exhibit 6). It is anticipated that such discharges will help enhance the
hydroperiod in wetlands WO-1 and WO-2. The discharge into wetland WO-6 (the existing agricultural water
Page 27 of 38
170
Hogan Island QuaTI)' EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
retention area) may not enhance this wetland's hydroperiod significantly, but should adequately compensate
for the lost water inputs currently generated by throwout pumps. It is anticipated that discharges from the
on-site lakes into wetland WO-24 may indeed help enhance this large wetland's hydroperiod since it
presently receives limited water from the existing row crop fields to the north. The timing of water discharges
from the proposed on-site lakes to off-site wetlands will more closely mimic natural upland runoff inputs
compared to current agricultural pumping. For example, the greatest discharges from pumping typically
occur shortly after or at the end of the wet season when fields are made ready for planting by de-watering
the fields. Flows from the proposed lakes will discharge more periodically during the course of the wet
season.
iii. Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed
impacts on the functions of these wetlands. Provide an exhibit showing the location of wetlands to
be impacted and those to be preserved on-site. Describe how impacts to wetlands have been
minimized.
Development of the proposed Quarry project will impact (eliminate) all the existing wetlands on the Quarry
property, hence no wetlands will preserved on-site (i.e. no wetlands preserved within the Quarry property
boundary). The impacted wetlands are W-1 through W.5 which total 10.95 acres. Exhibit 7 illustrates the
wetlands that will be impacted. Table 5 provides the existing habitat types (FLUCFCS map units) occurring
in the wetlands to be impacted.
The proposed mitigation program for the Quarry project will include preservation and enhancement of a total
of 26.23 acres of existing wetlands within the boundaries of the two off-site mitigation areas. This program
also includes restoringlcreating an additional 1.54 acres of wetlands in the OM Areas that presently do not
exist. Thus, following completion of mitigation, a total of approximately 27.77 acres of wetlands will be
preserved in the OM Areas. The proposed mitigation program is further discussed in Section E.iv below.
Test borings gathered during the planning stages of this project indicated that viable deposits of limestone
are present in areas extending well beyond the proposed Hogan Island Quarry property boundary. Initially,
the boundary of the area to be mined covered a greater area than is now proposed in order to these
additional limestone beds. The original quarry area boundary generated would have resulted in impacting
additional wetlands situated above desirable limestone areas. This plan would have eliminated (impacted)
all of wetlands WO-2 (6.04 acres), WO-4 (0.52 acres), WO-5 (0.74 acres), and WO-25 (1.98 acres) in
addition to the impacts currently proposed. It would have also impacted approximately 8.0 acres of wetland
WO-1 in the region now proposed as off-site mitigation area OM-1.
Altogether, the original quarry plan would have impacted a total of approximately 30.71 acres of existing
wetlands.
Subsequent iterations of the quarry plan were made to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. This was
accomplished by revising the Quarry property boundary (mine area boundary) such that all the original
impacts to wetlands WO-1 through WO-5 and wetland WO-25 were completely eliminated. This effort
reduced the total project wetland impacts from 30.71 acres to the 10.95 acres now proposed - a 36%
reduction in the project's wetland impacts.
The anticipated layout of the Quarry project's development features will minimize potential secondary
impacts to off-site wetlands by providing an appropriate buffer between the development features and the
proximal wetlands. Exhibit 6 illustrates that the project will provide an undeveloped buffer or "setback" at
least 50 feet wide between site development features and off-site wetlands. Note that where the future
quarry excavation pits (ultimate lakes) will be located, the distance between the edge of the quarry
pitsllakes and the outer boundaries off-site wetlands will actually be significantly greater than 50 feet since
haul roads and the perimeter stormwater containment berm will lie between the pitllake boundary and the
50-foot wetland setback line.
During the construction and mining process, appropriate construction best management practices will be
employed to help protect water quality and minimize the discharge of sediments andlor turbid water from the
project site. The specific erosionlsedimentlturbidity control methods and devices used will generally conform
Page 28 of 38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
with applicable standards and criteria set forth in the "FDER Florida Development Manual," Sections 6-301
through 6-S00 (FDER. 1988. "The Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water
Management," Chapter 6: "Storm Water and Erosion Control Best Management Practices for Developing
Areas; Guidelines for Using Erosion and Sediment Control Practices," ES BMP 1.01-1.67. FDER,
Tallahassee, FL.).
iv. Indicate how the project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and
Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment, based on the South
Florida Water Management District's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, that has been
accepted by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. For sites outside the RFMU district, and where higher quality wetlands
are being retained on-site, provide justification based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment
Method.
The proposed wetland impacts will be compensated by conducting mitigation activities in the two off-site
mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2 as described below. An assessment of the wetland impacts and mitigation
program was conducted using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) set forth in Chapter 62-
34S, Florida Administrative Code. This assessment is provided in Table 8. Formulas utilized in the UMAM
assessment but not listed in Table 8 included:
UMAM Score = (Sum of Indicator Scores) / 30
Functional Loss (for impacted wetlands) = (UMAM score) x (acres of wetland)
Mitigation Functional Value Delta (Mitigation Delta) = (UMAM score for post-mitigation conditions) -
(UMAM score for existing conditions)
Relative Functional Gain (RFG) = (Mitigation Delta) / [(time lag factor) x (risk factor)l
Net Functional Gain (of mitigation) = RFG x (acres of post-mitigation wetland)
The UMAM assessment indicates that the UMAM score for the five on-site wetlands to be impacted ranges
from 0.23 to 0.37 and that the total functional value of the 10.9S acres of wetlands to be impacted is 3.48.
Since all the on-site wetlands (i.e. W-1 through W-S) will be impacted, the value of the totai wetland
functional loss that will occur as a result of the project's wetland impacts is also 3.48. The UMAM
assessment further indicates that the net functional gain, or "lift", that will result from conducting the
proposed off-site mitigation activities is projected to be 3.94. Since the net increase in wetland functional
values derived from the mitigation program (3.94) exceeds the wetland functional values that will be lost as
a result of the project's wetland impacts (3.48), the proposed project wetland mitigation program will fully
compensate for the proposed project wetland impacts. The UMAM assessment indicates the Quarry project
will not result in any net loss of wetland functions. Instead, this assessment indicates there will be a net
increase in wetland functions that will result from the off-site mitigation program.
The off-site mitigation program will involve conducting wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation
activities and enhancement of uplands within the two off-site mitigation areas designated OM-1 and OM-2.
The two off-site mitigation areas total 32.47 acres, with OM-1 encompassing 22.77 acres and OM-2
encompassing 9.70 acres. Exhibit 9 contrasts existing conditions (existing FLUCFCS) present in these
areas with proposed conditions (proposed FLUCFCS) in these areas following completion of the mitigation
program. Table 9 lists the extent of each habitat type (FLUCFCS mapping units; vegetation associations)
currently present in OM-1 while Table 10 iists the extent of each habitat type anticipated following
completion of mitigation. Tables 11 and 12 provide the extent of existing habitat types found in OM-2 and
the extent of proposed post-mitigation habitat types in OM-2, respectiveiy.
Major components of the anticipated mitigation activities in OM-1 include:
. Eradication and control of Category 1 and 2 invasive exotics identified in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council's (EPPC) "List of Invasive Species", in general accordance with LDC 3.0S.07.H.1.g.ii.
. Eradication and control of nuisance plant species as necessary (target control likely <10% cover by
nuisance species). As used herein, "nuisance" plant species are native plants (excludes plants listed as
invasive exotics) that tend to colonize disturbed areas rapidly and thus can out-compete desirable native
Page 29 of 38
17D
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
species. Examples include cattail, dog fennel, ragweed, and grapevine.
. Grading (mainly excavating) the area shown as FLUCFCS 641 and 631 in the Exhibit 9 post-mitigation
drawing to form a depression of varying topography. Subsequent planting of 641 area with native
herbaceous species to establish a freshwater marsh. Subsequent planting of 631 area with native
wetland shrubs and possibly a few small trees to form a scrublshrub island.
. Lowering the existing grade slightly in various portions of the areas shown as FLUCFCS 617, 624, and
630 in the Exhibit 9 post-mitigation drawing. Retain the existing desirable native trees and palms in these
areas where feasible. Subsequent planting of native wetland trees, shrubs, and ground cover species to
establish wetland forest communities including mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 617), pine-
cypress-cabbage palm (FLUCFCS 624), and mixed wetland hardwoods and conifers (FLUCFCS 630;
conifers mainly slash pine).
. Removal of the existing remnant drainage ditch (pre-mitigation FLUCFCS 513) during the grading
process, thereby restoring 0.56 acres that is presently other surface waters to wetlands.
. Removal of the existing remnant perimeter berm (pre-mitigation FLUCFCS 743 E3) during the grading
process, thereby creating 0.69 acres of wetlands from this existing upland feature.
. Removal of the existing small berm present within the pre-mitigation polygon shown as FLUCFCS 6192
D located at the far south end of OM-1 .
. Lowering the grade as necessary in the area shown as post-mitigation FLUCFCS 416, which is presently
a cleared portion of the adjacent agricultural field's perimeter berm. Subsequent planting of native upland
trees (mainly slash pine), shrubs, and ground cover species to establish a narrow forested upland buffer.
. Substantially improving the existing wetland hydroperiod through: discontinuation of current agricultural
pumping into the wetland that currently "'short circuits"' the normal hydroperiod (will also improve water
quality); lowering existing grades as described above; removal of the remnant agricultural ditch and berm
which block flows; removal of the small southern berm which blocks flows; providing a better hydraulic
connection to the continuation of wetland WO-1 south and east of the boundaries of OM-1; providing
water inputs via controlled discharge from the proposed adjacent quarry lakes (via outfall control
structures CS 4 and CS 5).
Major components of the anticipated mitigation activities in OM-2 include:
. Eradication and control of Category 1 and 2 invasive exotics identified in the EPPC's "'List of Invasive
Species"', in general accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.g.ii.
. Eradication and control of nuisance plant species as necessary (target control likely <10% cover by
nuisance species).
. Removal (through grading) of the existing berms and ditches that run through the area shown as
FLUCFCS 6192 D in the Exhibit 9 existing conditions (pre-mitigation) drawing. Finished grade will mimic
existing elevations found in the adjacent, undisturbed freshwater marsh.
. Lowering the grade in the western portion of the existing area mapped FLUCFCS 422 D to form a
wetland from this upland area now composed of scattered spoil mounds. This will create approximately
0.29 acres of wetlands from the existing uplands.
. Following initial eradicationlremoval of invasive exotics, removal of the ditchlberm system, and grading
to create wetlands, plant native herbaceous wetland species as necessary (i.e. basically complete re-
planting of graded areas and areas now dominated by exotics combined with supplemental plantings as
needed in areas where existing exotic infestations are relatively low). Post-mitigation wetland will consist
of a freshwater marsh along with a shallower wet prairie area on the eastern fringe of the wetland.
. Lowering the existing grade as necessary in the area shown as post-mitigation FLUCFCS 434. This area
presently includes portions of the adjacent agricultural field berm plus other disturbed uplands.
. Subsequent planting of native upland trees, shrubs, and ground cover species to establish a narrow
forested upland buffer (mixed upland conifers and hardwoods).
. As necessary, plant native upland trees, shrubs, andlor ground cover species in the upland areas
mapped post-mitigation FLUCFCS 411 and 428, in order to fill larger "'gaps"' left in these areas following
the initial removal of invasive exotics (mainly Brazilian pepper).
. Significantly improving the existing wetland hydroperiod through: discontinuation of current agricultural
pumping into the wetland that currently "'short circuits"' the normal hydroperiod (will also improve water
quality); removal of the remnant agricultural ditches and berms which disrupt flow within the wetland and
drains it during low water conditions; providing water inputs via controlled discharge from the proposed
adjacent quarry lakes (via outfall control structure CS 6).
Page 30 of 38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
The off-site mitigation areas will be protected via placing them in a conservation easement required by the
County pursuant to LOC 3.05.07.H.1.d. It is anticipated that these areas will also be protected by placing
them in a separately recorded conservation easement pursuant to requirements of state and federal
permitting agencies. These off-site mitigation areas will be buffered by and largely contained within a future
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) as illustrated in Exhibit 10. The owner of these lands is in the process of
preparing an SSA application for the indicated area and it is anticipated that this application will be
submitted to Collier County by the end of this year. All of off-site mitigation area OM-1 and approximately
3.7 acres of OM-2 are currently designated for inclusion within the future SSA. The majority of OM-1 is
designated as a Habitat Stewardship Area as is the eastern 3.7 acres of OM-2. Off-site mitigation area OM-
2 will also be buffered on its western and northern sides by 12.77acre Preserve area (native vegetation
preserve) proposed on the Quarry property (see Exhibit 9). The on-site preserve, OM-1, and OM-2 share
certain common boundaries thereby really forming one contiguous preserve area that encompasses over 45
acres.
The proposed off-site mitigation program will significantly increase the quality of the Habitat Stewardship
Areas contained within the mitigation area boundaries and will also indirectly benefit adjacent HSA, WRA,
and FSA areas. This program will also substantially increase the panther habitat value of the lands
contained within the OM Areas. Both off-site mitigation areas are contained within a broader area classified
as Primary Zone panther habitat conservation lands. Other listed species, particularly listed wading birds,
we also derive benefits from the increase in habitat quality resulting from the mitigation program.
It is noted that the specific layoutldesign of the off-site mitigation program illustrated in Exhibit 9 represents
the current conceptual design. Certain modifications may be made to specific design components during the
final design process. Other modifications may be required by FOEP or USACE during the permitting
process. Specific details of the mitigation program (such as grading plans, planting plans, success criteria,
monitoring program, etc.) will be developed and refined during the final design and permitting stage of the
project.
Page 31 of38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
i. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it works,
the basis of design, historical drainage flows, off-site flows coming in to the system and how they
will be incorporated in the system or passed around the system, positive outfall availability, Wet
Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were determined, and any other
pertinent information pertaining to the control of storm and ground water.
The Quarry property is currently being used as agricultural lands, and has been in agricultural production for
years if not decades. The existing vested agricultural operations obtain groundwater for irrigation through
permitted wells located on site. Water table elevations during the growing season are closely maintained
through the use of pump out facilities. These facilities discharge to an off~site water impoundment area, to
internal field ditches, and to off~site wetland and upland areas. Exhibit 4 illustrates the approximate locations
of existing wells and pumps (throwout pumps). The agricultural use will be converted to be a mining use.
There are no significant off~site flows entering the site since the entire proposed excavation site is largely
isolated from off site flows by the existing farming berms and associated agricultural operations.
The conceptual water management design proposes a control elevation (WSWT) for the site consistent with
the biological indicators marked by Wilson Miller and surveyed by SurvTech Inc. The proposed control
elevation is 21.0 feet NA VD 88. The dry season water table (DSWT) is estimated to be about 4 feet below
the control elevation, at approximately 17 feet NAVD 88.
The design includes a water management isolation berm around the entire drainage area at or above the
25~year storm stage elevation. The 25 year and 100 year storm stage elevations were obtained using XP~
SWMM software. An elevation of 21.63 feet NAVD 88 was obtained for the 25~year storm stage elevation,
and an elevation of 21.92 feet NAVD 88 was obtained for the 1 OO~year storm stage elevation.
Rainfall runoff which accumulates inside the project perimeter water management isolation berm will be
detained in the large excavation areas and, after the appropriate treatment in accordance with state and
federal regulations, there may be controlled off~site discharge of the treated stormwater. It is anticipated that
off~site discharges of treated stormwater will be allowed by regulatory agencies since this will benefit off~site
wetlands. This will be determined during the more detailed environmental resource permitting process.
Should off site discharges be restricted, the project can be designed with no off site discharge or very
limited off site discharge in accordance with the Environmental Resource Permit obtained from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. The vast amount of storage provided by the excavated areas will
easily accommodate a zero or minimal discharge design with limited modifications to the conceptual design.
The conceptual site plan provided as Exhibit 6 also depicts the proposed project's stormwater management
system and post~development drainage patterns on and off~site. In the southern portion of the Quarry
property, runoff from the area containing the proposed aggregate processing facility, product stockpile
areas, the asphalt batch plant, offices and other structures, and parking areas will drain to the tailings pond
for treatment and attenuation. The tailings pond will also receive process water from the aggregate
processing facility and will serve as a source of process water for this facility (water is recirculated). The
tailings pond will discharge into one of the quarry pit lakes via an outfall pipe equipped with a control
structure (shown as CS #1 in Exhibit 6).
As previously discussed, the northern portion of the project site shown in Exhibit 6 as "lake" and "maximum
excavation area" represents the maximum footprint of the area that will be mined. The completed
excavation pits in this zone will ultimately form an estimated 3 to 7 separate large stormwater management
lakes rather than the single "lake" illustrated. These lakes will be separated by upland areas but will be
hydraulically connected to one another by drainage pipes andlor drainage swales. The conceptual design
calls for certain pit lakes to outfall to various off~site wetlands via drainage pipes with control structures.
Runoff within the mining area will first flow into the pit lakes for treatment and attenuation. The perimeter
stormwater berm proposed will ensure that all runoff is contained within the mining area.
Page 32 of38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
Outfalls at control structures GS 2 and GS 3 are proposed to discharge into the existing agricultural water
retention area labeled as "WO-6" since this retention area encompasses a large off-site wetland.
Flow from the water retention area ultimately outfalls to the off-site wetland WO-11 when stages in the
retention area are sufficiently high. The outfall at control structure GS 7 is proposed to discharge into off-site
wetland WO-24 which should help enhance the wetland's hydro period since today it receives limited inputs
from crop fields to the north. Flow within this wetland is generally toward the south; however the overall
wetland appears to be a depression that does not discharge to other areas. The outfall at control structure
GS 6 is proposed to discharge into off-site wetland W-2. This water input should significantly enhance the
wetland's current hydroperiod. The wetland itself is an isolated depression; hence there is no reai flow out of
the wetland into adjacent uplands. The outfalls at control structures GS 4 and GS 5 are proposed to
discharge into off-site wetland WO-1. That portion of wetland WO-l contained within the proposed off-site
mitigation area OM-1 has a severely degraded hydroperiod. Water inputs from the quarry lakes should
significantly improve this hydroperiod as part of the mitigation program. Once water levels are sufficiently
high, flow from the mitigation area portion of WO-1 can generally drain toward the east into the continuation
of this large wetland system.
The on-site preserve proposed will not be incorporated into the project's stormwater management system.
The perimeter stormwater berm constructed around the quarry area will accomplish this segregation. Even
though the preserve will not receive runoff from the adjacent mining area, this condition will not aversely
affect the upland preserve since it already receives no runoff from the crop fields that border the preserve
on three sides. Runoff in the preserve today and following project construction is generally toward off-site
wetland WO-2.
Most of the area contained within the boundary of the area to be mined consists of active row crop fields.
Farming will continue in these fields where feasible during the mining process. The internal agricultural
drainage system will be adjusted as necessary to support the row crop field areas not displaced by mining
pits. Grop fields will gradually be eliminated as the active mining area continues to expand until no
agricultural fields will remain on the Quarry property.
Some of the on-site row crop fields and pastures presently continue onto off-site lands. These adjacent off-
site lands are all under the same ownership as the Quarry property. This landowner will modify the
agricultural drainage ditches, roadways, and berms as needed on the off-site lands to allow existing
agricultural practices to continue and drainage to flow properly.
The overburden and limestone present in the mining area will be mined "in the wet" (i.e. water table is not
lowered within the main mining pit).
The large mining pit lakes created through the mining process will not adversely impact the hydroperiod of
off-site wetlands or adversely impact the regional water table. The water table elevation in the lakes will
typically reflect that of the regional water table and thereby maintain ambient natural water table levels. The
future lakes should potentially make more water available to off-site wetlands by creating large water
storage areas that help recharge the surficial aquifer. In this manner, the lakes will function similar to Water
Retention Area overlays prescribed in the RLSA. The control elevation for the lakes has been established to
ensure the lakes do not adversely affect wetland hydoperiods and the storm water management design will
comply with Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11, and 6.12 of SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit Basis of Review.
A past study conducted for a similar Rinker mining operation in a similar agricultural setting determined that
mining activities actually improved the site water balance compared to pre-mining conditions (reference:
The Golinas Group, Inc. 2004. Hydrologic and hydrogeologic report, Lake Wales sand mine expansion.
Golinas Group, Lakeland, FL). The pre-mining conditions on the study site consisted of citrus groves and
pastures. The pre-mining conditions produced a net deficit water balance (i.e. precipitation inputs minus
losses from evapotranspirationlevaporation, surface runoff, and ground water pumping). The post-mining
conditions created a surplus water balance, primarily due to the elimination of agricultural ground water
pumping and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in surface runoff. Since the pre-mining conditions present on
the Quarry property are similar to the pre-mining conditions of the site invoived in the study, the proposed
project may also improve the water balance for the project area. The proposed project will eliminate the
Page 33 of38
170
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
current agricultural ground water pumping and will somewhat decrease site runoff similar to the site involved
in the study.
ii. Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality
loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land
uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project
area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. This analysis is required for projects impacting
five (5) or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved
by Federal and State water quality agencies.
The applicant is designing and permitting the proposed project in accordance with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and South Florida Water Management District regulations for Environmental
Resource Permitting and design. The conceptual project and storm water management design prepared for
this conditional use application is consistent with the aforementioned criteria. The design uses the best
management practices specified by the State of Florida to provide the required reasonable assurances that
the project will not adversely affect off site waters with respect to quality and quantity.
RWA, Inc. performed a water quality loading analysis for the proposed project, comparing the estimated
pre-development (existing) loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to the estimated post-development
loadings of these nutrients. The analytical calculations employed are commonly referred to as the "Harvey
Harper" analysis, which is based on methodologies contained in "Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater
Regulations for Southwest Florida" (Environmental Research and Design, Inc., August 2003) and "Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR55)" (USDA, June 1986). This water quality loading analysis is
provided as Attachment 1 in Appendix C.
The results of the analysis indicate that the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) presently
contained in site runoff will be substantially decreased as a result of the proposed project (ex. pre-
development TN ~ 3,460 kg/yr and TP = 765 kg/yr: post-development TN = 549 kg/yr and TP = 70 kg/yr).
Essentially all the post-development on-site runoff will flow into on-site lakes for treatment and attenuation.
The analysis indicates that 100% of the TN and TP loadings generated by the Quarry project will be
removed by the Quarry lakes prior to any discharges.
iii. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the
project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses
within the most sensitive WRM-STs.
Not applicable. There are no Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-STs) that
cover any of the project lands and there are no WRM-STs in the immediate vicinity of the project lands.
Page 34 of 38
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
l?n
.
i. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to inhabit
biological communities similar to those existing on-site, and conducted in accordance with the
guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. State actual survey times and dates, and provide a map showing the location(s) of species
of special status identified on-site.
A thorough survey for listed animal and plant species was conducted on the project lands by WilsonMiller
ecologists. This listed species survey and its results are discussed in Section 3 of Appendix B. Exhibit 14
shows the approximate locations where listed animal species were observed on and near the project lands
during the course of the referenced survey. The listed animal species observed on project lands by
Wilson Miller included American alligator, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, wood stork, and
Florida sandhill crane. Other than some alligators, none of the observed listed animal species reside or nest
on the project lands. No listed plant species were found on the project lands.
A survey of portions of the Quarry property was conducted by Passarella & Associates (see Appendix B1).
This survey focused on searching for caracaras and their nests but other wildlife, including listed species,
were documented during the course of the survey. The only listed animal species observed on the Quarry
property during the Passarella survey were wood storks, sandhill cranes, and white ibis.
ii. Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing
on the site or that have been directly observed on the site.
Listed animal species observed on the project lands by Wilson Miller are discussed in Section 3.4.2 of
Appendix B. Other listed animal species that have some potential for occurring in certain habitats present on
project lands are discussed in Section 3.4.4 of Appendix B. It is highly unlikely that any listed plant species
could be present on the project lands, as discussed in Section 3.4.6 of Appendix B. Exhibit 13 illustrates the
approximate locations ot listed animal species previously documented by others in the general vicinity of the
Quarry site. These listed species records and the source of these records are also discussed in Section 3 of
Appendix B.
Listed animal species observed on the Quarry property by Passarella & Associates, subsequent to
WilsonMiller's listed species surveys, are identified in Appendix B1. The few listed species observed are
noted in the Observation Forms contained in the Passarella survey report.
iii. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. Describe the
measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species.
Project impacts to habitats potentially utilized by certain listed wading birds were reduced by adjusting the
original mining plan to avoid impacts to various wetlands now situated off.site (see Section E.iii). impacts to
various listed wading birds, sandhill cranes, and alligators that may periodically visit the project site (for
foraging or other activities) along with impacts to resident alligators will be minimized by taking appropriate
protection measures during project construction and operations activities (see Section G.iv).
Following completion of the proposed mining activities, it is presently estimated that the lakes formed on-site
by the excavation pits will occupy from 600 to 700 acres. Quarry reclamation activities will likely include
planting lake shorelines with a variety of native littoral zone species in accordance with mine reclamation
requirements specified in Chapter 62C-36, Florida Administrative Code. These post-reclamation quarry
lakes will provide desirable habitats for listed wading bird foraging and for alligators, thereby helping offset
the project's proposed impacts to habitats currently utilized by these species.
The proposed off-site mitigation activities will also help mitigate project impacts to existing on-site habitats
frequented by listed wading birds. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation activities performed in
the OM Areas will significantly improve the current wetland habitat value. Establishment of the large
herbaceous marsh area within off-site mitigation area OM-1 (see Exhibit 9) will create suitable nesting
Page 35 of38
17n
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
habitat for Florida sandhill cranes whereas no such habitats really exist currently on the Quarry property.
Primary Zone and Secondary Zone panther habitat conservation overlays encompass the Quarry property
as discussed in Appendix B and illustrated in Exhibit 13, although no Florida panthers have ever been
documented on project lands. Development of the Quarry will impact these panther habitat conservation
zones. Even though the affected areas currently have limited panther habitat value, it is anticipated that the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will require mitigation for the proposed impacts.
An appropriate Section 404 permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
conduct the mitigation activities proposed in the project's off-site mitigation areas. Applying for this permit
will most likely include engaging in the Section 7 consuitation process with the FWS. The necessary
mitigation for the project's impacts to panther habitats and the specifics of the mitigation will be determined
as part of the consultation with FWS. It is probable that mitigation will take the form of protecting and
managing privately owned lands (areas designated as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs) located within the future
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) proposed adjacent to the Quarry property (see Exhibit 10 and discussion
in Section E.iv). This form of panther habitat mitigation has been previously approved by FWS for other
projects in the region. Mitigation for project impacts to panther habitat conservation zones could include
other measures recommended by the FWS. However, it is premature to accurately predict the ultimate
panther habitat mitigation program at this conceptual planning stage of the project.
iv. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property.
For sites with bald eagle nests andlor nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are
required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits allached to the PUD documents, where
applicable.
Attachment 2 in Appendix C provides a protection plan (management plan) for the listed species that were
documented utilizing the project lands and for some additional listed wading birds.
v. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with regards to the project.
Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met.
Copies of the original EIS submitted for this project were distributed to the FWC and FWS by County staff in
late January 2007. FWC staff attended a field tour of the project lands on 2/14107. We are also aware of a
09118107 letter that FWC staff wrote to County staff regarding this project. The applicant met with FWC staff
in December to also discuss this project and address concerns that FWC had put forth in their September
letter. The main issues discussed during the applicant's meeting with FWC staff were maintaining
connectivity along the known wildlife corridors and minimizing indirect impacts to adjacent areas. As a
result of the December meeting, FWC staff wrote another letter to County staff asking that their previous
letter of 09118107 be disregarded. The January 18, 2008 letter (incorrectly dated 2007) is included as
Attachment 8. More intensive coordination with these agencies will be initiated after the conditional use
petition has been approved and the project moves into the final design and permitting stage. Buffers, hours
of operation, and phasing (or timing) of work efforts may be contemplated.
Page 36 of 38
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
110
i. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the
project is consistent with the marina siting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan.
Not applicable. No docks, docking facilities, or marina facilities are proposed.
ii. Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property. If applicable,
provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site.
An environmental assessment, commonly referred to as a Phase 1 environmental audit, of the Quarry
property was conducted by Seyfried & Associates, Inc. (reference: Seyfried & Associates, Inc. 2006.
"Environmentai Assessment Report for Hogan Island Property, Oil Grade Road, North of CR 846,
Immokalee, Collier County, Florida"). A copy of this report is provided as Attachment 3 in Appendix C
(provided on CD). The assessment conducted did not find any indications of significant contamination on
the Quarry property, did not recommend any "clean up" or remediation activities be conducted on the
property, and concluded that, "No further environmental assessment activities are recommended at this
time."
iii. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment (ACSCST)
overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations
established for the ACSC-ST.
Not applicable. The project lands are not located within the boundary of the ACSC-ST.
iv. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall he required for sites that
occupy old farm fields, old golf courses or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that
there has been previous contamination on site. The amount of sampling and testing shall be
determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
As part of the environmental assessment (audit) conducted on the Quarry property (see Section H.ii), soil
samples were obtained from two agricultural chemical mixing areas located on the Quarry property. These
mixing areas are situated within the polygons mapped as FLUCFCS 271 at the far north end of the Quarry
property (see Exhibit 2). The collected samples were analyzed for concentrations of various organochlorine
pesticides and arsenic.
As documented in the environmental assessment report (see Attachment 3 in Appendix C), the analytical
results found no detectable concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in the soil samples. The arsenic
concentration found in one sample was 2.4 mglkg while the arsenic concentration found in the other sample
was 3.0 mglkg. Guideline soil cleanup target levels (CTLs) for arsenic in soils are set forth in Chapter 62-
777, Florida Administrative Code. These CTLS are targets for final concentrations in contaminated soils
following remediation efforts. The guideline target soil concentration for arsenic in residential land uses is
2.1 mglkg. The guideline target concentration for arsenic in commerciallindustrial land uses is 12 mglkg.
One should note that these CTLs are established for cases where there may be significant direct exposure
to the soil itself. The proposed Quarry project does not include residential uses and is more closely
associated with a commercial or industrial type of usage. The soil concentrations of arsenic detected on-site
are well below the guideline CTL for arsenic in commerciallindustrial land use settings and are not much
higher than the guideline CTL for arsenic in residential land use settings.
The property also has two abandoned, non producing (dry hole) wells on the property that were
plugged with FDEP approval. Since these are dry holes, plugged with multiple concrete plugs,
Page 37 of 38
Hogan Island Quarry EIS
Revised March 20, 2008
171J
there is no danger of contamination. An additional producing well is located off-site to the north of
the property. This well located in Section 9 but it is not within the project boundaries. The Section 9
well is drilled to a depth of 10,000 feet and will not pose a contamination risk to the project.
v. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any
printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area. Locate any
known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design.
Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historic/archaeological integrity of the site.
A letter was submitted to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR)
requesting DHR to examine the Florida Master Site File for any previously recorded archaeologicallhistorical
resources documented on the project lands. DHR responded in a letter dated 6123106 that the Florida
Master Site File listed no previously recorded cultural resources on the subject property. A copy of this letter
is provided as Attachment 5 in Appendix C.
WilsonMiller staff also reviewed the Collier County Long Range Pianning Department's "Index Map of
HistoricallArchaeological Probability of Collier County, Florida", published on 515101. These maps did not
show any historic structures, archaeological sites, or historic districts on the project lands. One "area of
historicallarchaeological probability" was indicated on the Quarry property. This small (about 15 acres),
square-shaped area was depicted over a central part of the site that presently consists of active row crop
fields, a farm road, and drainage ditches. Based on a review of historic aerial photos, this area has existed
essentially in the same condition as it is today for at least the past 30 years or more. It is not known why this
particular area may have been mapped as an area of historical/archaeological probability since it has been
completely converted to farm fields, ditches, and roads for quite some time and no structures are present.
A cultural resource survey was performed on the project lands by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI).
Their survey found no archaeological sites or historical resources present on the project lands and ACI
concluded that the proposed project would not impact any significant cultural resources, as documented in
their report entitled "Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Hogan Island Quarry, Collier County Florida"
(ACI, October 2006). A copy of ACI's report is provided as Attachment 4 in Appendix C (copy provided on
CD). In a letter dated 115107, the State Historic Preservation Officer agreed with ACl's conclusions that the
proposed project will have no effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the Nationai Register
of Historic Places. This letter, provided as Attachment 6 in Appendix C, also stated that no further cultural
resources investigations were warranted.
Given the above, it does not appear that development of the Hogan Island Quarry property will impact any
historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archaeological value, If a suspected archaeological or historical artifact is
discovered during the course of site development activities (construction, mining, clearing, etc.), the
development activities at the specific site will be immediately halted and the appropriate agency notified.
Development will be suspended for a sufficient iength of time to enable the County or a designated
consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. The County will respond to any
such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to the affected
development activity.
Page 38 of 38